Sunday’s news that there would not be a binding climate change agreement negotiated in Copenhagen prompted my friend Angela to write: “Won’t an agreement at the end of 2010 be too late vis-à-vis slowing down ocean acidification?”

Unfortunately the answer is “yes”, but it was too late years ago.

What we’re attempting to do now, at COP15 and beyond, is to slow the enemy down. Average global mean temperature rise over time is the enemy, and the rate at which the temperature rises can actually be considered the best indicator of how well or how bad we’re doing in our efforts. Increasing temperatures by 2°C is really bad but 6°C is catastrophic, and according to the authoritative World Energy Outlook 2009 reference scenario (business as usual) we’re headed to 6°C without a “complete and rapid transformation of the energy sector”.

But what does this technical gobbledygook really mean? How might we rewrite it in terms that more people can understand? I read a Public Agenda report recently where it said “Nearly 4 in 10 Americans (39 percent of respondents) cannot name a fossil fuel”. That statement is a clear indication of the challenges we face. And it’s downright scary. Given that public awareness is critically important to politics and climate change is a problem wanting a political solution, how do we reach more people in language they will understand?

Here’s a thought experiment.

Imagine you’re in Europe 900 years ago living in a fortress city, and the equivalent of the 2°C threat to our city is enemy invaders 2,000 foot soldiers strong. They’re a few years away from our global village but relentlessly marching toward us. Scouts tell us their numbers are being steadily reinforced and we can eventually expect a force of 6,000 attackers to lay a permanent siege on the city. (Yes, you got it, 6°C.) The threat is that our global village will be captured by the 6,000 occupiers and our lives changed forever in calamitous ways. At the planetary level that’s “hundreds of millions of people being displaced from their homes, massive water and food shortages, widespread mortality of ecosystems and species, and substantial human health risks” (WEO2009).

We know the only chance we have of survival is to slow down the advance of those first 2,000 enemy soldiers before they reach our walls, giving us time to work on our defenses. But we have been paralyzed in coming up with a defensive strategy. Many people don’t want to hear it, the scouts must be wrong, and many don’t even know the enemy exists.

But here we are. The enemy marches on and is becoming emboldened. Our scouts are reporting that without any organized resistance the enemy is picking up the pace of the assault.

They’re now on horses and galloping toward us.