Changes

During the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign, [[Barack Obama]] pledge to "re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) -- the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem." Obama and his running mate, [[Joe Biden]], stated that they would "also create a [[Global Energy Forum]] of the world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues." They also pledge to implement a domestic "[[Cap-and-trade|cap-and-trade]] program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050" with "all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families."<ref>Obama-Biden campaign,[http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#emissions "New Energy for America"], Obama-Biden campaign website, accessed November 2008.</ref> (See [[Barack Obama statements on a post-Kyoto global warming agreement]]. After his November 2008 election win, Obama signalled his intention to ensure a new agreement is reached at Copenhagen and has pursued negotiations in parallel via the [[Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate]]. (See also [[Barack Obama statements on global warming]]).

Already leading players in the negotiations are considering the prospect that no agreement is reached at COP15 or immediately afterwards. In September 2008 the main climate change adviser to the Australian government, Professor [[Ross Garnaut]], outlined the results of three scenarios his team had modelled. The first was for an international agreement which aimed to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 550 parts per million, which was Garnaut's preferred option. The second scenario was what he dubbed the '[[Copenhagen Compromise]]' in which "binding commitments to quantitative reductions in emissions only by developed and transitional economies, plus perhaps some other high-income countries" are agreed to. While stating this was a "likely minimum outcome" from the process "over the next few years," Garnaut argued that it would at least "place developed countries on the track toward decarbonisation. By demonstrating that decarbonisation is indeed compatible with prosperity and continued growth, it would keep alive the possibility of later, comprehensive, if delayed, global action."<ref>Ross Garnaut, [http://www.garnautreport.org.au/ "Targets and trajectories: Supplementary Draft Report"], Garnaut Climate Change Review, September 2008, pages 14-15.</ref> The third scenario was what he referred to as the 'Waiting Game' scenario in which the Copenhagen meeting "fails completely to achieve an international agreement with binding commitments at least from developed countries." In this scenario, countries would operate limited domestic emission reduction strategies but would cut off from the possibility of buying or selling emission reduction credits via an international [[emissions trading]] scheme.<ref>Ross Garnaut, [http://www.garnautreport.org.au/ "Targets and trajectories: Supplementary Draft Report"], Garnaut Climate Change Review, September 2008, pages 42.</ref>