Copenhagen Countdown: "Delay Is No Longer an Option"

SAN DIEGO,CA, USA: Last week was one of the best in a long time for the prospects of a success in Copenhagen next year. More about that later.

Earlier in November, I was in China, the largest emitter of CO₂ in the world. Last week, I was in the United States, the world's largest per capita emitter. Naturally, that makes you think, compare, and observe (as does the fact that I was probably the individual on the planet with the highest personal carbon emissions for November).

China and the United States are the two players that are probably going to determine whether we get a solid deal in Copenhagen next year. China is a giant on the move, with economic growth rates higher than anything Europe or the United States has experienced in decades. Not wanting to commit before Europe and the United States – but certainly open. The United States is a wounded giant – the credit crunch is still front page news. When I arrived in California, the headline on the USA Today was "CitiGroup to Slash 52,000 Jobs." It's serious.

Do they live on different planets? Yes, in many ways. But more and more connects them.  Emerging from the rubble in the United States is the "New Green Deal," the idea that to tackle the financial crisis, you should  invest in a clean technology push – thus creating new green markets and jobs. Beijing is, in fact, looking to do exactly the same, with much less attention from the media. There is no doubt that Premier Wen has put out the message – green investment is the way to continue economic growth, but without the pollution – and that Chinese corporations are listening and acting accordingly.

If anybody had doubts whether President-elect Obama would stick to his green campaign slogans, they we're reassured on November 18. At California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Governors' Global Climate Summit, Obama made it perfectly clear in his video speech that he is going for the green deal. "Delay is no longer an option," the president-to-be said. The economic plan is reported to be in the range of U.S. 500-1,000 billion, with a big lump of it going into energy.

This is probably the best news for Copenhagen 2009 – maybe even better than the result of November 4. It is easy for a presidential candidate to promise massive investments in tackling climate change. It is harder to stick to it. This is sure to be a significant boost to the Poznan talks, which opened yesterday, something that will gather a lot of attention in the corridors. Obama's observer team (led by former presidential candidate John Kerry) will be the center of attention. The mere idea of having a committed and determined U.S. party in climate talks from January 20 on is almost too good to be true, after years of very little U.S. activity – with the United States sometimes even not participating in UN meetings.

And add to that both the United States and China going for the "green gold" (see my first "Copenhagen Countdown" column). This would be sustainable, sensible investments, a nice contrast to what brought Wall Street down. And it is not a zero-sum game, or a matter of who-beats-who. With the global warming we know we will see in coming decades, low-carbon solutions will be the most promising and growing market of all for a long time. As I'm writing this, news reports say that China is deploying a U.S. 56 billion stimulus package, part of it going to energy. Amazing.

I was in San Diego for the launch of the Copenhagen Climate Council's Thought Leadership Series, nine essays on pressing climate change issues, written by some of the most knowledgeable persons on the planet. The first one, "Tackling Emissions Growth," is written by Samuel A. DiPiazza Jr. of PricewaterhouseCoopers, one of our Councillors, in collaboration with fellow Councillors James E. Rogers, Duke Energy, Rob Morrison, CSLA Asia-Pacific Markets, and Anders Eldrup, DONG Energy.

It is a piece that seeks to bring about a holistic understanding of what carbon markets are, how they may be developed, what they can achieve – and what they cannot achieve. The idea of governmental intervention is very much at the core of the Thought Leadership Series piece: The market needs not only regulation from governments but also financial intervention and stimuli from government. First of all, massive investments in R&D. A price on carbon will leverage some technologies and solutions, but in order to mobilize emerging technologies like CCS, more is indeed needed.

Leadership not the least. Like what we see at the moment from the two giants.