Tackle the source of the problem - fossil fuels

The burning of fossil fuels accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. Currently effort is focused on trying to reduce demand for these, so far with little success. However, rather than reduce demand, limiting supply could be a much simpler strategy.

It is much easier to monitor and limit the import and mining/extraction or coal, oil and gas, than try and control or discourage the multitude of CO2 producing activities. The current global policy of ensuring oil supplies can always meet demand is the energy equivalent of fighting drug use in the community whilst encouraging Afghan farmers to produce more opium to keep down street prices.

Capping the availability of coal, oil and gas can transform a complex and difficult task to one that is simple to implement, monitor and enforce; and that can be fairly administered.

Could we put a cap on the amount of fossil fuels available? There would be a huge public outcry, fears of economic meltdown, unemployment, queues for petrol. But a 10 by 10 cut in emissions (defiantly achievable) is roughly equivalent to a 10 by 10 cut in fossil fuel use (so this is just as achievable). The difference is that a 10% target cut in emissions gives ample opportunity for excuses and failure - a 10% cut in fossil fuels can be enforced.
The proposed reductions in emissions are well within our capabilities, what is currently lacking is the incentive. With the lack of fuel as the driving force, it will be a much easier and more natural process to change to a low carbon society. People are naturally innovative and resourceful when the need arises. Necessity is the mother of invention! There will be opportunities for enterprise and innovation - a boost to our economy and to society.

Is it politically possible? Combined backing by the main political parties could achieve this. For example instead of legislating an 80% cut in emissions by 2050, the sure way to achieve it is an 80% cut in fossil fuels by 2050, decreasing annually by appropriate amounts.

A united political front is needed to achieve the cuts, but it also permits each party to propose their individual policies on how we can cope with this in the least painful or most opportune way.

What about other countries? The chances of achieving an adequately strong global agreement at Copenhagen seem to be minimal, with many countries attempting to minimise their commitment and maximise their gain. Just as with individual people, individual countries need the strength to do what needs to be done, and to take a lead on this.

The fiddly bits! Of course things are not so simple. There would be need of things such as import duties and export subsidies so that, for example, our steel industry does not disappear due to importing cheap steel from countries using dirty coal for its manufacture. Adjustment of benefits to reflect prices, so that people can afford basic services. And no offsetting, apart perhaps for carbon capture and storage.

Market forces would favour renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. With a guaranteed diminishing supply of fossil fuels resulting in increased associated energy costs, there would be a natural switch to sustainable lifestyles. Currently energy efficiency does not necessarily give reduced emissions. For example if a household saves £300 p.a. from insulating their house, then this is spent on other energy producing items such as larger TVs, holidays etc. Increased fuel costs would result in home insulation being needed to prevent a rise in heating bills, whilst real savings would be made as we switch to renewable energy.

Simplicity: No more calculating carbon footprints or wondering which is the most correct product to buy. Emissions will go down, with polluting items becoming more expensive. Patio heaters and a Humvee are no problem - if you can afford the fuel.

Get serious: So there are no doubt many flaws and complications to the above rather lengthy theory, but ultimately the way to reduce emissions is to use less coal, oil and gas (and of course reduce deforestation). Capping their availability is a way of achieving this, which can also stimulate the development of alternatives. It should also be considerably simpler than the current complexities of trying to reduce demand.

Time has almost run out - we need to make a transition from gentle suggestions and encouragement to robust and effective action.