Nuclear disarmament and trade negotiations might help climate talks move forward at a time when negotiations in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) appear to be stymied, according to a new report by the World Resources Institute (WRI).

"We're faced with a situation where the climate negotiations are out of pace with the buildup of the greenhouse gases and what we're learning in the climate science," said Ruth Greenspan Bell, lead author and a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

In the Durban Platform, countries agreed to design a climate pact by 2015 that would include all major emitters and come into effect in 2020. But in the meantime, greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase.

The International Energy Agency recently calculated the world is headed toward a temperature increase of 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2050 based on current policies. Limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century may require new ways of reaching the goal line.

"Work will continue towards a unifying global agreement, but the very high stakes and continued growth in emissions since the [UNFCCC] convention rule was signed in 1992 suggests simultaneously considering other pathways to control greenhouse gas emissions," Greenspan Bell said.

Climate is a complex issue that involves multiple issues across disciplines and at many levels of government. The WRI report emphasizes that as with nuclear nonproliferation and trade regimes, progress on climate change can be achieved by picking problems apart and attacking them in pieces.

"Our overriding goal must be to reduce emissions in a timely fashion, not to make everyone happy," Greenspan Bell said. "The large docket of issues currently before the UNFCCC could be broken up and negotiations could be narrowed by issue, by region, by greenhouse gas contribution, and by tools and methods to achieve greenhouse gas reductions."

The step-by-step approach to nukes

Rather than aim solely for complete disarmament, nuclear talks over the past half-century have focused on distinct gains, such as eliminating nuclear testing in the atmosphere and getting weapons out of particular parts of the world.

"The problem has been sliced and diced in many different ways and progress made there, rather than trying to solve it all through general and complete disarmament, which was the mantra in early days of discussions," said Barry Blechman, co-founder of the Stimson Center, a nonprofit for global security.

Weapons reductions also benefited from passing agreements among smaller groups of actors rather than striving for universal acceptance and legal ratification.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the keystone to the reduction of nuclear weapons, was initially signed in 1970 by only a few nuclear states -- the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union. It did not include France or China, and India and Pakistan refused to sign on and continue to do so.

Although the treaty lacked the support of several key players, it established norms where nuclear states agreed to move toward disarmament even though they were not signatories, Blechman said.

"The weapons experience suggests we not get hung up on the formalities of signing and ratifying agreements," said Greenspan Bell. "Weapons provides examples in which major powers have avoided the formalities, but they still comply with the substance of the agreement."

Borrowing carrots from the trade pacts

In a similar fashion, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade launched in 1947 with 23 members and now has 153, with 30 more negotiating entry.

The realm of trade also sheds light on how incentives can be used to build toward stronger agreements.

"I think the greatest challenge [in climate talks] is really to create incentives for other countries to join in a multinational system and to adhere to a long range and long-term goals," said Thomas Cottier, a contributor to the report and managing director of the World Trade Institute.

Stakeholders involved in both trade and climate talks are looking for a sense of reciprocity among all actors. This has even spurred tensions in recent UNFCCC climate talks and Doha Round trade negotiations over establishing the responsibilities of emerging economies.

But a treaty on climate adaptation and mitigation could succeed if it improved participating nations' competitive standing and, conversely, penalized or even put sanctions on those who refused to join.

"In order to create these incentives, we have to build a policy of reciprocity among all like-minded countries," said Cottier.

Waiting for countries to catch up

Like weapons and trade regimes, international cooperation on climate change stands to benefit from decoupling issues and outsourcing various negotiations to other parties, according to the WRI report.

"I think there are plenty of reasons that we want a global agreement," said Jennifer Haverkamp, director of the international climate program at the Environmental Defense Fund. "But it may well be that that's not going to happen until countries have done enough at home and done enough in these other groupings that [the global agreement] is effectively a ratification of the status quo."

Indeed, there has already been some movement in this direction with Group of 20 nations agreeing to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and work in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation to boost the trade of goods and services that cut fossil fuel emissions.

The WRI report emphasizes that progress in addressing climate change could also benefit from experience in the weapons and trade regimes at improving verification methods, involving the private sector and working with stakeholders from the bottom up.

"We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the planet to be thinking hard about this stuff, because we're not winning," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the climate and energy program at WRI. "So we need to explore every option."