HAKAN ALTINAY Climate change is one of the most difficult challenges that humanity has faced. In order to have any chance to contain this problem, even with potentially civilisation- and geography-changing prospects, we need to alter our consumption patterns and possibly our way of life. But the pleasure from todays choices and the painful consequences of those choices are separated by a 30-year lag. People are asked to forgo the convenience of driving gas-guzzling cars and of taking exotic vacations at faraway places in anticipation of violent weather, warmer temperatures and rising seas happening in several decades. The fact that roughly one-third of adults around the world still smoke, despite dire warnings about severe health consequences, are a good indication about peoples ability to discount todays pleasures in anticipation of future costs. In the case of smoking, both pleasure and pain are by and large personal. In the case of global warming, however, forgone pleasure is personal, but the costs are universal and disrupt life for future generations. We are asked to forgo personal pleasure for the goal of preventing pain for people we likely will never meet. Sacrifice is required of all nations, and the temptation to cheat will be fierce. On top of all this, the costs of changing habits are significant. We managed to pull off a similar collective action problem, ozone depletion, mainly because the necessary technological changes did not involve dramatic costs. In the case of fossil fuels, hydrocarbons are much more ubiquitous than chlorofluorocarbons, and the current costs of hydrocarbons are significantly less than their actual costs to environment. Therefore, a low carbon future is a much bigger challenge. The fundamentals are disturbing: The globe already emits more greenhouse gases than are sustainable. If we do not find a way to curb global emissions, we may start a chain reaction where the Siberian permafrost releases methane and we lose ability to contain climate change at tolerable levels. Whether random or desperate, our leaders decided that capping temperature increase at two degrees Celsius is the appropriate point between whats ideal and whats feasible. The global scientific community informs us that we already emit more than 40 gigatons of greenhouse gases, and if leaders are serious about the two-degree Celsius target, those emissions must come down to 20 gigatons in 40 years. How to divide that limited capacity of 20 gigatons among a growing population that demands more comforts is the tricky issue. Can there be a simple, universally acceptable rule of thumb that can guide such burden-sharing? Doing unto others, as we would want them do onto us, has been the most resilient benchmark of decent conduct in human history. Philosopher John Rawls gave us the most recent and creative methodology to apply this maxim. Rawls proposes that we agree upon the organising principles for a society, in an initial position of equality, behind a veil of ignorance, which would keep any individuals or nations from knowing their position in society or their fortune in the distribution of assets and abilities. If nations were to apply the Rawlsian formula, a logical agreement arranged behind the veil of ignorance would be to distribute the safe level of greenhouse gases equally among all residents of our planet. This would require radical changes, and there could be a grace period of 10 years. Those wanting to emit more than their fair share after the grace period could do so only after establishing a sustainable, verifiable and measurable sequestering scheme or after receiving emission credits from others. Advanced societies could acquire emission credits through the provision of clean production, mitigation and adoption technologies to others, but the basic rule could not be negotiated. This may seem farfetched in some powerful and intransigent corners of the world. But German Chancellor Merkel has stated clearly that every individual in the world is entitled to emit the same volume of carbon dioxide, and solution to climate change must be based on that fundamental maxim. We may or may not achieve the equal per capita emissions maxim in the next few years, but this is the only maxim that has enough moral and popular gravitas to harness necessary global consensus. There are plenty of selfish, arbitrary, even barbaric reasons to oppose this maxim. But there is no globally legitimate and accepted reason. Anyone who opposes this maxim risks being branded as pariah for centuries. Khaleej Times