The climate change conference seems to have come up with an outcome that pleases nobody. Looking at it from a project management view, what was the problem?
Before any project starts, there should be clear and agreed goals. I doubt there were any clear and agreed goals before the Copenhagen Climate Conference started. Some countries had goals of reducing carbon levels whereas others had goals of using climate change to gain investment in their countries. Some wanted to avoid their countries disappearing under rising sea levels and others wanted to protect their country’s industry. There were probably those who believed that nothing needed to be done as CO2 was not the major cause of global warming. In all, too mixed a bag of goals to ever get agreement.
It is fine to be negative, but how do you find a solution?
First get agreement to the problem. A conference that agreed there was a problem, and we were all contributing would be a good start. Next move on to potential solutions. Not what someone else can do but what my country can do. Each solution needs to be defined in terms of costs and benefits. By ranking the solutions for each country, we can see what is possible with a minimum of cost. They can be implemented without a conference although some might need a bit of prodding to come up with some solutions.
Given each country now has a list of actions ranked by increasing cost, we have a basis for horse trading. If China will do this, America will do that. If Europe will spend this amount of money, Australia will spend a certain amount.
There will be common costs that can be neutralised by everyone (or at least some countries) taking similar actions. For example, if country A puts a tax on a certain industry, the world will buy from their main competitor – country B. If both A and B apply the same tax, the market share will not change due to price disadvantage.
Much of the climate change debate at governmental level is about appearances. To be seen to be doing something is sometimes more important than actually doing it. What is needed is a mechanism that recognises that fact, and makes governments do things that will contribute to the solution while keeping up appearances. In other words, if they don’t contribute they look bad to their own country as well as other countries.
Any project manager will recognise the creation of situations where people are forced to contribute. Once the problem is agreed, the activity moves to getting solutions on the table, doing a cost benefit analysis of the solutions, and implementing the most appropriate one. The trick is to get everyone behind the agreed solution. Make them part of the team first, then use that peer pressure to force them into action. Force them to come up with their own solutions then work as a team to ensure they implement the solution.
The other key project management problem is no clear roles and responsibilities. Imagine if everyone in a project had an equal say in the management? It would be chaos. There seems to be an assumption that a government is responsible for not only the land and any surrounding sea within agreed distances. They are also responsible for the air over their land. Is each country responsible for their air or is the atmosphere not the responsibility of the country? If not, who is responsible? I don’t have an answer, but it is a question that needs debate before a solution can be created.
One school of thought seems to be that if you put pollution in the atmosphere you are responsible. Another seems to be that richer countries are somehow more responsible than poor countries. Another is that the providers of pollutants (e.g. Coal, Oil and Gas providers) are responsible. The problem will never be resolved while there is disagreement about the responsibilities.
On another level, there is no clear role and responsibilities for the management of any agreed solutions. The countries that would not allow UN monitoring obviously believe they are responsible whereas the other side believe the UN is responsible.
Until basic project management processes are applied, climate change will never be solved. Get the fundamentals sorted out, then you can make progress on the project. Get agreement on the problem you are trying to solve. Get agreement on roles and responsibilities. Develop options for solutions. Create teams with common goasl rather than individuals with vested interests. Measure progress. If this can happen – and it is certainly not easy – you have a hope of addressing climate change.
