Would we act differently if GHG emissions were as threatening to civilization as nuclear weapons?

On the forth day after Copenhagen a conclusion came to me…

There is discussion of the successes of Copenhagen, the important first step, getting all the major emitters to the table, the rain forest agreements, the financing mechanisms, the importance in reporting and validation (transparency). But, there is has been much more talk of what failed in Copenhagen. The UN let us down. Our leaders let us down. So much has slipped through our fingers, been left undone. Others suggest, as written in this week’s Time Magazine, “The very struggle to reach agreement at Copenhagen (…) that 113 heads of state attended (…) is a sign that global climate talks have moved beyond symbolic rhetoric.” Looking ahead, it will only get tougher at COP16 in Mexico City in 2010, as the stakes get higher.

It was neither the science nor the leadership that failed at Copenhagen. It was the process that failed. The process used by the UNFCC calls to mind the two familiar stories about herding both and allowing the 800-pound gorilla (China) sleep anywhere it wants to. It is the direct result of the open and democratic process being used, where one country gets one vote and the vote must be unanimous. One hundred ninety two countries involved in the negotiation process, each with veto power. This approach treats climate as a common good and thus we are at risk of suffering Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons.

Rather than treat climate as a common good, what if we treated climate change as a threat to international security (which it is on many level) where the proliferation of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions need to be collectively controlled as is done with that other major threats to international security, nuclear weapons. This shift in the paradigm gives one great freedom to think differently about the process of GHG emissions proliferation while remaining within the auspices and consistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The purposes of the United Nations laid down in Article 1 of the present Charter, shall be:

1. to further international peace and security;
2. to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;
3. to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world; and
4. to ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of the foregoing objectives and subject to the provisions of Article 80.

One model to follow in moving forward beyond Copenhagen is that of the UN Security Council, whose primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permanent rotating members. The Presidency of the Security Council is held in turn by the members of the Security with each President holds office for one calendar month. Ten non-permanent members, elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and not eligible for immediate re-election.

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

Under the Charter, all Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organizations of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions that Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out.

A climate Council could mirror this structure and purpose. This would build on the actions of the Copenhagen “Basic Five”, the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, who structured the Copenhagen Accord, This smaller group of this design would be more nimble, action-oriented and while being consistent with the overall UN charter.

This “Climate Council” could have functions and powers similar to that of the Security Council:

• to maintain international “climate equity” in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
• to investigate any dispute or situation which might threaten the climate security of member nations and lead to international friction;
• to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
• to formulate plans for the establishment of a system of emissions targets and measurement, monitoring and validation of regulate emissions;
• to determine the existence of a threat to the global climate action should be taken;
• to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop emissions violations;
• to take collective military action against an aggressor;
• to recommend the admission of new Members;
• to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";
• to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Climate Justice.

Indeed, a conclusion after a dew days of reflection and undoubtedly an oversimplification of what needs to be done. This approach does address many of the areas seen as flaws in the current process and provides a path moving forward: leadership by a smaller groups, representative and faster decision making and majority rule, clearly defined goals, targets, measurement and independent validation, as well as the ability to impose economic sanctions and other actions on violators. Without a movement toward a more effective process, we are destined to have a repeat experience in Mexico City in 2010 and another year lost.