The Post’s View

How to make a global climate change deal

Washington Post Editorials

Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage.

Read more

Latest Editorials

Stem cells, for good or evil

Stem cells, for good or evil

The health benefits of research outweigh the risk that someone might copy humans.

Kicking more of the habit

Kicking more of the habit

As Maryland weighs another tobacco tax increase, it can look to the success of its last one.

The Central African Republic can’t wait

The Central African Republic can’t wait

International aid can’t arrive soon enough for the Central African Republic.

First, every major country must ante up. The industrialized West isn’t doing enough; the United States should put a price on carbon, preferably through a tax, which would have an impact on fossil-fuel use and set a constructive example. But the West has set about reducing its carbon footprint. China, India and other rising nations, meanwhile, are poised to pump massive and increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the air over the coming decades. Unless they put serious limits on their future emissions, the world could blow very far past the concentrations of atmospheric carbon that negotiators are aiming for.

Next, negotiators need to drop the fantasy that whatever treaty they come up with will be legally binding. The size of each country’s emissions reductions and the enforcement of policies to achieve them will have to come from national governments, not from some international agreement. World negotiators tried to strike a deal with a “top-down” approach; they didn’t get close to pulling in all the major actors.

Developing nations must also get real about the amount and type of climate-related money that they will get from the West. Europe and the United States are not going to fund an expensive system to compensate poor nations for effects they might ascribe to global warming. That’s because putting a price on the particular effects of climate change in one country or another is scientifically dubious. More important, Western nations are cash-strapped and their people won’t pay, anyway. Public and private financing should be mobilized for such things as stopping deforestation. But large-scale reparations are unlikely.

In Warsaw, negotiators made halting progress on the legally binding issue and the reparations issue. That should help them with their new goal of striking an agreement in a major 2015 conference in Paris. Among achievable aims: an international program to fight deforestation; a system to efficiently transfer technological know-how among nations; a time and place for countries to pledge emissions reductions; and a mechanism to verify countries’ success in meeting their pledges.

The future of the climate is not going to be decided at one big meeting, or by an ailing Europe and a weary United States ponying up massive sums of money. Barring some technological revolution that makes green energy extremely economical, it’s going to be decided piece by piece in national legislatures and committee meetings, in off-the-record bilateral meetings and Group of 20 summits, and by politicians pushed at home and abroad to act.

 
Read what others are saying