What Should We Do and Can We Do About Climate Change
Ching-Tsung Wei 2019.04
Introduction
Climate change can be one of the most
complicated challenges in human history. We
have entered an unprecedented human-made
CO2 concentration, which leads to climate
change. How we can tackle the problem will be
based on the policy, technology, and, most
importantly, humanity. Finding a robust solution
for climate change will be a complex challenge
that we all need to face seriously.
Why Climate Change is Serious
There is clear evidence from multiple
governmental research agencies that shows a
rapid global warming trend for the past 100
years.1
Source: NASA
Without urgent actions, climate change impacts
would push another 100 million people into
poverty by 2030, while the impact of extreme
weather could be equivalent to a $520 billion loss
globally.2 In the United States, it is estimated that
GDP could lose by ~0.6% per 1°C at +1°C of
global mean surface temperature (GMST)
warming to 1.7% per 1°C at +5°C GMAT. Higher
temperature also leads to an increase in
electricity demand in hot days more than falling
demand in cold days. Net electricity demand
rises around 5.3 (±0.14) % per °C. Labor supply
in working hours losses 0.53 (±0.01) % for those
who are exposed outdoor. 3 Agricultural
production would decline with rising
temperatures, while higher CO2 concentration
1 4
“World of Change: Global Temperatures,” Text.Article,
December 9, 2010, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-
change/DecadalTemp.
2 5
“Overview,” Text/HTML, World Bank, accessed March 21,
2019,
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/overview.
3 6
Solomon Hsiang et al., “Estimating Economic Damage from
Climate Change in the United States,” Science 356, no. 6345
(June 30, 2017): 1362–69,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4369.
could offset much of the loss. Climate change
could lead to a higher likelihood of human injury,
disease, and death due to more heatwaves and
natural disasters.4 From 1993 to 2009, the mean
rate of sea-level rise (SLR) was 3.3 ± 0.4
mm/year, which is an accelerating rate compares
to the average 1.7 ± 0.3 mm/year since 1950.5
Through the projection of the climate trend,
response to temperature suggests a 54%
increase in armed conflict in Africa by 2030 that
might lead to more migration.6 Overall, 7.9% of
species are estimated to extinct from climate
change.7
What Should We Do About Climate Change
To deal with climate change and achieve the goal
of having a sustainable living environment, 1) we
should set maximum greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentration as a climate goal, instead of a
temperature goal, and to put our best effort to
determine a clear climate threshold. 2) We
should invest more in the research and
development of related technology, including
renewable energy, energy efficiency and storage,
and carbon capture, to reduce CO2 emissions
and mitigate its concentration. 3) We should
work on a more effective multilateral climate
agreement with a proper incentive towards its
enforcement.
1) Why Setting GHGs Concentration as the
Goal
The Earth’s energy budget drives climate change,
and radiative forcing quantifies the change of the
budget, which is affected by both natural and
anthropogenic factors. Once more energy from
the sun stays on earth, as radiative forcing
increases, it will lead to positive warming. The
CO2 concentration is the most significant
“AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability — IPCC,” accessed February 10, 2019,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/.
Robert J. Nicholls and Anny Cazenave, “Sea-Level Rise and Its
Impact on Coastal Zones,” Science 328, no. 5985 (2010): 1517–
20.
Marshall B. Burke et al., “Warming Increases the Risk of Civil
War in Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 106, no. 49 (2009): 20670–74.
7
Mark C. Urban, “Accelerating Extinction Risk from Climate
Change,” Science 348, no. 6234 (May 1, 2015): 571–73,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4984.
contributor to radiative forcing, followed by other
GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide.8
Copenhagen Agreement also mentioned the
need to enhance long-term cooperative action to
combat climate change for achieving the ultimate
objective of stabilizing GHG concentration in the
atmosphere.12

If the CO2 concentration is larger than 450 ppm

and long maintained, it would push the earth to
an ice-free state. Scientists thus suggested
tackling climate change by reducing CO2
concentration to 350 ppm, 13 while the same
boundary “aims to ensure” the existence of polar
Source: IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
ice sheets. 14 However, as the radiative forcing
picture indicates, other GHGs are accountable
Even though a temperature goal seems to be
as well. Therefore, we should set a concentration
more wildly recognized from the IPCC report
goal that includes a broader range of GHGs.
among the public, there was no scientific
evidence clearly identified the 2°C as a safe
We should define a clear GHG concentration
warming level. Whether using the global
goal. The research found that the higher
temperature is the best climate quantity is still
threshold uncertainty, the lower chance people
arguable. Scientists argued that the 2°C target is
can reach a collective goal. This situation might
a compromise between what is deemed possible
be similar to our climate negotiations. Once the
and desirable. There is little evidence to support
uncertainty crossed the so-called “dividing line,”
a single planetary boundary can define a global
the situation will turn from a coordination
aggregate threshold. 9
scenario to a prisoner’s dilemma, therefore ends
up with a catastrophe. 15
The United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted in
1992 to “stabilize greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system.”10 However,
what level is dangerous was not well defined.
This framework sets non-binding limits on
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with no
enforcement mechanisms. The Kyoto Protocol Probability of catastrophe by treatment
was then adopted in 1997 as an extension treaty Source: Nature Climate Change (Barrett, Dannenberg, 2014)

of the UNFCCC. The Protocol placed a more

substantial burden on developed countries due
to the recognition of their higher responsibility for
the emissions over the past 150 years. 11 The

8
“AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis —
IPCC,” accessed April 27, 2019,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
9
Reto Knutti et al., “A Scientific Critique of the Two-Degree
Climate Change Target,” Nature Geoscience 9, no. 1 (January
2016): 13–18, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2595.
10
“Conveng.Pdf,” accessed March 2, 2019,
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
11
“What Is the Kyoto Protocol? | UNFCCC,” accessed March 2,
2019, https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-kyoto-
protocol/what-is-the-kyoto-protocol/what-is-the-kyoto-protocol.
12
“Information Provided by Parties to the Convention Relating to
the Copenhagen Accord | UNFCCC,” accessed March 2, 2019,
https://unfccc.int/process/conferences/pastconferences/copenhage
n-climate-change-conference-december-2009/statements-and-
resources/information-provided-by-parties-to-the-convention-
relating-to-the-copenhagen-accord.
13
J. Hansen et al., “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should
Humanity Aim?,” April 7, 2008,
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874282300802010217.
14
Johan Rockström, “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity,”
Nature; London 461, no. 7263 (September 24, 2009): 472–75.
15
Scott Barrett and Astrid Dannenberg, “Sensitivity of Collective
Action to Uncertainty about Climate Tipping Points,” Nature
Climate Change 4, no. 1 (January 2014): 36–39,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2059.
2) Why Research & Development Matter
Once CO2 is released from fossil fuels, it takes
many years to be removed from the atmosphere,
and it could take a lot longer than we expected.16
Source: Nature Climate Change (Inman, 2008)
To stabilize or to readjust CO2 concentration to
the desired level, technology plays an important
role, especially the energy-related and carbon
capture technologies that both have a direct
effect on the concentration.
Electricity generation, industrial emissions, and
transportation are account for 60% of the total
CO2 emission. 17 According to the International
Energy Agency, total CO2 emissions are
expected to increase due to the elevating global
energy demand.18 The Kaya identity states that
! # % geothermal, wave, and biomass) and nuclear
F = P x " x ! x # , which indicates that the global
CO2 emissions (F) are determined by the
!
population (P), GDP per capita (" ), the energy
#
intensity of the GDP ( ), and the carbon footprint
!
% decreasing due to the experience curve effect.
of the energy ( ).19
# Since solar energy is only available periodically
16
Mason Inman, “Carbon Is Forever,” Nature Climate Change,
November 20, 2008, 156–58,
https://doi.org/10.1038/climate.2008.122.
17
“AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change —
IPCC,” accessed February 17, 2019,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/.
18
“WEO 2018,” accessed February 17, 2019,
https://www.iea.org/weo2018/.
19
P. E. Waggoner and J. H. Ausubel, “A Framework for
Sustainability Science: A Renovated IPAT Identity,” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 99, no. 12 (June 11, 2002):
7860–65, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122235999.
Source: IPCC AR5 WG3
Lowering energy intensity is an essential part of
reducing emissions. Energy intensity can be
decreased by energy efficiency improvement,
including smart-grid deployment, energy-saving
technology development, and related
innovations. Research shows that the rebound
effects from efficiency improvement could be
overplayed since the effects are relatively small.
Thus, this will not be an excuse for our inaction.20
Meanwhile, there are significant losses from
primary energy generation to end-user energy
services. Better energy production technology
will also be essential. 21
On the other hand, CO2 -Free Energy also has
promising development, which includes
renewable energy (hydro, solar, wind,
power (fission and fusion). 22 Solar technologies,
including photovoltaics (PV) and concentrated
solar power, are used to produce electricity and
thermal energy. 23 The PV energy price keeps
in a day, the storage system becomes vital to
transfer the time of using solar electricity.24 This
intermittency also applies to wind energy.
20
Kenneth Gillingham et al., “Energy Policy: The Rebound Effect
Is Overplayed,” Nature 493 (January 23, 2013): 475–76,
https://doi.org/10.1038/493475a.
21
The MIT Press, “The Energy System,” The MIT Press, accessed
February 17, 2019, https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/energy-system.
22
Scott Barrett, “The Coming Global Climate-Technology
Revolution,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 23, no. 2 (June
2009): 53–75, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.23.2.53.
23
“Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation —
IPCC,” accessed February 18, 2019,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-
climate-change-mitigation/.
24
Travis Bradford, Solar Revolution: The Economic
Transformation of the Global Energy Industry (MIT Press, 2008).
The marginal cost of these technologies is critical.
The reason why people are still burning coal to
generate power is that it is still relatively a
cheaper energy source. If the energy storage
technology has a breakthrough development,
together with the unit production cost of
renewable energy gets down to a certain level,
these backstop technologies could substitute
those traditional CO2 concentrated energy
production overnight, resulting in a dramatic fuel
switch scenario.
Source: www.energy.gov
Air capture is another option for reducing the CO2
concentration in the atmosphere. For limiting the
warming under 1.5°C, CO2 emission is required
to reach net-zero in 2050 and to go negative
afterward.25 It is estimated that coal consumption
increased five-fold in China for the past thirty
years. 26 Since there is still an upward trend in
coal consumption in Asia, it is not likely to see a
dramatic CO2 emission reduction in recent years.
Therefore, the use of carbon capture technology
could be feasible to reach the goal.
Source: Centre for International Climate and Energy Policy
25
“Global Warming of 1.5 oC —,” accessed March 11, 2019,
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
26
“Rising Asian Demand Drives Global Coal Consumption
Growth - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA),” accessed April 27, 2019,
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=4390.
27
Klaus S. Lackner et al., “The Urgency of the Development of
CO2 Capture from Ambient Air,” Proceedings of the National
The technology of capturing CO2 from the air
already exists and has been used for submarines
and spaceships. However, it still needs to
become economically feasible on a larger scale.
Due to its high uncertainty nature, the estimated
cost ranging from $30 to $1,000 per metric ton of
CO2 captured while others suggest a marginal
cost from $94 to $232/t CO2. 27 28 Nevertheless,
direct air capture (DAC) technology can
potentially scale to any level. 29 Therefore, the
scalability of DAC technology might be
determined by its marginal cost and the social
cost of carbon. On the other hand, we still need
to understand more of the consequences of the
CO2 storage on a massive scale, either
underground, in the ocean, or the rocks.
Nevertheless, it is still worth to invest more R&D
in DAC before we worry about whether the
technology could lead to a delay in reducing
emissions since there are unique attributes of
this technology.
Solar engineering can reduce climate risks
through altering the albedo, and the method was
discussed back in the 1960s. It does not involve
changing the GHG concentration in the
atmosphere. Using space sunshades to block
the solar flux, seeding clouds through increasing
aerosol particle concentrations, or using sulfur to
create sunshades are possible options of solar
engineering, yet they do not solve the problem
Academy of Sciences 109, no. 33 (August 14, 2012): 13156–62,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108765109.
28
David W. Keith et al., “A Process for Capturing CO2 from the
Atmosphere,” Joule 2, no. 8 (August 15, 2018): 1573–94,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.05.006.
29
Engineering National Academies of Sciences, Negative
Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research
Agenda, 2018, https://doi.org/10.17226/25259.

caused by carbon pollution. 30 31 Since the
temperature is likely to overshoot, solar
geoengineering methods could play an important
role in avoiding catastrophes. However,
countries with the ability to use geoengineering
might reduce their incentive to cut emissions as
the moral hazard indicates. Meanwhile, a sudden
stop after using geoengineering for a long time
could raise the temperature more rapidly. 32
Therefore, we should treat them as
complementary methods to reduce climate risks
and use them temperately to avoid climate
emergencies under contemplated governance
and climate policy.33
3) Why We Need Multilateral Cooperation
For the past three decades, we were not able to
reach a substantial global agreement with a
sufficient enforcement mechanism that ensures
all of us can reach a collective goal. The Kyoto
Protocol required each Annex I country to limit its
total GHG emissions within its allowable level
over the committed period. However, it was a
costly treaty that made modest progress in
slowing global warming since it had no plan
beyond the first period and omitted a substantial
fraction of emissions.34
30
John H. Seinfeld et al., “Improving Our Fundamental
Understanding of the Role of Aerosol−cloud Interactions in the
Climate System,” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 113, no. 21 (May 24, 2016): 5781–90,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514043113.
31
“Sulphur Sunshade Is a Stupid Pollution Solution,”
Geoengineering Monitor, April 15, 2016,
http://www.geoengineeringmonitor.org/2016/04/sulphur-
sunshade-is-a-stupid-pollution-solution/.
32
Scott Barrett, “Solar Geoengineering’s Brave New World:
Thoughts on the Governance of an Unprecedented Technology,”
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 8, no. 2 (July 1,
2014): 249–69, https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/reu011.
33
David W. Keith and Douglas G. MacMartin, “A Temporary,
Moderate and Responsive Scenario for Solar Geoengineering,”
Nature Climate Change 5, no. 3 (March 2015): 201–6,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2493.
34
William D. Nordhaus, “To Tax or Not to Tax: Alternative
Approaches to Slowing Global Warming,” Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy 1, no. 1 (January 1, 2007):
26–44, https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rem008.
35
“Rethinking Climate Change Governance and Its Relationship
to the World Trading System - Barrett - 2011 - The World
Quantified emission limitation or reduction targets as contained in Annex B
to the Kyoto Protocol
Source: Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual
On the other hand, leakage happens when some
countries reduce emissions. The change in
comparative advantage will cause other
countries to increase emissions. 35 The leakage
rate is calculated based on the increase of
emissions in other countries divided by the
decrease in the cooperating countries. The rate
could go beyond 100%, or be negative. 36 , 37
Carbon leakage poses a significant challenge to
partial international climate program
participation. Countries committed to the Kyoto
38
Protocol have reduced domestic emissions by
7%. However, it also increased the share of
imported over domestic emissions by 14%.
Therefore, the Kyoto Protocol has had, at best,
no effect on worldwide emissions.39
It is challenging to assess the efficient path for
pricing or to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, considering the scientific
uncertainties, different goals agreement for the
policies, and disagreement on which country
should bear the cost. 40 Meanwhile, climate
change impacts vary from location to people’s
ability to respond. The wealthiest third countries
are having a -1.2 to 6.8% range for damages of
their income, while the most impoverished third
Economy - Wiley Online Library,” accessed March 28, 2019,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9701.2011.01420.x.
36
Mustafa H. Babiker, “Climate Change Policy, Market Structure,
and Carbon Leakage,” Journal of International Economics 65, no.
2 (March 1, 2005): 421–45,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2004.01.003.
37
Niven Winchester and Sebastian Rausch, “A Numerical
Investigation of the Potential for Negative Emissions Leakage,”
American Economic Review 103, no. 3 (May 2013): 320–25,
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.3.320.
38
Rahel Aichele and Gabriel Felbermayr, “Kyoto and Carbon
Leakage: An Empirical Analysis of the Carbon Content of
Bilateral Trade,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 97, no. 1
(January 7, 2014): 104–15,
https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00438.
39
Rahel Aichele and Gabriel Felbermayr, “Kyoto and the Carbon
Footprint of Nations,” Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 63, no. 3 (May 1, 2012): 336–54,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.10.005.
40
Joseph E Aldy et al., “Designing Climate Mitigation Policy,”
Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, June
2009), https://doi.org/10.3386/w15022.
countries are having a 2.0 to 19.6% range by
climate change.41
Globalization complicated the prevention of
climate change. Emissions embodied in trade
are concentrated in several key products, such
as refined petroleum, rolled steel, metals, motor
vehicles, and chemicals. These emissions from
net imports can be significant for many pairs of
the country.42
Net vs. aggregate embodied carbon in bilateral trade
Source: Sato (2014)
In a globalization era, commodities like fossil
fuels and coal are traded around the world. The
Green Paradox that we should bear in mind
indicates that if the carbon taxes increase over
time, it will cause fossil fuel suppliers to lower the
price, move the consumption ahead, and worsen
climate change.43 Therefore, no matter we try to
mitigate global GHG emissions, to apply carbon
tax, to raise tariffs, or to invest in technology, we
must act together so we can minimize the
leakage and the free-rider situation.
Setting a universal price for carbon tax can
provide a collective commitment since each
government will retain the revenue. In contrast,
the quantity target of emissions tends to rely on
individual promises. 44 Research shows that for
41
Hsiang et al., “Estimating Economic Damage from Climate
Change in the United States.”
42
“Product Level Embodied Carbon Flows in Bilateral Trade -
ScienceDirect,” accessed March 30, 2019, https://www-
sciencedirect-
com.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/science/article/pii/S092180091400
1578.
43
Christoph Böhringer, Jared C. Carbone, and Thomas F.
Rutherford, “The Strategic Value of Carbon Tariffs,” American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy 8, no. 1 (2016): 28–51.
44
Martin Weitzman, “On a World Climate Assembly and the
Social Cost of Carbon,” Working Paper (National Bureau of
Economic Research, November 2016),
https://doi.org/10.3386/w22813.
45
Richard G. Newell and William A. Pizer, “Regulating Stock
Externalities under Uncertainty,” Journal of Environmental
addressing climate change, the price-based
instrument generates several times the expected
benefits of a quantity instrument. Therefore,
choosing the price instrument could be better
unless we are close to the threshold.45
A proper calculation of the social cost of carbon
is an important benchmark to determine a
universal carbon tax. The Stern Review used the
social welfare function to identify the optimal
climate policy and suggested that the overall
costs of climate change will be equivalent to
losing 5% GDP annually if we do not act.46
We should also remain the current quantitative
emission mitigation goal since if there is
uncertainty about what the actual costs the
emission control will be, the optimal combination
between the price and quantity instrument
outperformed either the single system along. 47
However, launching the universal carbon tax can
simultaneously address the inequality between
countries, just like the assessment contribution
system used at the United Nations, so that would
give more incentives for the developing countries
to participate. Since it could be very complicated
to calculate the actual past emissions for each
country, we should at least use the current GHG
emissions quantity to calculate the carbon taxes
and use the tax revenue for carbon emission
mitigation and climate adaptation.
We can also find successful cases from the
experiences. The Montreal Protocol successfully
achieved the goal to protect the Ozone Layer that
was agreed by all Member States of the United
Nations in 1989. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol or
Paris Agreement, the Montreal Protocol limited
Economics and Management 45, no. 2, Supplement (March 1,
2003): 416–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00016-5.
46
“The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review,”
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the
Environment (blog), accessed March 5, 2019,
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-
economics-of-climate-change-the-stern-review/.“The Economics
of Climate Change: The Stern Review,” Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (blog), accessed
March 5, 2019,
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-
economics-of-climate-change-the-stern-review/.
47
Marc J. Roberts and Michael Spence, “Effluent Charges and
Licenses under Uncertainty,” Journal of Public Economics 5, no.
3 (April 1, 1976): 193–208, https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-
2727(76)90014-1.
both CFC production and consumption while
banned the trade between the signing countries
and non-signing countries. 48 The International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL) also reached its goal in
preventing pollution by the tankers through
adopting technology standards and prohibiting
other tankers from port entry.49
These global treaties mentioned above give us a
light towards a possible direction that climate
treaties could still be effective through
multilateral cooperation, even though there are
indeed some setbacks for the past twenty years.
For example, President Trump of the US
announced the withdrawal from the Paris
Agreement in 2017. However, multilateral
cooperation is still the right way we should go.
What Can We Really Do
Up until now, nearly 30 years after the
establishment of the UNFCCC, there is no one
can 100% guarantee that we will be able to meet
with the 2°C target at the end of this century, as
IPCC indicated. If we look at the global
temperature, there are still no signs of stabilized
warming.
Source: NASA-GISS
One possible explanation is that the impact of
climate change is not immediate with
uncertainties. Therefore, countries might not be
willing to take immediate action, which leads us
48
“The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone
Layer,” U.S. Department of State, accessed April 28, 2019,
http://www.state.gov/e/oes/eqt/chemicalpollution/83007.htm.
49
“International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL),” accessed April 28, 2019,
http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pa
ges/International-Convention-for-the-Prevention-of-Pollution-
from-Ships-(MARPOL).aspx.
to a prisoner’s dilemma mentioned previously.
Meanwhile, countries do take their domestic
issues, such as economic growth, more seriously
than climate change. Large oil companies could
influence to affect government decisions due to
our current democracy structure. Therefore,
policymakers might not be making the right
decision for the Earth’s long-term sustainability.
During the Paris Agreement negotiation, India
government officials told Al Gore that they do not
support the agreement. The reason was that the
western countries had used the cheap coal
power generation for the past 150 years to bring
their current prosperous, and now it is their time
to use low-cost power for another 150 years to
pull out their people from poverty.50 We can also
experience the multilateral negotiation’s
difficulties from the Security Council meetings
where issues discussed are even more
immediately life-threatening. Yet, we still find the
unrest conflict in Yemen and Syria.
Despite the depressing facts, we can still have
hope. Even though the US federal government
rejects the idea of global warming, states and
cities had shown their support on actions for
climate change, especially when wealthy states
also suffered from the impact of climate change
like California. The Green New Deal, which aims
to address climate change and economic
inequality, was put on the table in 2019.51
1) Link Investments with the Solutions
Even though the R&D investment has increased,
we still need to think about whether the current
level is high enough to reach the goal. 52 The
climate treaties did not put enough focus on the
investment in technologies. Even though the
abatement cost could be high, there are still
many cost-efficient technologies that worth
develop, such as energy efficiency improvement.
Even though several GHG abatement methods
50
“An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power | Movie Site,”
accessed April 28, 2019,
https://inconvenientsequel.tumblr.com/?og=1.
51
Lisa Friedman, “What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate
Proposal, Explained,” The New York Times, March 13, 2019, sec.
Climate, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-
new-deal-questions-answers.html.
52
“RD&D,” accessed March 26, 2019,
https://www.iea.org/statistics/rdd/.
have been identified in the cost curve, collective
actions among governments, companies, and
consumers are still required. Therefore, the
government can pledge a serious commitment to
reduce GHG emissions and bring the
stakeholders together to facilitate the enabling
environment for technology improvement and
policy implementation.53
Source: Global GHG Abetment Cost Curve, McKinsey
We must link the industrial policy with climate
solutions, which including patent protection and
guarantee procurement. Under the Montreal
Protocol, companies invested in newer chemical
materials get a certain period of purchasing
guarantee before switching to another standard.
By doing this, these companies are incentivized
to invest in innovations and developments.
Governments around the world can play an
important role in intellectual property protection
by strengthening the rule of law and
accountability.
Business tycoons like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos
start to invest in cutting edge energy technology
such as nuclear fusion projects with hope to find
sustainable energy. 54 Academic institutions,
governments, and the private sector can
aggressively work together to accelerate the
innovation process for this type of carbon-free
energy source. Alphabet also invested in the
53
“Pathways_lowcarbon_economy_version2.Pdf,” accessed April
28, 2019,
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_serv
ice/sustainability/cost%20curve%20pdfs/pathways_lowcarbon_ec
onomy_version2.ashx.
54
“Nuclear Fusion Financed by Billionaires Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos
- Bloomberg,” accessed April 29, 2019,
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-30/nuclear-
fusion-financed-by-billionaires-bill-gates-jeff-bezos.
55
“Alphabet’s Hot Salt Energy-Storage Project Becomes Its Own
Company,” Engadget, accessed April 29, 2019,
energy-storage project to build up the capacity to
fully utilize the intermittent energy source, such
as wind and solar power.55 These technologies
will play a decisive role in reducing GHG
emissions once they are successfully developed.
On the other hand, direct air capture is already
available technology. Several large carbon
capture and storage plants are being planned,
and we need to invest more resources into its
scalability and efficiency to lower the cost and to
operate in different places.56
Even though global treaties focus on limiting
GHG emissions, we can simultaneously facilitate
the conversation on how the private sector can
work with the governments to bring a useful
technology as soon as possible to transform the
fossil fuel industry. Consequently, we will be able
to reach the goal and prevent the backfire on
economic development. We have to remember
that even the initial investment might be
expensive, once the cost goes below the
marginal cost of the production cost of fossil fuel
and the cost of CO2 abatement, we can bring
down the emissions dramatically.
2) Tackle the GHGs piece by piece
Base on the result from the Montreal Protocol,
with full participation and achievement of
compliance, we have already brought down 8
GtCO2 equivalents per year, compared to the 2
GtCO2 equivalents per year estimated from the
Kyoto Protocol.57 Meanwhile, we can also learn
from Montreal’s mechanism that it has several
amendments to improve the overall CFC
restriction. The progressive method leads to full
participation and that the alignment of industrial
development brings governments to support the
treaty, which might be the best and effective
climate treaty we have so far.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/19/alphabet-malta-energy-
storage-salt-funding/.
56
“Technology Roadmap - Carbon Capture and Storage 2009,”
IEA Webstore, accessed April 29, 2019,
https://webstore.iea.org/technology-roadmap-carbon-capture-and-
storage-2009.
57
Guus J. M. Velders et al., “The Importance of the Montreal
Protocol in Protecting Climate,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 104, no. 12 (March 20, 2007): 4814–19,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610328104.

Source: PNAS (Guus J. M. Velders et al., 2007)
Therefore, we should further think about the
possibility to peel the GHG emissions piece by
piece, not only focus on the CO2 but also other
GHGs. If we can duplicate the success of the
Montreal Protocol to one of another GHGs, it
could lead to a convincing result.
3) Attracting Full Participation
Getting broader participation is crucial. If we only
have partial treaty participation, there will always
be leakage. The estimated leakage rate from
Kyoto action is around 5 to 20%, which is mainly
affected by the energy price. 58 The UNFCCC
only calculates the emissions from the goods
and service production within a territory.59 The
consumption-based calculation is different from
production-based inventories since imports and
exports of goods and services also involve CO2
emissions.60 Around 10% of products account for
70% of emissions in trade (EET) on a global level.
China’s net exports account for 23% of
emissions produced, while 20-50% of
consumption emissions in Western Europe are
due to its net imports.61
Countries usually act in the best interest of
themselves. Meanwhile, the ability to adapt to
climate change impact is unequal among
developed and developing countries. The
collective action to reduce admission could also
be limited due to the possible free riders. 62
Therefore, we can set a moderate and
achievable target initially to draw high
participation, just as the Climate Club concept
suggested, and then improve the target like as
58
Terry Barker et al., “This Summary for Policymakers Was
Formally Approved at the 9th Session of Working Group III of
the IPCC, Bangkok, Thailand. 30 April - 4 May 2007,” n.d., 24.
59
“2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories — IPCC,” accessed March 30, 2019,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-
greenhouse-gas-inventories/.
60
Steven J. Davis and Ken Caldeira, “Consumption-Based
Accounting of CO2 Emissions,” Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 107, no. 12 (March 23, 2010): 5687–92,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906974107.
Montreal Protocol did. Through this approach,
we might be able to get closer to the climate
target.
By forming a Climate Club with a regime with
small trade penalties to non-participants, it can
possibly induce a broad stable coalition.63
Number of Participating Regions by International Target Carbon Price and
Tariff Rate
Source: Nordhaus (2015)
4) Clearly Define the Threshold in the Treaty
Scientists suggested that if the CO2
concentration is higher than 450 ppm and long
maintained, it would push the earth to an ice-free
state. Therefore, a 350 ppm CO2 concentration
was suggested to avoid possible risks. 64
However, we should simultaneously examine the
concentration of CO2 and other GHGs to define
a goal through the calculation of CO2 equivalent
since CO2 is not the only GHG that contributes to
the radiative forcing.
Even though we may not be able to have 100%
confidence in the threshold, we can still narrow
down each of the suggested thresholds for the
GHGs. During an experiment, the participants
were asked to decide how many chips they want
to contribute in order to avoid a catastrophic
threshold and reach a collective goal. Climate
negotiation is very similar to this experimental
simulation. When a threshold uncertainty
becomes higher, the gap between what people
61
“Product Level Embodied Carbon Flows in Bilateral Trade -
ScienceDirect.”
62
Barrett, “Solar Geoengineering’s Brave New World.”
63
William Nordhaus, “Climate Clubs: Overcoming Free-Riding in
International Climate Policy,” American Economic Review 105,
no. 4 (April 2015): 1339–70,
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.15000001.
64
Johan Rockström et al., “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the
Safe Operating Space for Humanity,” Ecology and Society 14, no.
2 (2009), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232.
should contribute (proposal), what people
committed to contributing (pledge), and what
people actually contribute (contribution) is a lot
bigger than when the threshold uncertainty is
under the dividing line. From the result, we know
that the sensitivity of people’s behavior is very
high around the dividing line.65 Therefore, if we
want to avoid the GHGs concertation to overpass
the dangerous threshold, such as the “tipping
point” of climate, the science community can try
the best to minimize the threshold uncertainty, so
that countries could have the best participation
and compliance in climate treaties.
Treatment means versus predicted values
Source: Nature Climate Change (Barrett, Dannenberg, 2014)
5) Reinforcing What We Already Have
The Paris Agreement allowed the participant
countries to determine their own Intended
Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs),
which means everyone can decide their own CO2
emission target. Although there was no such a
robust enforcement mechanism, it is estimated
that the Agreement will lead to a 12% emission
reduction in 2030.66
Source: UNFCCC
However, this tentative progress might still not be
enough to reach zero-emission in 2050. What we
can do more is to ensure a better outcome from
65
Barrett and Dannenberg, “Sensitivity of Collective Action to
Uncertainty about Climate Tipping Points.”
66
“Synthesis Report on the Aggregate Effect of INDCs |
UNFCCC,” accessed April 29, 2019,
the INDCs, such as strengthening the review
mechanism to increase countries’ commitment
and actual effort. Another simulation experiment
suggests that for a group of people to go through
a process, which includes rounds of making
public pledges, contributing, and reviews. The
result indicates that by having a review
mechanism, people are willing a set a higher
target that accompanies higher pledges and
higher actual contributions.
Group averages for targets, pledges, and contributions by treatment
Source: Barrett, S. & Dannenberg, A. Climatic Change (2016)
Conclusion
Scientists and economists have been working on
climate change issues for decades. Even though
we are not exactly sure what would be the
catastrophic threshold, nor we can control and
temperature, we do know what direction we
should head to for the best possible achievement.
Looking back at the history of climate
negotiations from the Toronto Conference in
1988 to the Paris Agreement in 2015, a rapid
upward trend of CO2 emission still exists, and
that has reached over 400 ppm. Although we do
not know whether, without the negotiations, it
would lead to a worse scenario or not, we can
only know that we might not have done enough.
https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/nationally-
determined-contributions/synthesis-report-on-the-aggregate-
effect-of-intended-nationally-determined-contributions.
Source: Mauna Loa Observatory

Despite the foreseeable negotiations will

continue, and the optimism about technology
breakthrough, there are two things we can do.
The first one is to provide better climate
education for the public and our next generation.
The second one is to vote for the right politicians.
Bringing more awareness of climate change to
the public could help them vote for a better
candidate, no matter it is the President, Governor,
Mayor, or Congressman. Decent policymakers
will have a better chance of rejecting the
lobbyists from large enterprises and make the
right decision for the sustainable development of
their own nation and the whole world. Eventually,
we are not dealing with the fact of climate change
but about humanity.