This table is a summary of the natural gas industry carbon footprint value in 2005 and projected future values based on the American Clean
Energy & Security Act. (© INFLEKSION. All rights reserved.)
CLARITY OUT OF COPENHAGEN?
Observations on the Recent Conference of the Parties 15,
or COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark
By Brian Kromer
In December 2009, leaders from
over 191 countries gathered in
Copenhagen, Denmark, to conclude
an agreement for the post-2012
Kyoto ambitions centered on international greenhouse (GHG) emissions. The conference represented a
preemptive continuation on an international scale of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), which previously
produced the Kyoto Protocol and is
now beckoning a post-2012 agenda,
when Kyoto will expire. The effort at
Copenhagen began in 2007 at the
Bali, Indonesia, Conference of the
Parties or “COP 13” meeting, where
the origins of a post-2012 agenda
first emerged, followed by “COP 14”
in Poznan, Poland, in 2008.
For the United States, the Copenhagen conference concludes a
rapid-paced year as it faced new
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) policies and the historic introduction of the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule. Both U.S.
and international politics at the
United Nations convey a sense of urgency for a post-2012 agenda even
though the binding stage of Kyoto
has not been completed. This urgency is based on the fact that some
of the world’s “best and brightest”
scientists believe we have a five- to
seven-year window of opportunity to
avert major climatic change by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, science that supports
the politics states that a 440 ppm atmospheric concentration of CO2 will
limit the global rise in temperature
to 3. 6°F ( 2°C), averting major climatic change. Science further points
to the need for reductions of 25 to
40% by developed nations along
with the support of developing
countries to operate as a developed
nation, for binding and meaningful
action to occur in the allotted window of opportunity. If the science is
incorrect, there is still a benefit from
taking action because reducing emissions will drive new technologies,
economic progress and provide for a
cleaner environment, provided the
cost of the action does not equally
offset the economic gain.
The discipline of climate science is
just now developing, and, though
we are sure to learn tomorrow what
we might think we know today,
most people are convinced climate
change requires action. This is a critical observation when we consider
