(Some) CO2 emissions have peaked, and emissions regulation is working

With the economy stumbling, emissions are falling. Is this the moment of opportunity to take a deep breath and cut them for good?

In pretty big news, the FT have seen an early extract of an International Energy Agency report which says that due to the global recession, emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels are now actually falling.

We'll have to wait for the full report for the numbers, but since the start of the economic crisis emissions have undergone "a significant decline," says the IEA.

They identify a few reasons. First, the global economic downturn means industry is producing less stuff. Secondly, plans to build expensive high-carbon infrastructure like new coal plants have been put on hold.

But the most interesting bit is that government action to cut carbon emissions has also had an effect. About a quarter of the fall is because of direct government regulation - a development that the IEA describes as 'unprecedented'.

They single out three key initiatives which have contributed - Europe's commitment to a 20% cut in emissions by 2020, new standards for vehicle emissions in the USA, and China's push to make their economy more energy efficient.

There's no doubt that these measures were in part motivated by energy security concerns, with countries trying to insulate themselves from the volatile pricings of fossil fuels. But what makes your economy less at the mercy of oil prices also gets us on the right track to cutting emissions in line with the recommendations from climate scientists.

Of course, this could all be pretty temporary good news if the economy picks up and emissions rise again. The chief IEA economist had this to say:

"... this only has meaning if we can make use of this unique windows of opportunity. [That means] a deal in Copenhagen."

This is the nub of it. The Copenhagen climate talks need to consolidate these emissions cuts with policies that can 'lock them in' during an economic recovery. That could mean, for example, committing to building clean renewable power plants instead of restarting plans to build coal-fired ones, or it could mean forcing industry to find cleaner ways to run their businesses in the future as production recovers.

So this news doesn't get us off the hook. If we go back to 'business as usual' emissions could be going up again pretty quickly, and this is only emissions from one (albeit quite important) sector.

But if energy fossil fuel emissions being in decline isn't a good starting point for ambitious action at Copenhagen, I don't know what is. We've always thought that even the task of peaking emissions - getting them to stop growing - was going to be really tough. But we live in interesting times, and it looks like we may be benefiting from a big silver lining here. The challenge for the Copenhagen summit is to capitalise on it.