The deepest cuts
Our guide to the actions that have done the most to slow global warming
ON SEPTEMBER 23rd 120-odd presidents and prime ministers will gather in New York for a UN meeting on climate change. It is the first time the subject has brought so many leaders together since the ill-fated Copenhagen summit of 2009. Now, as then, they will assert that reining in global warming is a political priority. Some may commit their governments to policies aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. What few will say is how many tonnes of carbon dioxide these will save—because they almost never do.
According to scientists, cutting carbon-dioxide emissions is an essential part of reducing catastrophic risks from climate change. Yet governments are persistently averse to providing estimates of how much carbon a policy saves. That may be because, in countries where climate change is controversial, it makes more sense to talk about the other benefits a scheme offers rather than its effect on carbon. Or it may be that, in countries which are enthusiastic about renewable energy, pointing out that it may not save that much carbon is seen as unhelpful. Or perhaps governments think climate change is so serious that all measures must be taken, regardless of cost (though their overall lacklustre record suggests this is not the case).
This article appeared in the Briefing section of the print edition under the headline "The deepest cuts"
Briefing September 20th 2014
More from Briefing
America’s $61bn aid package buys Ukraine time
It must use it wisely
America is uniquely ill-suited to handle a falling population
Which is a worry, because much of it is already shrinking
Homeowners face a $25trn bill from climate change
Property, the world’s biggest asset class, is also its most vulnerable