And because methane is a much shorter lived gas than CO2, we can prevent some of the worst of short term warming through its mitigation.

Such taxes play a crucial role in cutting the carbon emissions that cause climate change.

And, unlike carbon cuts, this is a solution that developing countries would be likely to embrace.

Just before the meeting, China announced a substantial cut in the increase, although not the level, of its emissions.

This makes the cost of reducing carbon emissions much larger than it needs to be.

COPENHAGEN A sense of panic is setting in among many campaigners for drastic cuts in global carbon emissions.

How, then, can we sustain worldwide economic progress while cutting back sharply on carbon emissions?

Some argue that the choice between spending money on carbon cuts and on direct policies is unfair. But it is a basic fact that no dollar can be spent twice.

No realistic effort to combat global warming by cutting carbon emissions can ignore this fundamental constraint.

As an extra bonus, the higher US proportion of gas use has reduced US carbon emissions to 1992 levels.

Furthermore, given that deforestation accounts for as much as 20 of the emission problem, carbon storage is as important as carbon cuts.

Consider California, which at the beginning of this year launched a cap and trade system that aims to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

We should be open to other ways to stop warming such as cutting carbon emissions in the future instead of now, or focusing on reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases.

In that case, governments will try to cut carbon emissions through taxes and trading schemes without effective replacements.

30. Mitigation of carbon emissions to reduce global warming

Global warming will create significant problems, so carbon reductions offer significant benefits. Cutting carbon emissions, however, requires a reduction in the basic energy use that underpins modern society, so it will also mean significant costs.

The prominent climate economist Professor Richard Tol of Hamburg University has analyzed the benefits and costs of cutting carbon now versus cutting it in the future.

Moreover, although politicians focus nearly exclusively on cutting carbon emissions, CO2 is not the only gas causing warming. The second biggest culprit is methane.

With this as our starting point, it is clear that a narrow focus on short term carbon emission cuts is flawed.

Why Cutting Carbon Emissions is not Enough

Estimation of emission reduction Some Parties included an assessment of the impacts of measures on GHG emissions.

This flies in the face of conventional thinking, which continues to claim that mandating carbon reductions through cap and trade or a carbon tax is the only way to combat climate change.

The threat of more malaria has been used to argue for drastic carbon cuts.

The only trend that changed was carbon emissions, which fell.

Such efforts should promptly translate into legislative changes in areas ranging from insolvency to patents, from CO2 emission reduction schemes to smart electricity grids.

Droughts and heat waves are a harbinger of our future, carbon cuts are needed now more than ever, and yet meaningful policies have not been enacted.

While global warming is a serious challenge (and will exacerbate other problems), cutting carbon emissions is a poor solution and a poor use of funds compared to the alternatives.

Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions, but it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.

And, because it would be cheaper and easier than carbon cuts, there would be a much greater chance of reaching a genuine, broad based and thus successful international agreement.

The returns such projects could generate go beyond addressing carbon emissions.

Their contribution to total emissions will rise accordingly.

There are two basic instruments to reduce carbon emissions and thus mitigate global warming.

The so called emissions trading system aims to control carbon emissions by allocating tradable permits.

Québec and São Paolo, to cite just two examples, are aiming for cuts of 20 below 1990 levels by 2020.

Consider the frightening, absurd fact that the research relied on to advance the cause of carbon cuts uses economic models that simply assume that technological breakthroughs will happen by themselves.

Taking the massive over allocation of carbon emission permits out of the ETS will be vital.

The US also is set to become energy independent, owing to the rise of shale oil and gas, with diminishing reliance on coal already bringing down per capita carbon emissions.

Put another way, for each person saved from malaria by cutting CO2 emissions, direct malaria policies could have saved 36,000.

There is a significant delay between carbon cuts and any temperature drop even halving global emissions by mid century would barely be measurable by the end of the century.

From 1996 to 2009, the shift to biotech crops reduced carbon emissions by 17.6 billion kilograms, the equivalent of removing 7.8 million cars from the road for a year.

Japan has published its proposals for major carbon reductions.

Capping emissions means, effectively, ending this success story for hundreds of millions of people.

There is just one factor that keeps increasing our carbon emissions. It is not at all obvious to anybody how to convert CO2 to area.

Europe needs fiscal consolidation, reductions in carbon emissions, and a strategy for economic growth.

But energy consumption and thus carbon emissions rise with per capita income.