On one level, it could be concluded that the 17th COP at Durban saw the same quarreling, lack of movement and national protectionism that has plagued recent COPs. A cynic might claim that the overriding message was that ‘a plan was made to make a plan’ and that no real progress was made.
However, a more balanced conclusion might be that we are making slow but steady progress to address the long-term challenge of climate change, collectively and comprehensively. The were two key positive messages to emerge from the meeting:
▪ Driven by the EU countries, a pathway towards an international climate regime was agreed. A legally binding agreement, based upon sound science, covering both developed and developing countries, will be negotiated by 2015, which would cover post-2020 emissions targets and actions; | |||||
▪ Real progress was evident on some key issues, including technological advances, REDD+ and adaptation. | |||||
Conversely, the key negative messages were that:
▪ There was little progress on how we might close the gap between countries’ emissions levels and what is required to maintain the planet within 2°C of warming; | |||||
▪ Proposed funding levels are probably too low to facilitate the proper implementation of the Cancun Agreements, especially in terms of assisting developing nations to deal with the effects of climate change; | |||||
▪ There is still no agreed common accounting framework for carbon emissions; without this, meeting the ‘within 2°C goal’ will be extremely difficult. | |||||
Unfortunately, we feel that one of the overriding messages to emerge from Durban is that there is not an urgent need for industry and business to develop an effective GHG management strategy until a long-term international climate change agreement is established, or at least been drafted . This is not likely to be until at least 2015. Ultimately, businesses are concerned with the bottom line and, until more is known about the specifics of any economic mechanisms to be put in place by governments, they will not be in a position to introduce effective emissions abatement strategies.
Business and industry can only act on solid information. At present, nothing has been agreed about emissions reduction targets or how they will be achieved. From 2015 we will have some idea what measures may be put in place. By 2020 we will know which countries have ratified and what their specific targets will be. There will still be a question regarding when specific nations will implement regulation and other measures affecting business and industry. Of course, existing emissions mitigation mechanisms such as the EU ETS are likely to continue; however, it could be 2025 or later before measures stemming from the Durban platform begin to take effect.
It is clear from the Durban talks that a considerable body of research needs to be established if the ambitions of the conference delegates and international governments are to be supported. This work needs to be completed in partnership with business, industry, the public sector and NGOs. Natural and social scientists as well as engineers will need to provide significant input to the field of carbon management in terms of mass low-cost practical solutions, measuring and monitoring tools, and technological advancements if we are going to maintain the planet within 2°C of warming.
A key implication of the Durban talks is that we need urgently to develop and agree a common accounting framework for carbon emissions using internationally agreed definitions and protocols. Suitably practical and implementable definitions and protocols have already been proposed, and although they will need testing, trialing and subsequent refinement and modification, there is no reason why the specific principles cannot be addressed at the next COP.
There are, evidently, a number of obstacles to reducing GHG emissions in industry. Most notably, this includes a lack of:
▪ An internationally agreed carbon accounting framework and definitions/protocols; | |||||
▪ Clear, effective guidance; | |||||
▪ Successful case studies and role-model organizations; | |||||
▪ Urgency, will and effort (in some instances); | |||||
▪ Knowledge and understanding of the issues at hand. | |||||
However, the main barrier appears to be a lack of perceived incentive to reduce emissions. It is idealistic to expect individuals to act morally and in a capitalist-free market it is unrealistic to expect most businesses to act beyond their means for purely moral and ethical reasons.
As such, we feel that the key topics that need to be discussed at COP18 include:
▪ A common accounting framework for carbon emissions using internationally agreed definitions and protocols; | |||||
▪ The introduction of emissions reduction targets and measures, how these will be implemented fairly and transparently by different nations, and when such targets and measures will be introduced; | |||||
▪ Priority issues for business/industry in terms of carbon management. | |||||
As we live in a consumer-driven economy, consumers could simply drive emissions reduction efforts by demanding low-emission products and reducing energy use. However, the motivation for these changes is not as simple as appealing to a public sense of altruism. There is a powerful, albeit unintended, message that proenvironmental behavior will lead to a reduction in the quality of life.
A common perception is that ‘green’ products and behaviors are more costly, less stylish, more difficult to use or are not of the quality of their ‘nongreen’ counterpart. Industry has a role to change these perceptions, and provide ‘green-friendly’ products and services that are competitive in all respects with their more traditional counterparts.
People can be facilitated to change their own behavior, providing they are supported with the right infrastructure and services. It would be delusional to suggest that industry-led persuasion or marketing alone will change behavior. Industry has to provide information and products in a way that allows people to understand the issues and explore their own solutions to problems. Too often people are confused, disorientated and ‘turned-off’ through misinformation or simply ‘information overload’.
The key is for industry to enable the consumption of ‘green’ products and services to be carried out with ease, self-possession and pride. For example, it has been demonstrated via recycling schemes that are designed such that participation is easier than nonparticipation that high rates of ‘green behavior’ are observed. Thus, government and policymakers also have a role – to ensure that the ‘green’ alternative is the cheapest (e.g., through regulation, subsidies and tax alleviation) and most desirable. Ultimately, if industry is to lead the public, it must do so humbly and by example.
Financial & competing interests disclosure
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.