In a pastiche of Kennedy’s man on the moon speech, I imagined President Obama laying down the following gauntlet to the world:

I believe that the world should commit itself to achieving the goal of stopping the inexorable rise in greenhouse gas emissions that is doing so much to put our planet in peril. I don’t believe we should aim to achieve this goal in 2020 or 2030 or 2050 – but right now in 2009, making this year the high water mark for mankind’s global experiment with the global climate.

Obviously this didn’t happen, but – gradually – we’re learning more about has happened to emissions. The figures for US carbon dioxide  for 2009 are now in and the good news is that they fell by an astonishing 9%.

Question is: has the US stimulus been wisely spent on measures that will push the economy onto a lower carbon path as it grows again? The answer is probably not, though there is some reason for hope:

As the economy recovers, the structure of that recovery will be important to the future emissions profile of the United States.  If energy-intensive industries lead the economic recovery, emissions would increase faster than if service industries or light manufacturing play the leading role.   If coal, which was more heavily impacted by the recent economic downturn than other energy sources, rebounds disproportionately, the carbon intensity of the energy supply could rise above the 2009 level.

However, longer-term trends continue to suggest decline in both the amount of energy used per unit of economic output and the carbon intensity of our energy supply, which both work to restrain emissions.

The world is at a major inflection point on its carbon trajectory, but I fear we’re going to blunder through it without realising the opportunity for transformation. As Copenhagen showed, unfortunately, we’re still a long, long way from reframing climate change as a now problem. But it’s still not too late to start working for peak emissions.

Well, David and I would like to see policymakers agree that emissions should peak right now, given that emissions have fallen so much as a result of the credit crunch. The development NGOs who are most active on climate change – Oxfam, Christian Aid and Tearfund, as well as Avaaz - are a little more cautious than that, arguing that emissions should peak by 2015; but they’re still basically on the same page as the IPCC, which said in its last Assessment Report (pdf - see table at the foot of page 15) that to limit global average warming between 2.0 and 2.4 degrees Celsius, global emissions must peak between 2000 and 2015.  Chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has also said that 2015 is the deadline.

Astonishingly, though, the main federation of environmental NGOs – the Climate Action Network - says that any time up to 2017 is fine. WWF International agree. TckTckTck used to say 2017 too (as I noted when they published their policy position); they’ve subsequently revised their target to 2015, but still have documents on their website using the old date. (Nothing like a consistent message, eh?)

Be very clear: this isn’t just hair-splitting. Once the peak date for emissions slides beyond 2015 and towards 2020, according to the IPCC, we’re heading for a world that’s not 2.0-2.4 degrees C warmer, but 2.4-2.8 degrees C. That is what the environmental NGOs are arguing for. Shortly before they spend a fortnight calling everyone else at the Copenhagen summit ”fossil of the day“. It’s breathtaking.

So, if you can’t make it to the summit but still want a way to take action and make your voice heard ahead of Copenhagen, how about this. First thing on Monday, get in touch with any environmental NGOs you support.  Ask them their position on the global peak emissions date. And if it’s any later than 2015, then cancel your subscription.

I’m not kidding. Policymakers aren’t the only ones at Copenhagen who need to be held to account. If the green NGOs can’t get their figures right on something this fundamental, this basic (even as the development NGOs manage it just fine) then they need to – what’s that phrase from the Bali summit? – “leave it to the rest of us; please, get out of the way“.

Yesterday, I put some words into Barack Obama’s mouth – re-jigging JFK’s famous ‘man on the moon’ speech as a call for an immediate peak to global emissions.

Setting a goal that emissions should never rise again, is something I have argued we should do now, rather than hoping we’ll simply be braver or more desperate in five or ten years’ time.

Originally, I suggested this should be a major plank for civil society campaigning – and I still think it should be. But governments can play too. Let’s look at the policy from vantage point of the Obama administration.

• At the moment, US emissions are very high. Each American emits more than twice as much as a European, four times as much a Chinese citizen, and thirteen times as much an Indian. Total US emissions have risen by 26% since 1990 – the Kyoto baseline. Had it ratified Kyoto, it should have been well on the road to a 7% cut from 1990 by now.
• Obama has now committed to forcing emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020 – the bare minimum the US can get away with if developed countries are to meet their collective goal of achieving a 25-40% cut in emissions by 2020 from 1990 levels. 
• Legislation is promised for this year, with the aim of getting a bill through Congress at least before Copenhagen.

Internationally, the US remains in quite a weak position on climate – another toxic legacy left by the Bush administration. But there are opportunities. Because the US is the least energy efficient of any rich country, its early cuts are going to come quite easily. Indeed, McKinsey reckons that 40% or more of US abatement over the next twenty years will bring net economic benefits.

The tanking economy, meanwhile, has one silver lining. With the economy in freefall (GDP was down 6.2% on an annualized basis in the last quarter of 2008, and the Fed thinks things are getting worse), energy demand will be falling too. That means an immediate reduction in carbon emissions.

Then, as the economy sheds capacity, the dirtiest and least efficient industrial plant is going to be shut down first, bringing long term economic and environmental benefits. This is a process that the right package of incentives could reinforce (time to revive Dieter Helm and Cameron Hepburn’s work on carbon contracts, perhaps).

At the same time, the US will continue to reap dividends from last year’s flirtation with high energy prices – a spike that sent many people out to buy smaller cars or increase the energy efficiency of their homes and businesses. These capital investments have long life cycles and will not be reversed now fuel prices are low.

Then there’s the green stimulus, which HSBC estimates at $112bn or 12% of Obama’s trillion dollar rescue deal. When the US finally sees the green shoots of recovery, this cash should push the economy onto a (slightly) lower carbon trajectory.

Finally, around 2011 or 2012, just a blink of the eye away, the US climate bill will kick in (assuming it passes – if not all bets are off). Revenue from a carbon market is already in 2012′s budget, while new energy efficiency standards should also have begun to bite by then.

So, domestically:

• The US is never going to find it as easy to make emissions cuts as it will in the next couple of years. And anything achieved now means less work to do in the future.
• If it misses this opportunity and it just defers the pain of meeting any target. Plus policy measures in a few years time will be working against the grain rather than with it (growth will have started, government spending will be dropping etc.).
• Most importantly, there are huge political incentives to get emissions moving in the right direction before the climate bill starts to bite. Obama needs the bill to reinforce a trend that is well established – not try and jump start one just as he positions himself for a second term.

Internationally, meanwhile, Obama aims to lead – and he’s right to want to get out in front of the debate. But to do so he needs to bring something fresh to the party. A call for an immediate peak to global emissions would, at a stroke, give the world a scientifically robust, stretching, but realistic climate change goal to work to.

Obama knows how to craft a good narrative. With a strong mission (thus my ‘man on the moon’ analogies), he can bundle together (i) green recovery; (ii) US action at home; and (iii) a fair share of the burden for all countries. He’d be reframing climate as a now problem - injecting the pace and urgency that can be condified in the Copenhagen text.

Let’s finish with what the man himself is saying about climate (from a real speech this time, not my JFK pastiche).

[...] These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which if left unchecked could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines and irreversible catastrophe…

Year after year, decade after decade, we’ve chosen delay over decisive action.  Rigid ideology has overruled sound science.  Special interests have overshadowed common sense.  Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results…

Now America has arrived at a crossroads.  Embedded in American soil and the wind and the sun, we have the resources to change.  Our scientists, businesses and workers have the capacity to move us forward.  It falls on us to choose whether to risk the peril that comes with our current course or to seize the promise of energy independence.  For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change…

Finally, we will make it clear to the world that America is ready to lead.  To protect our climate and our collective security, we must call together a truly global coalition.  I’ve made it clear that we will act, but so too must the world.  That’s how we will deny leverage to dictators and dollars to terrorists.  And that’s how we will ensure that nations like China and India are doing their part, just as we are now willing to do ours.

It’s time for America to lead, because this moment of peril must be turned into one of progress.  If we take action, we can create new industries and revive old ones; we can open new factories and power new farms; we can lower costs and revive our economy.  We can do that, and we must do that.  There’s much work to be done.  There is much further for us to go.

But I want to be clear from the beginning of this administration that we have made our choice.  America will not be held hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet.  We will not be put off from action because action is hard.  Now is the time to make the tough choices.  Now is the time to meet the challenge at this crossroad of history by choosing a future that is safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable.

Build policy on science – check. Avoid delay – check. Turn a threat into an opportunity – check.

Barack Obama wants to show he is prepared to make tough choices. If that’s true, then he needs other countries to take a similarly ballsy approach. That’s why he needs declare the carbon age over. And tell the world it’s time for peak emissions now.

Extracts From Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs

President Barack Obama
Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress
May 25, 2009

[With apologies to JFK's 'man on the moon' speech.]

The Constitution imposes upon me the obligation to “from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union.” While this has traditionally been interpreted as an annual affair, this tradition has been broken in extraordinary times.

These are extraordinary times. And we face extraordinary challenges… [The President's discussion of economic, security and resource threats has been cut from this transcript.]

…Finally, if we are to win the battle to secure our shared future, then we must act decisively to stabilize the world’s climate. Otherwise, we will begin to suffer the consequences of our folly within a generation – not just at home, but across the world, as we struggle to sustain security and prosperity on an increasingly crowded planet.

Since early in my term, serious efforts to tackle climate change here in America have begun. We have examined where we are strong, and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to lead the world in a great new enterprise, one which will hold the key to our future on earth.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the international decisions or marshaled the international resources required for such leadership. We have never before specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

I therefore believe we should set these global and national goals.

First, I believe that the world should commit itself to achieving the goal of stopping the inexorable rise in greenhouse gas emissions that is doing so much to put our planet in peril. I don’t believe we should aim to achieve this goal in 2020 or 2030 or 2050 – but right now in 2009, making this year the high water mark for mankind’s global experiment with the global climate.

Second, once we have bought emissions to a standstill, we should aim to force them down year by year – slowly at first, but at an ever increasing pace, triggering a radical transformation that brings us to a near zero carbon world by mid-century.

This will be no easy task, but the experts tell me that it can be done. Already, as a result of the economic pain they are feeling, countries are beginning to shut down their dirtiest and least efficient factories and power plants.

Now it is time to start rebuilding. In London last month, I attended a summit with leaders of the world’s most important economies, including our allies in Europe, as well as the fast growing countries of China, India and Brazil. We agreed to take urgent action together, with each country agreeing to invest in the clean industries of the future. This is not just a new deal for America, but a green new deal for the world.

It may surprise you to learn that, at this time of climate crisis, global investment in new energy sources is at its lowest level for decades. At the London Summit, we agreed to change that, beginning a process that will boost the global economy, while placing the world on a path to much cleaner and more sustainable recovery.

We propose additional funds for energy efficiency in homes, offices and factories in all countries, but especially in America, where our economy is currently less efficient in its energy use that any other rich country. Simply by matching the fuel efficiency in our cars that others have achieved, we will cut by a fifth our expensive reliance on imported oil.

We also plan to join with others in ensuring that, as they grow, developing poorer countries do not make the same mistakes as us. We will help push them onto a cleaner trajectory, ensuring they have the space to prosper, while winning new markets for American innovation and technologies.

A green stimulus will win us valuable time, keeping emissions under control over the next few years. But on its own it will not enough.

That is why I am setting a third, national goal, asking Congress to legislate this year to create a carbon market and to set binding targets that will see US emissions reduced by a quarter by 2020, and by 80% or more by 2050.

This will prepare me with the tools I need to gain a fair deal for America at the Copenhagen Climate Summit in December. There I will ensure that every country takes its rightful share of the burden of securing the stable climate that we, our children, and their children will depend upon.

Some countries will have to do more than others – with the United States, Europe, and Japan collectively responsible for setting the standard others will follow. But every country must play its part. Only by acting in unison can we all achieve our most important goals.

Let it be clear – and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make – let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action – a course which will last for many years and carry heavy costs, but bring substantial rewards. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment we might as well not have tried at all.

Now this is a choice which this country and the world must make. It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. I believe we should be brave enough to draw a firm line under the excesses of the past – and say, enough is enough. Global emissions must never rise again. This year is the year that we start to bring our climate problem under control.

This decision demands a major international commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our efforts to work with other countries. It means we cannot afford to divisions between nations – we must act together to achieve this task.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems alone. They could in fact, aggravate them further – unless every scientist, every engineer, every businessman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this world has a low carbon future, and that we will all work together to achieve it. 

[Photo courtesy flickr user by Barack Obama.  For the case for an immediate cap on global emissions see here.]

The climate clock is ticking, but civil society is still missing in action. With only nine months to go before the Copenhagen climate summit, the world’s NGOs are far from having a compelling set of demands to campaign on.

Perhaps it is already too late. Many governments are already ramping back their expectations of what can be delivered. The deal-makers among them now desperately need civil society to change the terms of debate and boost all countries’ level of ambition.

I’d give campaigners until April’s London Summit to get their act together. After that, they have zero chance of retaking the high ground and starting to shape the pre-Copenhagen agenda.

So what should their demands be? What makes a good headline ‘ask’?

• First, it has to fit with the science – that means stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at 450ppm CO2e (nothing lower is now possible).
• Then, it needs to make sense to insiders – people who are making the major policy or investment decisions a clear sense of what they need to do now.
• Third, it must communicate to a wider public – which means a goal that the average 12 year-old (or journalist) can understand and remember.
• And finally, it needs to build climate into a wider post-meltdown narrative, offering an integrated vision for global recovery.

I think one clear, crisp demand fulfils all these criteria, providing a starting point from which all key elements of a global deal logically flow. Global greenhouse gas emissions exploded during the boom years, pumped up by debt-fuelled overconsumption. Now oil demand is declining – and we can expect global emissions see a modest fall too.

This provides civil society with a real opportunity. They should declare 2009 the year of peak emissions and challenge the world’s governments to develop a concrete plan to ensure they are never allowed to rise again.

Let’s match this ‘ask’ against the criteria I set out.

Does it fit with the science? Yes it does. To stabilize at 450ppm, global emissions will have to peak within the next few years – the IPCC said 2015. But emissions have risen faster than expected since the studies that the IPCC relied on (2.4% annually between 2000 and 2006), while carbon-cycle feedbacks may not have been fully accounted for. This brings the peak date ever closer.

In addition, there is a practical consideration. Allow the upward trend to resume over the next couple of years and economic momentum could make it impossible to meet a 2015 peak.

Turnover of capital stock is slow in both the energy and industrial sectors (and even slower in buildings and infrastructure). A downturn provides an opportunity to retire old stock early, while better policy will encourage investors to make decisions on new stock that will still add up in tomorrow’s carbon constrained world.

Will it make sense to insiders? This is going to need some work, as many insiders (including more timid campaigners) will be horrified by the prospect that governments should be asked to take radical action on climate today (much safer to focus on what their successors will do in 2020 or 2050).

But it’s not civil society’s job to make life easy – rather to persuade governments that ‘peak emissions now’ is a stretching target, but one that can be achieved if they combine:

• US commitment to legislate domestically this year, with the aim of forcing down emissions that have risen by a quarter since the Kyoto baseline year of 1990. The United States is the least carbon efficient of any developed country, so there are huge cuts that can be made both quickly and efficiently (around 40% of its abatement opportunities to 2030 will bring net economic benefits).
• European climate change policy which, if you believe the European Commission, is now beginning to really bite. Even before the downturn, the Europeans were proudly boasting that they will meet their Kyoto targets with ease (overshooting by 3% or so). They should be able to do much more now that economic growth has stopped.
• Major new opportunities in China, where the Chinese finally have the chance to switch off some of their dirtiest and least efficient stock. In the boom years, they simply could not add capacity fast enough to retire old power and industrial plant. Now they can, especially if they get the right package of incentives (a fair deal at Copenhagen, tech transfer, no retreat to protectionism etc).
• Green stimulus - the G20′s great climate opportunity is to agree co-ordinated plans to invest in a low carbon future. In part this is about long-run R&D – but there also attractive short term opportunities that (i) stimulate economies; (ii) squeeze carbon cheaply out of the system; (iii) insure new investment against a steadily rising carbon price.
• Action on forestry and other sinks, where there is massive untapped potential to control atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations – if leaders are prepared to act decisively to cut through institutional and enforcement road blocks.
• The Copenhagen deal itself, which will be much more palatable if built on the above package of short term measures, and which – done right – can offer a ‘signal from the future’ powerful enough to kick start the race out of carbon.

Taken together, these measures should allow the world to decouple global economic and emissions growth. It will be tough going for ten years or so, but at some point the world’s economy will hit a tipping point as investors begin to move en masse to a lower carbon growth trajectory.

Then the hard work can start of driving down emissions by 2050 to well below half of current levels.

Will it make communicate to a broader public? Yes – very easily. Peaking is very easy to understand. Even better, it is strong enough to support a background narrative that includes:

• The stabilization trajectory an early peak puts us on (and what the world will look like if this opportunity to peak is squandered).
• The beginning of an answer to the ‘who does what’ or ‘fair shares’ question (In the short term, we all have to make cuts wherever its cheapest, with rich countries footing the bill as necessary. In the long run, we’re heading towards near zero per capita emissions – a convergence that no country will be able to escape from.)

And finally, will it integrate economic and environmental concerns? Again, the answer is clearly yes, and I think the narrative is a powerful one:

• We allowed global emissions to rise uncontrollably in the boom years – just another legacy of the age of irresponsibility.
• Now we have an opportunity to stop the rot – the one silver living in an otherwise dismal global outlook.
• So let’s have a global, green new deal – one that kick starts the international economy, and heralds a new age of green prosperity, and provide a basis on which a ambitious, fair and robust Copenhagen deal can be agreed.

So a scientifically based, stretching target for global climate change policy. One that brings together all nations in a single pursuit, can be explained to all concerned citizens, and integrates fully with broader economic concerns.

Peak emissions now. Three words which, I believe, global civil society should put at the heart of its climate campaign for 2009 climate.