Climate Change, Politics and a Treaty in Copenhagen

By:Julian Carmona, Intern for the Global Warming and Energy Team

The time to act on climate change is running out. The time to act on climate change is running out (yes, I wrote it twice). While the Senate is navigating itself through the intricacies of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the international community is negotiating the nuanced details of a possible agreement in Copenhagen. The United States must demonstrate leadership in the Copenhagen talks, though whether or not it will have something to show in December when the talks begin is very unclear. While the negotiations happen, the world continues to warm and feel the affects of climate change.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) released their 2009 World Energy Outlook report this Tuesday (11/10). The conclusion of the 28-nation organization was that governments needed to act immediately to stem the affects of global warming or face costs of $500 billion per year going forward. The report reiterated that the main drivers of global warming are the burning of fossil fuels and the increased demand for those fuels in order to meet higher energy consumption. The report also mentioned that if we continue on our current path, we would see an increase on our dependence on fossil fuels, higher greenhouse emissions, and a decrease in availability of technology for the developing world and a decline in global security. The report recommended that we can keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius by focusing on renewable energy technology (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc.) and energy efficiency. Most importantly, the report stressed the importance of reaching an agreement in Copenhagen.

There are a few, albeit large and looming, obstacles preventing the United States from showing up to Copenhagen with any substantial gains towards cutting their emissions. The clean energy bill going through the Senate is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla. The first markup of the clean energy jobs bill was passed out of the Environment and Public Works committee without a single Republican vote (stemming from a boycott of the markup). But, a recent Op-Ed by Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), a Republican willing to work on a climate bill, said that a bill resembling the clean energy jobs bill would never garner the necessary 60 votes in the Senate. He and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) are working on a possible bipartisan bill to reach that number, and are trying to release a first draft by Thanksgiving. The second, much smaller, impediment is the so-called “truth squad” that Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), famous climate change denier, is sending to Copenhagen. Inhofe is going to Copenhagen to show “what is really happening in the United States Senate.” He intends to go the negotiations with the message that the U.S. will not pass legislation on climate change anytime soon. While the delegation going to Copenhagen will stick to President Obama’s goals of supporting a comprehensive international climate treaty, Inhofe’s truth squad will be a detriment towards gaining respect in the international community. The US efforts might not be affected, but its reputation will.

Beyond US domestic efforts, international negotiations leading up to Copenhagen have been “less than ideal.” Two of the big obstacles, still unresolved after pre-Copenhagen negotiations, are financing for developing nations and whether or not the Kyoto Protocol will be extended. This has led industrialized countries to conclude that a legally binding agreement would be impossible during Copenhagen. Instead, the time would be used as a general meeting of world leaders. The result will be an attempt to create a set of principles that will lead to a legally binding agreement in the future.   The US and other industrialized nations have decided to work towards that agreement at the next meeting in 2010.

Here is some historical perspective: In 1918, after the end of the WWI, President Woodrow Wilson went to Versailles, France, to negotiate the details of the Treaty of Versailles. Wilson laid out a 14-pt guideline for the Treaty, with such ideas as treaty transparency, self determination for all, freedom of the seas, etc. But, Wilson traded all these points away for the creation of the League of Nations. When he returned to the US, Congress did not ratify the treaty. This was a major blow to Wilson’s presidency, as he suffered a major stroke on a train tour of the country, attempting to bring the treaty “to the people.” The US, then, shut itself out of international affairs for 23 years.

Is the US delegation being preemptive or foolish in emphasizing its goal of not wanting a legally binding deal in Copenhagen? What might happen if a treaty is concluded and not ratified by Congress? Will our politics rule out against the impending danger that is climate change?

While there are no easy answers to these questions, history has shown that deferring (no treaty at Copenhagen) and/or isolating (failed international treaty or domestic bill in Congress) ourselves from an international problem like climate change does not produce favorable results.