A Blueprint to End Paralysis Over Global Action on Climate by Timothy E. Wirth and Thomas A. Daschle

Former U.S. Senators Tim Wirth and Tom Daschle have written a thoughtful, valuable piece for YaleE360 titled A Blueprint to End Paralysis Over Global Action on Climate. It ought to be read by heads of state ahead of the Climate Summit in New York City slated for September 2014, and by delegates to the upcoming international climate talks in Lima, Peru in December 2014 and Paris in December 2015. The authors make a compelling argument that a change in focus from burden sharing to incentivizing a "race to the top" in low-carbon energy solutions and eco-efficiencies might well produce a change in psychology conducive to achieving an agreement.

Notably absent from the article, however, is any mention of nuclear energy as one of those low-carbon energy solutions. Given the magnitude and duration of the projected impacts of climate change, ought we not weigh the benefits and risks of nuclear energy in the calculus of determining which decarbonisation pathways we might pursue? Would not a risk-risk analysis of nuclear energy versus global warming be warranted? As a graduate student I learned from then-Director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Professor John D. Graham, a thorough consideration of risk management policy options entails analyzing risk versus risk.

I also would note, the "pledge and review" approach the authors describe should be guided by the global carbon budget--how much oil, coal and gas could still "safely" be burned. Scientists calculate no more than about 565 gigatons of CO2 can be emitted if we have any reasonable hope of not exceeding 2 degrees C of warming.

I look forward to seeing whether and to what extent the authors' blueprint shapes the upcoming climate discussions in New York City, Lima, and Paris.