If the governments of the world were all big businesses, and they had sent their Chairmen and CEO’s (read world leaders) to a major conference and got a result like that, then shareholder pressure (read voters) – would have forced them out by now – so the fact that there was hardly a clamour from the electorate (us) smacks of political indifference, and we should all be looking at ourselves a tiny bit.

I like your problem solving approach, and I agree with Marcus above that this should be bought down to the domestic political level as well. I do think though that even getting the countries you mentioned ( EU, Australia, etc) together initially could be problematic, simply because it would take too long and there would still be that element of negotiation involved, no matter how much they all trust each other. There is also the fact that going down this route will ultimately involve a significant change of lifestyle for a lot of people, and are governments prepared to do that? (after all, they only get elected on 5 yr mandates).

So to begin with, just a handful of countries – the ones prepared to ‘man up’ will have to lead the way. It doesn’t have to be 45%, just a few major players on the world stage. These countries have to start severely changing the way things are done in their own country – laws banning energy hungry products, major tax breaks on green activities, major taxes imposed on carbon heavy, etc. I’d get solar panels fitted on my house tomorrow if they were 90% subsidised by the government, and I’d never drive again if car fuel prices were to increase year on year by 25%.

These countries could also partner up individually with poorer developing countries – 1 of the unresolved problems of Copenhagen was the fact that the developing countries wanted money diverted to them to help solve the problem created by the developed countries, and this is one potential way of starting to solve that problem. A specific country (eg GB) could partner up and take responsibility for scientific help, environmental knowhow, low-carbon growth and development for 1, possibly 2, poorer countries (eg Angola). Top-of-my-head example could be wind farms. As GB gathers experience and expertise on the offshore wind farms it recently announced it is building, this could be passed on, and financial help given – for no direct gain back – to Angola to set up their own offshore wind farms.

Hopefully this would create a domino effect, as the developed countries of the world teamed up with the developing countries of the world – and all of a sudden you would have that 45% threshold, and an economic critical mass to jumpstart the rest.

Maybe this is too optimistic, or maybe I’m being pessimistic that the countries Dan suggested wouldn’t get together, but you have to hope something can be done by someone….

A more pragmatic approach along the lines suggested seems to make more sense.

i). Energy security
ii). Political security
iii). Economic prosperity

The motivating factor for a lot of developed nations in promoting a ‘climate treaty’ is to:

a) Bolster flailing post-industrial economies with new technologies (and accompanying services), their industrial and academic infrastructure being geared towards knowledge-based recovery, and needing to feed off growing domestic demand in Asia.

b) Improve their own energy security to rapidly reduce reliance on hydro-carbons, many of the largest deposits of which now lie outside post-colonial Europe’s sphere of influence in a belt principally stretching across what might be called the Near, Middle and Far East.

I feel the distinction between negotiation and problem solving to be incredibly important. It should be extended to domestic politics also.

Additionally, I am glad you challenged the assumption that global warming requires a ‘global solution’. It’s certainly one that needs to be questioned and discussed.

As for the post above, I am glad you allowed it to be published. Its tone and the points it makes illustrate perfectly the depth of most climate deniers’ views. On a similar note, I also find it interesting that nearly all the climate skeptics I’ve met tend to be very right wing and libertarian. This leads me to make the accusation that their belief in small government forces them to deny climate change, because if they were to believe it, they would then have to consider more Government intervention. Their denial, then, is not based on the facts, but rather a protection of an ideology.