« June 2009 | Main | August 2009 »
July 25, 2009
Copenhagen countdown
One of the more popular critiques of the Obama administration suggests that the president is taking on too many challenges at once. If nothing else, it is a reflection of the high level of activity emanating from the new administration. The pace has not slowed down during the summer, either domestically or internationally. At home, Obama is pushing Congress to produce health care legislation within the next few weeks. Abroad, the president's latest trip took him to Russia to advance, among other things, his stated goal of a world free of nuclear weapons (for more, see The Water's Edge, April 2009). But in the margins of each initiative, progress was made on another big ticket item. In the House of Representatives and at the G8 summit in Italy, dramatic action was taken on the issue of climate change.
On June 26, the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) by a vote of 219-212. The bill contained a host of provisions, including energy efficiency requirements and mandates that electricity producers generate a certain portion of their energy from renewable sources. But at the heart of the bill was a scheme to cap greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and to establish a market in which emissions credits—essentially, permits to pollute—can be traded between producers who cannot meet the cap and those who exceed it. The “cap” portion of the bill would lower greenhouse gas emissions in the covered industries to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83 percent below those levels by 2050. The passage of ACES in the House is a remarkable achievement, inconceivable only a few months ago. Climate change legislation was a key plank of Obama's domestic agenda, and the House action represents a significant victory for the president.
Two weeks later, fresh from his arms reduction talks in Moscow, Obama met with the leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations in Italy. Together with the leaders of Brazil, China, Mexico, South Africa, and other large developing countries, the G8 met as the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate. There, leaders pledged to keep global temperatures from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial levels and to work together to “identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050.” The leaders also agreed to cooperative on developing technologies to help countries adapt to the effects of climate change; to increase investment in low-carbon, climate-friendly technologies; and to financially support developing countries in these and other climate change efforts.
In reality, though the successes on climate issues were fleeting at best and illusory at worst. The ACES bill in the House was wildly contentious. It barely achieved a majority, and 44 Democrats voted against it, while only eight Republicans voted in favor. At over 1,300 pages in length, the bill was loaded with special exceptions and provisions that made little policy sense but were necessary to secure enough votes for passage. Many economists and environmentalists have argued that a straightforward tax on carbon emissions would be simpler and more efficient than a complex cap-and-trade scheme. Even among those who support this method, many insist that the government should auction the emissions credits and use the proceeds to reduce taxes or invest in clean energy research. Instead, ACES initially gives 85 percent of the emissions credits away to industry (although this figure declines over time). And if the fight for passage was difficult in the House, the prospects in the Senate are even worse. Should any bill clear that chamber, it likely will be weaker than the House version, further angering environmentalists, scientists, and everyone else who argues for strong, urgent action.
In Italy, the apparent victory was even more hollow. The G8 has been talking about climate change for years, and reaching agreement on broad goals and aspirations has never been the real challenge. The difficulty has long rested in the conflicting views of developed and developing countries. Since the dawn of industrialization, it has been the developed countries that have generated the most greenhouse gasses. But the carbon emissions of large developing countries, such as China and India, are growing rapidly. These countries resent being held to the same limits as the developed countries because they have an economic imperative to grow. A cap on carbon emissions would stunt their growth and place them under restrictions that the developed countries never faced during their period of rapid industrialization. One of Obama's goals in Italy was to forge a consensus between the leading developed and developing countries on this issue. His proposal would have called for worldwide emissions to be cut 50 percent by 2050, with developed nations cutting their emissions by 80 percent. But this plan fell apart due to disagreements over interim emissions goals and over promises of financial and technical assistance to developing countries. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was uncharacteristically critical, noting that the commitments made at the G8 meeting were “welcome, [but] not sufficient.” But even had an agreement been reached, it hardly would have been binding on the G8 nations or on their negotiating partners in Italy. The limited agreement that was reached is just as illusory.
Of course, it was more than just Obama or his recent election that prompted this spate of climate change action. In part, the pace urgency of policy change will continue to accelerate, if only due to the science and scope of the problem. More immediate, however, is the United Nations Climate Change Conference that will take place in Copenhagen in December. This conference is a follow-on to the Kyoto conference in 1997, and its goal is to produce tighter and more enforceable global emissions standards. A major point of contention in Copenhagen will be the very same divide between developed and developing countries that emerged at the G8 meeting in Italy. In many ways, Copenhagen is driving all policy action regarding climate change, not only on the international level, but domestically, as well. If developing countries are to agree to emissions limits, they will need to trust that developed countries will make sacrifices of their own. In a sense, climate is a quintessential public good. All countries benefit from its health, but no one is willing to pay exclusively for its maintenance. Communal sacrifice—both the perception thereof and the reality—is necessary for this public good to be maintained, or even saved. If there is any hope of convincing developing countries to forego the cheapest, dirtiest path to economic development for the sake of stopping global warming, developed countries must make a genuine commitment to pay their fair share.
In this sense, both the House passage of ACES and the G8's pronouncements in Italy are crucially important, even if neither action really changed any policy. The symbolism of these actions counts for a great deal, and it contributes to the growing momentum leading up to the Copenhagen meeting. The United States never ratified the Kyoto protocol, and without worldwide application, it cannot be considered a success. Since Kyoto, the problem of climate change has only become more certain, more urgent, and more real; the stakes at Copenhagen are immeasurably greater. Climate change legislation in the United States remains uncertain, as does any concerted action on the part of the leading industrialized nations. But if the realization spreads throughout the developed world that climate change must be addressed, and that sacrifices must be made, the prospects for success in Copenhagen will be much greater. The policy symbolism of recent weeks, however, is absolutely necessary but not nearly sufficient. Sooner or later, the symbolism must translate into action.
Foreign Policy Association, 23 July 2009
Posted by Daniel Widome at 01:36 AM to Trans-geographical, U. S. Politics | TrackBack (0)
