Greenhouse gas emissions: 'Another year, another record...'

I've long inveighed against the targeting of greenhouse gases as if they are the sole source of the climate change problem. That they might be, but (1) identifying which gases influence the climate and how much they do so,  cannot be done with sufficient rigour on which to a reduction policy; and (2) greenhouse gases, at best, are a means to an end, and we'd do better to define the ends that we want to achieve, and target them more directly, rather than assume that our fossilised science can tell us how best to do so. But even in its own terms, our blinkered focus on greenhouse gases is a failure: 

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere rose to record highs in 2025, locking in climate impacts that will persist for centuries, the United Nations said on Tuesday. Levels of the three main greenhouse gases -- the climate-warming carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide -- all rose to unprecedented figures in 2025, the U.N.'s weather and climate agency said. The World Meteorological Organization said the rise would lead to more long-term temperature increases for the planet. ... "Another year, another new record," said WMO Deputy Secretary-General Ko Barrett. Greenhouse gas levels set records in 2025, U.N. says, expressing alarm, CBS News, 27 October 2026

Instead of targeting what might or might not be the cause of what might or might not be anthropogenic climate change, why not target exactly what we want to achieve? It should be an array of ranges within which physical, biological, social and financial indicators must fall, for a sustained period. We could aim for relative and sustained stability in those indicators that are important to plant, animal and human life. A Climate Stability Bond regime would do this, regardless of what we currently think is driving the climate. There are just too many uncertainties over the causes of climate change to make policy based solely on what we think are those causes. The conventional approach, which looks for root causes before doing anything significant, isn't working, and cannot work when our knowledge of such causes is expanding rapidly. Climate Stability Bonds, as well as being versatile in the range of variables that they target, would reward people who achieve our goals, whoever they are and however they do so. Bondholders would do the work of identifying the causes and effects of climate change on a continuous basis. They would research, explore and implement those measures that will achieve the best return on our scarce resources. They will, very probably, implement a very broad range of measures on a diverse, adaptive basis: something that no government or supra-national body can do. 

There are things that governments can do well. Indeed, there are things that only governments can do at all. These usually are areas in which causal relationships are clear and stable, and the benefits of an established approach are large and unchallenged. None of these conditions apply to climate change. The results are plain: governments should contract out the achievement of climate stability to people who are continually motivated to find out the most efficient ways of achieving it. It's a long-term, urgent problem that needs solutions beyond the competence of governments to achieve - as the evidence clearly shows. It's time for a different approach.