Keeping our eye on the climate change end game

Enlarge Image

Last week my friend Ben Vitale explained his choice to skip the Copenhagen climate negotiations last December, coming instead here to Portland where he can be in the company of people “doing climate change mitigation.”

I agree with Ben’s premise that we should always be asking ourselves what steps are most helpful in making progress on a problem as complicated as climate change. In the face of perceived governmental inaction in Copenhagen, I’ve heard from several friends that we as individuals and businesses need to just “get on with it.” If governments won’t act to address climate change, the argument goes, it’s up to us.

That’s exactly the kind of motivation we need. The key question is how to direct that motivation most effectively. It’s not enough to suggest that our efforts be re-directed based on a “think globally, act locally” model. We have to remember two key aspects of the climate change problem. First, we’re treating the atmosphere as a free disposal site for green house gases (GHGs). This leads to a classic example of an “economic externality” in which we dispose of far too many GHGs resulting in climate change. Second, we face a classic “tragedy of the commons” problem, where efforts to reduce GHG emissions in one place are likely to be countered by increasing emissions somewhere else. The atmosphere doesn’t care where GHGs are emitted; it only cares about the total quantities emitted.

“Think globally, act locally” has been an effective rallying cry for many environmental problems, but it can’t work for climate change. Climate change is a truly global problem, there’s no silver bullet solution, and its timing conflicts dramatically with 2-6 year political decision-making. In a world where GHG emissions continue to rise rapidly — potentially reaching 50 billion tons per year of CO₂-equivalent this century — the scale of what’s needed is mind-boggling. Scientists tell us that over the next couple of decades we need to reduce global emissions by 70 percent - 90 percent from where they would otherwise be. It’s hard to over-state the challenge of making that happen.

Two big things need to happen if we’re going to do more than nibble around the edges of the climate change problem. We need to address the economic externality by putting a significant price on emissions of carbon and other GHGs, and we need to address the tragedy of the commons by promoting radical technology innovation that could fundamentally change the mitigation game. The two can go hand in hand, but a carbon price that would promote radical technology innovation may not be politically feasible. We need to approach these two objectives from both directions.

I was in Copenhagen along with 45,000 others because international cooperation is ultimately key to addressing the climate change problem. At the same time, an international treaty is just one piece of a daunting climate change mitigation jigsaw puzzle. We need to be doing many other things, from improving K-12 education and adult scientific literacy, to local climate-friendly purchasing and investment strategies, all with the objective of pricing carbon and incentivizing technology innovation through whatever means available. Those of us lucky enough to live in cities as progressive as Portland need to really think about what measures we and Portland can take to lead the way.

Dr. Mark C. Trexler is Director of Climate Markets and Strategies for Det Norske Veritas, a leading global risk management firm. He has specialized in climate change since 1988, and can be reached at mark.trexler@dnv.com.