Mexico has a huge opportunity as host to the next Conference of the Parties  (COP 16) climate conference to be held in Mexico City from Nov. 29-Dec. 10, 2010 to establish itself as a global leader in environmental protection. It must however, look to the disappointing outcome in Copenhagen and insist on a different strategy and organization that will produce practical near term benefits for coastal dwellers and island residents, Arctic peoples, indigenous forest dwellers, and residents of rural villages and air pollution choked cities.

Few countries have a better –and generally well deserved- reputation for orderliness and rationality than Denmark whose energy systems are perhaps unmatched in this world.  A half century ago, when Dwight Eisenhower was President of the United States, the overall efficiency of the fossil electric power system in both Denmark and the US was roughly 33%. Having virtually no domestic fossil fuel resources, Denmark successfully transitioned to generate half of its electricity from energy recycling (cogeneration) and nearly a quarter from wind power. Today US fossil electric efficiency, hampered by archaic regulations imbedded in state law, remains stuck at 33% while Denmark’s efficiency has doubled. Denmark has leveraged its investments in wind to become the leading exporter of wind turbines.
Yet despite heroic efforts to make COP15 a success and their stellar environmental record the Danes by all accounts suffered a real black eye internationally from the spectacle that unfolded in their capital.

The Copenhagen Accord that emerged, a face saving device cobbled together by the US, Brazil, India, China and South Africa and begrudgingly accepted by most others, may have underscored the foresight of Moises Naim, Editor of Foreign Policy magazine, in his editorial in the July-August 2009 issue entitled “ Minilateralism”.

Naim’s Foreign Policy opinion piece argues that agreements between a relative handful of nations with a committed stake in producing a globally significant result may be much more effective than lowest common denominator agreements, such as that which was attempted in Copenhagen. These lowest common denominator agreements typically try to  involve nearly 200 nation states in achieving lasting results in areas such as the global environment or international economy.

The spectacle of authoritarian rulers who have suppressed opposition voices in their own nations complaining of a lack of transparency at
COP15 may have been fodder for comedians but did nothing to achieve practical results. Likewise the loose throwing around of huge possible development aid numbers a decade hence had a similar air of uncertainty, especially when few of the leaders of these rich countries expect to be in office when the money falls due.

COP 15 showed the limitation of efforts to wrap an agreement in a single treaty that simply became a lightning rod for irreconcilable concerns and attracted tens of thousands of participants and observers. The sheer logistics of managing such an effort and the sharp differences between various interests virtually guaranteed the disappointing result.

Mexico, having opted to be host a year hence, should insist on breaking the negotiations into digestible pieces and in organizing the conference so key meetings happen in numerous distinct locations across Mexico City with most key meetings being accessible through video links by hundreds of thousands around the world. Some meetings for example, might focus on island state or coastal dweller concerns, some on forests, others on energy services.

Rather than relying on a single treaty as a sequel to the Kyoto Protocol the Framework Convention Secretariat might look toward achieving climate protection objectives through multiple means-amendment of the Montreal Protocol, negotiation of an agreement to protect forests and provide sizable sums to encourage both preservation and new forest planting, and a series of separate agreements on topics such as massive deployment of clean cook stoves to reduce black carbon emissions and deaths from indoor air pollution, large-scale use of bio-char for agricultural benefit and carbon storage in the soil, and storm surge and coastal vulnerability mapping for island states and vulnerable deltaic nations. Some of these agreements might involve a number of countries, multilateral financing institutions, corporations or foundations. Some might be achieved much the way Former President Clinton has achieved partnerships through the Clinton Global Initiative; interestingly Mexico City has for several years been a major focus of his group’s climate work.

It is a little known fact that actions taken under the Montreal Protocol to protect the stratospheric ozone layer are likely from 1990 to 2010 to have an effect in reducing radiative forcing that drives climate change roughly four times as much as the climate benefit produced by all the Kyoto Protocol reductions anticipated during the First Budget Period (2008-2012). Velders, Andersen, Daniel, Fahey and McFarland who calculate this, also suggest a number of doable initiatives under the Montreal Protocol that, if taken soon, might achieve by 2015 not only stratospheric ozone protection, but a further reduction in radiative forcing of about the same amount as all actions taken during the First Kyoto Budget Period.

Just as win -win reductions with very beneficial climate consequences are achievable through the Montreal Protocol, very positive near term climate benefits are achievable through a transformation of the traditional cook stove culture across the planet. Annually almost two million deaths, largely women and children, are linked to indoor air pollution from cook stoves. Black carbon emissions from these stoves produce slightly more radiative forcing than all the cars and light trucks on Earth.  At roughly $25 per stove it would be possible to achieve reductions of about 80% in each of the roughly 780 million such stoves on the planet. An act of simple humanity that could save in excess of ten million lives over the next decade would at about two billion dollars a year also likely be the most effective action we could take over the next decade to limit climate change. Although this could be integrated into an emissions protocol, such an initiative could begin right away with much of the initial funding from private philanthropy.

There is another fortuitous aspect to Mexico’s hosting COP16; well before delegates arrive Mexico will have the world’s first National Interactive Climate Awareness and Response Network. The inspiration of a brilliant young Mexican scientist, Luis Roberto Acosta, this will link the world’s highest climate observatory with a series of climate theaters, the climate equivalent of a planetarium, in Mexico City, Puebla, Cuernavaca., and Cancun, and by 2012 in another ten cities.
The ultimate objective is to inspire a significant portion of visitors to these theaters in museums and educational parks to become climate problem solvers using online tools.  Already there is interest in the Philippines, Central America and the US in participating in such a system. Such an Interactive Network by empowering millions to become problem solvers-reducing home energy use, planning tree planting projects for their villages, designing emergency preparedness plans for their villages, etc.- can increase by an order of magnitude the number of individuals actively engaged in designing climate solutions.
Humanity’s success in meeting the climate challenge will likely depend much more on this mass engagement of brainpower than on even the best conceived climate treaties or agreements.

John Topping Jr. is a columnist for Cleantech Asia Online and President of the Washington, DC based Climate Institute