Call it the Obama effect or a last minute face saving tactic but the Obama Administration made it clear that it is willing to include national mitigation measures announced by the advanced developing countries in the international climate treaty to be discussed at Copenhagen next month.

In a joint statement the US and Chinese officials announced that the new climate treaty should be based on ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. This is the first time that the United States has agreed for different climate goals for developed and developing countries.

[B]oth sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.

During the Bangkok round of negotiations the US and EU negotiators raised objections to the principles agreed upon in the Kyoto Protocol and Bali Climate Convention which said that there will be clear distinction between the mitigation measures of developing and developed countries. It was surprising to see US, EU raise objections to the Bali agreement as it was unanimous. But the move could be explained as a diversion tactic by the US as it was under pressure to give solid numbers regarding emission reductions.

The Obama Administration officials have made it clear that a final climate treaty can only be reached in 2010. The possibility of an official agreement was already bleak given the US Congress’ failure to approve the climate change bill which includes emission reduction targets along with carbon trading mechanisms. Commitments from the US are crucial for the climate treaty as it failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

President Obama said that the new climate treaty must be an effective one which could produce quick and positive results. Although the chances of a final deal at Copenhagen are bleak it’s good to see that the developed and developing countries working to reach on an agreement on the principles of the climate treaty.

Former chief economist of the World Bank Nicolas Stern proposed a logical approach to distribute the responsibilities among developed and developing countries. According to the proposal, developed countries would take up mandatory emission targets probably in line with the IPCC recommendations (25-40 percent reduction by 2020) while the developing countries would reduce their carbon emissions through various mitigation measures which will be set up according to their own discretion.

China has announced 15% renewable energy target for 2020 and improving energy efficiency and energy intensity. China can announce sectoral emission targets during the Copenhagen meet. India’s Parliament will be debating an energy efficiency bill the month which will set stringent usage limits on various industries. Brazil has announced 40 percent emission reduction target by 2020, half of which will be achieved through forest conservation. South Korea has announced 30 percent emission reduction plan by 2020. South Africa and Indonesia are also planning to take up national emission reduction targets.

The issue now is accountability and monitoring. An efficient mechanism for reporting the progress and results of the mitigation measures must be a part of the climate treaty. The developed and developing countries must also agree on the issue of technology transfer and financing. The financing issue is closely integrated with the mitigation measures of developing countries as a major portion of these emission reduction will be financed by either direct aid or through carbon offset mechanisms.

These initiatives are more than welcome as they would not only push the developed countries to take up even more ambitious targets but would mean that the after the commitment period of the proposed climate treaty the developing countries will be be in an even better position to reduce their carbon emissions.

Move over CO2—you’ve been ousted, along with methane, as the biggest offenders of global climate change. According to a new a study by Purdue University and NASA, the major chemicals most frequently cited as leading to climate change, namely carbon dioxide and methane, are actually outclassed in their warming potential by compounds receiving less attention. The majority of “greenhouse gases” are created by humans.

The results were discovered when researchers studied more than a dozen chemicals, or greenhouse gases as classified by their warming properties defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. From there, the team developed a blueprint for the underlying molecular machinery of global warming. The results appeared in the November 12, 2009 issue of the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Physical Chemistry, just in time for the convergence of world leaders in Copenhagen.

Maybe more amazing than the fact that we now have a global warming blueprint is that no one else has ever before mapped climate change; yet the U.S. is in the midst of passing global climate change policy. The original hope was to have legislation in place prior to Copenhagen but in the spirit of American politics, Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on one policy—the Republicans are supporting the Waxman-Markey Bill and the Democrats are pushing the Kerry-Boxer Bill.

The Purdue/NASA study combined results from experimental observations along with computer modeling. The goal of the project was to determine which chemical and physical properties are most detrimental in causing global warming.

It turns out that the compounds, which contain fluorine atoms, are far more efficient at blocking radiation in the “atmospheric window,” according to Purdue chemistry and earth and atmospheric sciences professor Joseph Francisco, a study co-author. NASA scientist Timothy Lee was lead author of the study with Francisco and NASA postdoctoral fellow Partha Bera.

Francisco explains that the atmospheric window is the frequency in the infrared region through which radiation from Earth is released into space, helping to cool the planet. When the heat is trapped rather than released, a “greenhouse effect” occurs, and the planet becomes warmer. The majority of the chemicals that cause heat to be trapped are used by industries worldwide.

Based on the ability to trap radiation in the atmospheric window, chemicals such as sulfur and nitrogen flourides, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) stand out. Chemicals like CO2, while harmful, don’t close the atmospheric window as quickly as these other compounds making them more dangerous.

“It’s actually rather stark,” said Francisco, “but an understanding of how the chemicals contribute to climate change on a molecular scale affords the opportunity to create benign alternatives and to test new chemicals for their global warming capability before they go to market.”

“Now you have a rational design basis,” he said.

Not sure what some of these are? Stop using aerosol cans. CFC use has decreased with the discovery that they lead to the destruction of the ozone layer. However, HFCs and PFCs are widely used in air conditioning and in the manufacturing of carpets, appliances and electronics.

The study notes that, “Although current concentrations of some of these trace gases have been found to be substantially small compared to carbon dioxide, their concentration is on the rise. With the current rate of increase, they will be important contributors in the future, according to some models.”

So CO2 and methane are not in fact the worst chemicals, but fluorine-containing compounds are actually the worst. In addition, according to Lee, “The compounds also persist longer than carbon dioxide and other major global warming agents. The concern is that, even if emitted into the atmosphere in lower quantities, the chemicals might have a powerful cumulative effect over time. Some of these chemicals don’t break down for thousands of years.”

Well I sure hope that the auto industry is working in tandem with technology companies to replace these chemicals because I’d really like to keep my air conditioning… and car stereo… and TV…