The Climate Convention and Kyoto Protocol meetings concluded just over a week ago in Montreal. Observers'reactions to the meetings have been mixed. The participating Parties made progress on a number of technical and market fronts, including efforts to expand the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. Some observers saw the meetings as signaling that most countries are serious about tackling the question of post-2012 commitments when the Parties meet again next year. Other observers, citing U.S. reluctance to talk about post-2012 commitments, were skeptical whether such negotiations will bear any fruit.

Key players have very different positions of how the international climate regime should develop. Some countries advocate a continuation and tightening of the policies and measures agreed to in Kyoto in 1997. Others, including the United States, argue that absolute emissions reduction targets are too expensive and unrealistic. The United States continues to talk about the need for more research and for developing new technologies. The United States also wants to leave behind the idea of a consensus-based negotiating process in which more than 150 countries need to agree on everything.

Is the United States correct in arguing that we need more research? Of course. Is the United States correct in arguing that aggressive emissions reduction targets will result in significant costs? Probably. Is the United States right in arguing that we need to find ways to promote and develop new technologies that will make it easier and cheaper to reduce emissions? Of course. Is the United States right that a consensus-based negotiating process involving more than 150 countries is a difficult way to make real progress? Of course.

These points, however, are self-evident. What’s less clear is whether there is a completely different approach to building a climate regime that will be better, faster, and easier than the course we’ve been on to date. Pursuing the idea of innovative new technologies is great -- but what will incentivize those technologies in the absence of a clear market signal (which, in turn, is likely to prove dependent on targets and timetables)? Pursuing more research on climate change is great -- but it doesn’t actually help us with climate change mitigation objectives. And the idea of negotiating with 15 key countries instead of 150 is great -- but it doesn’t necessarily increase the chances of achieving substantial emissions reductions.

Truly advancing the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be hard work and a long-term job. We probably need to be thinking about how to use all of the tools at our disposal, rather than arguing that one approach is inherently superior to another. Contrary to the political rhetoric that was flowing in Montreal, the technology vs. targets argument seems more likely to delay progress in advancing climate change mitigation objectives than to increase the chances of such progress.

-----
Dr. Mark C. Trexler has more than 25 years of energy and environmental experience, and has focused on global climate change since joining the World Resources Institute in 1988. He is now president of Trexler Climate + Energy Services, which provides strategic, market, and project services to clients around the world.

Got a question for our climate expert? Email Editor@GreenBiz.com.