However, these moves towards clean technology have not yet translated into a willingness to be flexible in international negotiations. Developed countries, while not calling for a national cap to be imposed on emissions immediately, have asked for a long-term plan. Both the Indian and Chinese governments have refused to negotiate caps on emissions. Indian Special Envoy for Climate Change Shyam Saran said this would amount to a ‘cap on development’. Even India’s acceptance of the MEF’s non-binding commitment to keep temperature increases below 2°C has been dismissed by influential government members as a potential cap. India’s climate policy states only that annual per-capita emissions (now slightly above one tonne per person) will never go above those of the developed world (approximately 20 tonnes per person in the US).
New ideas are needed to break the deadlock between developed and developing nations. Mexico proposed an international ‘Green Fund’ of $10 billion for clean-technology deployment with assessments to the fund based on the level of current and past emissions as well as a nation’s GDP. Another idea is for developed countries to agree on voluntary – but verifiable – reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions. There is no doubt, however, that firm US domestic actions on climate change would give a strong boost to the stalled negotiations.
Eyes on US Congress
Perhaps no country in the world has seen a more dramatic turnaround in its approach to climate change than the United States. Since coming to office in January, Obama has made progress on the issue a top foreign-policy goal. Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Rajendra Pachauri said: ‘If you didn’t have someone like President Obama who repeatedly has been emphasizing his commitment to this issue, I would have had no hope at all.’
This level of priority is mirrored in the domestic push to pass legislation to reduce emissions. On 26 June, the American Clean Energy and Security Act narrowly passed the US House of Representatives by a vote of 219–212. This is the first piece of legislation that would place a mandatory limit on US carbon emissions to pass either house of Congress. The bill requires a 17% reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, and an 80% reduction by 2050. These mandatory limits would be met by means of a cap-and-trade system similar to the one that has been in place in the European Union since 2005, as well as new regulations on energy efficiency, new rules for electricity production and new funding for research into clean technologies.
The passage of this legislation through the Senate, however, may be as contentious as reaching agreement on an international treaty. Six committees in the Senate claim jurisdiction over energy and climate change; hearings began in June, and almost 20 will take place on the subject this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has committed to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote in the autumn. Even though the Democrats can now claim a 60–40 majority, it is far from certain that the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster are available. In past votes on climate-related legislation, it was easier to predict votes based on how much coal is burned for electricity in a senator’s home state than on party affiliation. Concerns about costs of the legislation for consumers and industry have dominated the debate. The key swing votes will be held by a limited number of more conservative Democrats from the coal-reliant South and Midwest, as well as a few Republicans including former presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona. The vote is likely to be close, and strong pressure from the White House will be necessary to push the legislation through.
A binding, domestic plan for reducing emissions would send a credible signal to other countries that the US was taking action, and would probably help spur international negotiations. Supporters of the bill in Congress have often talked about the moral authority that its passage would give to American negotiators in Copenhagen. However, failure of the legislation in the Senate would make a deal in Copenhagen unlikely.
Limited prospects
While political will to address climate change may have been sapped by the global recession, the need to address it has not diminished: in March, 2,500 scientists attending the Copenhagen Climate Congress noted that recent observations of surface temperatures, sea levels, ice sheets and ocean acidity could only be explained by an accelerating concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The scientists said climate change is already beginning to cause drought throughout the tropics, the melting of many non-Arctic glaciers, rising sea levels and more frequent catastrophic storms.
However, it is impossible to predict whether the challenges facing negotiators can be overcome in Copenhagen. The key sticking points are the ability of the developed world to match long-term proposals with realistic plans for achieving them, and the inability – so far – to make developing countries more than just observers to the treaty. At this stage, it may be more realistic for governments to work towards a framework agreement in Copenhagen on a broad set of principles underpinning a future treaty, with the aim of returning at a later time to solidify the details.
1 | 2
<Previous
