How to set a stabilisation target

by | Jun 26, 2007


David’s right below about the lack of specifics on stabilisation levels.  But it’s worth remembering the lessons of Ken Livingstone’s Congestion Charge in London: start with lax targets, then ratchet them up later, after people have got used to the principle of having them.

What would this mean in the global climate policy context?  Agree the principle of having a target; set it as high as we like (1,000ppm, anyone?) – and then build in triennial or quinquennial review by policymakers.

Then, when the damages really start stacking up and a sharp intake of breath is heard from electorates and policymakers, we can avoid the usual kneejerk policy responses that tend to follow scary events; and instead, simply ratchet the target down to a credible figure, like 450.

In the meantime – presto! – the policymakers who agreed the principle of a stabilisation target in the first place will have moved on to greater things (a job as a Middle East peace envoy, perhaps), leaving the heavy lifting to their successors.

Author

  • Alex Evans is founder of Larger Us, which explores how we can use psychology to reduce political tribalism and polarisation, a senior fellow at New York University, and author of The Myth Gap: What Happens When Evidence and Arguments Aren’t Enough? (Penguin, 2017). He is a former Campaign Director of the 50 million member global citizen’s movement Avaaz, special adviser to two UK Cabinet Ministers, climate expert in the UN Secretary-General’s office, and was Research Director for the Business Commission on Sustainable Development. Alex lives with his wife and two children in Yorkshire.


More from Global Dashboard

Let’s make climate a culture war!

Let’s make climate a culture war!

If the politics of climate change end up polarised, is that so bad?  No – it’s disastrous. Or so I’ve long thought. Look at the US – where climate is even more polarised than abortion. Result: decades of flip flopping. Ambition under Clinton; reversal...