Behind-the-scenes diplomacy between President Obama and President Hu may explain their recent commitments on carbon emissions. (image: mirror.co.uk)

In his recent meetings with Chinese and Indian officials, President Obama may have given climate change and the environment much more emphasis than the press was aware of. According to Richard Wolffe’s Thursday blog on the Daily Beast, “several weeks of intensive behind-the-scenes diplomacy” explain the recent commitments made by President Obama and Chinese officials to limit or reduce carbon emissions.

On Wednesday the New York Times reported that the White House had established a negotiating position that it will carry to December’s climate summit in Copenhagen. The administration has reportedly established “a provisional greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020 in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels.”

According to Wolffe, it is no coincidence that China announced its own carbon limitation target only one day after the White House. Using a different measuring standard, China announced on November 26 that it is committed to cut carbon intensity, or the amount of carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product, by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. (It should be noted that some energy experts are critical of this pledge, since this level of carbon intensity could potentially result in very little change).

Obama’s attempt to set actual carbon reduction targets comes as a surprise to many. Until recently President Obama was on the fence as to whether he would even attend the summit in Copenhagen. In early November, Obama stated that he would only attend if his presence would help attendees reach an agreement on climate change. Proponents of carbon reduction were further disappointed a few days later when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it clear that no firm agreements were expected to be made in Copenhagen when she described the climate talks as a “steppingstone” toward a global climate agreement. China’s actions also encouraged low expectations for the summit by stating that responsibility for climate change primarily rests with the United States and other developed countries.

If Wolffe is correct, it may be that the Obama administration’s cautious language was the result of a hesitancy to make any commitments without the support of the world’s top carbon polluter—China. Apparently the president’s meetings with Chinese officials in mid-November and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on November 24 went well. Wolffe quotes an unnamed senior White House aide saying that Obama “had extensive conversations with President Hu specifically on climate and conversations with the prime minister of India” in hopes of “building momentum for a political agreement to be brokered at Copenhagen.”

Although Obama will not stay for the conclusion of the meeting, the White House hopes these commitments, which Wolffe contends are the result of secret diplomatic meetings, will have a significant impact. According to a senior aide, Obama “feels he can be a catalyst for getting a political agreement in place.”

Copenhagen—a lovely place for talks. (image: scienceblogs.com)

What a difference a few months makes. This summer, the goal of the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference was a signed international climate treaty with enforceable carbon reduction targets. A comprehensive draft of such a treaty was circulated for review, with high hopes of ratification by the year’s end.

Now, the goal for Copenhagen is simply to talk about climate change and what might be done, as reported by Politico.com on Saturday. Certainly, that’s an attainable goal—if there’s anything you can get senior diplomats and government officials to do, it’s talk—but what happened? How did putting in place an actual treaty to replace the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocols turn into simply hoping to advance international discussions?

Probably nothing “happened.” With hundreds of billions of dollars, economic development, and international trade competitiveness all at stake, binding multinational agreement may be impossible; and if achievable, will almost certainly require years of painstaking negotiation. All that has “happened” is public acceptance of what should have been obvious from the beginning.

Why was agreement this year foredoomed? Some, like Germany’s Chancellor Merkel, place a significant part of the responsibility on the United States for not passing its own climate change legislation, but that’s simplistic. Without denying the U.S.’s importance to any multinational agreement generally or fighting global warming specifically, blaming the U.S. ignores the reason why it has not passed climate legislation.

That reason is cost. The price of carbon reduction will be hundreds of billions of dollars—at least. Domestically, U.S. legislators are reflecting constituent’s unease with something that may cost them and their families significant sums, whether through higher energy costs, higher prices for food or manufactured goods, or lost jobs.

(To digress for a moment: make no mistake—while the exact cost is open to debate, there will be a cost. Nobody is actually “pro” emitting carbon; if it could be reduced at no or low cost, energy companies, utilities, and manufacturers would be doing it already, if only for the good PR.)

The issue of cost is not just domestic though—there is international disagreement over how much cost each nation will bear. African nations want the West to make exceptionally aggressive cuts in carbon emissions, which will help save Africa from some consequences of global warming while costing western economies greatly. Meanwhile, China has repeatedly demanded that developed nations make deeper emissions cuts than developing nations while also donating up to 1 percent of their GDP to developing nations (including China) to pay for carbon reduction efforts. Everyone is hoping that someone else will pick up this tab.

Given that it can take months to negotiate a simple business deal between two parties, expecting the entire world to come to an agreement affecting every human being on Earth in the same time frame was optimistic to the point of delusion.

What does this mean for the Copenhagen summit and the fight against climate change? As for the summit, as Secretary of State Clinton recently put it, realistically, the Copenhagen talks may be a “steppingstone” to global climate change agreement—but it’s not going to produce that agreement itself. What’s likely to emerge from the talks is simply an agreement to keep talking.

Is this a bad thing? There’s reason to think it isn’t. At the end of the day, a “binding” or “enforceable” international treaty is neither—it’s not as if China could be arrested for emitting too much carbon. International agreements are only as good as the intentions of the nations that sign them. A treaty that is unworkable will simply be ignored—history is replete with examples of that happening.

And, as the Los Angeles Times reported on Monday, an agreement in Copenhagen that has been downgraded from a legally-binding treaty to a “handshake” agreement could help the chances of passing a climate bill in the US. One of the central arguments of the Boxer-Kerry climate bill’s opponents is that US emissions-cutting legislation would put it at an economic disadvantage in trading with developing nations (specifically China) that have made no commitment to emissions reductions. A pledge from China, however informal, to reduce its greenhouse emissions, would help even the playing field of trade with the US and perhaps win new support for the climate bill in the Senate.

Although any agreements on climate change that come out of Copenhagen will fall well short of initial goals, they could provide an important foundation to serious progress toward emissions reductions, both inside and outside of the United States.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. (image: z.about.com)

Who needs the climate bill when you have the Environmental Protection Agency?

In an article published on Monday, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama administration is considering approving an EPA finding that would classify greenhouse gases as dangerous to human health.

If the White House adopts this finding, it clears the way for regulators to have greater authority on entities that emit greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. And, politically, it could also push the hand of Congress in an effort to speed up any legislation related to climate change.

It also gives President Barack Obama some credibility going into next month’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. Obama and others are hoping to come up with a political solution regarding greenhouse gas emissions. However, many UN members, in particular countries with emerging or small economies, have said that they would not support any measure unless they’re assured that the US and other large economies join in the effort.

With health care currently taking precedence, it’s highly unlikely that the Senate will pass any legislation related to climate change before the conference begins. But the EPA findings could give Obama some political leverage going into the conference.

Environmentalists, unsurprisingly, are ecstatic at this turn of events. Said the spokesman of Clean Energy Works, a coalition that supports climate change legislation, “As Copenhagen approaches, this step just reinforces that–one way or another–a significant portion of U.S. emissions will be regulated very, very soon.”

Pro-business advocates such as the powerful US Chamber of Commerce, also unsurprisingly, are against the EPA’s findings. These groups may also have the support of several important Senate Republicans whose votes may be needed in order to pass any climate change legislation.

As reported here in September on HeatingOil.com, one such person is Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who introduced an amendment to a spending bill which would prevent the EPA from regulating any greenhouse gas emissions not coming from cars – i.e., power plants and factories – for up to one year.

All of this, of course, will at some point affect heating oil consumers. But how it will remains in question. Climate change legislation could certainly result in an increase, at least temporarily, in heating oil bills; however, if it is effective in curbing oil demand, that drop in demand could lead to lower oil prices in addition to a cleaner world for all.

Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference 2009 COP 15 logo. (image: en.cop15.dk)

Download
PDF version

From Kyoto to Copenhagen

Debate over climate change legislation in the United States rages on, and even the Obama administration has conceded that a climate bill will not be finalized until 2010. However, a more important agreement on climate change could take place before the year’s end: a new carbon emissions treaty—a successor to the Kyoto Protocol—is the aim of the Copenhagen conference this December.

December 7 marks the opening day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The conference is typically referred to as simply “Copenhagen” or abbreviated as “COP15,” which doesn’t stand for “Copenhagen” but for the fifteenth meeting of the “Conference of the Parties” to the UN Framework for Climate Change. The lofty goal of the conference, which closes on December 18, is to set new global standards to combat climate change, standards which can be adopted by superpowers like the US, as well as emerging economies like the fast-growing industrial nations of India and China.

The event will bring to the table virtually every country on the planet—192 countries are expected to be represented—making for, as the Independent’s environment editor Michael McCarthy estimated, roughly 10,000 to 15,000 advisors, diplomats, policymakers, and members of the media.

The Kyoto conference, 1997. (image: mofa.go.jp)

The Copenhagen conference is the biggest climate change meeting since the Kyoto Protocol, and has been preceded by a number of conferences that tried to build a foundation for agreement at Copenhagen. As the Kyoto Protocol is due to expire, Copenhagen offers the opportunity for a global climate change treaty to succeed Kyoto. As many onlookers have noted, much is at stake.

McCarthy, who’s been writing a series about the build-up to the summit for the Independent, said the conference “will have a far broader reach and potential impact on the world” than some of the most significant international political gatherings in history. He cited antecedents such as the 1814-1815 Congress of Vienna (which redrew the map in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars) and the 1945 Potsdam and Yalta conferences (which redrew the map in the wake of World War II). Those conferences, McCarthy elaborated, dealt with political structures and national borders, which change over time and can disappear entirely (Kingdom of Piedmont, anyone?). The issue at hand at Copenhagen is “something fundamental to life on earth: the stability of the biosphere.”

To maintain the stability of the biosphere, the Copenhagen conference intends to update the emissions standards set at the Kyoto conference. Kyoto, which took place in 1997, set emissions standards for nations that signed and ratified the Protocol. Each signatory agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the levels emissions were at in 1990. The pact was initially adopted by 37 nations but was famously (or infamously) never ratified by the US. (As of October 2009, the Protocol has been ratified by 184 countries.)

Despite Al Gore’s support, the Kyoto Protocol failed to win approval from US Senate, due to its lack of restrictions for developing nations—a hurdle still current. (image: biocrawler.com)

That the US never ratified the treaty that Al Gore signed in Kyoto has become a looming problem as Copenhagen fast approaches. In early October the press reported that the US was refusing to include any Kyoto Protocol targets on carbon dioxide emissions in any agreement reached at Copenhagen, because the Kyoto pact doesn’t include restrictions on developing nations.

Because of this history—the US as a champion of ideas that failed to put them into action–one of the biggest concerns many nations have about Copenhagen is that the US has not been able to pass strong climate change legislation of its own.

With a number of politicians in the US warning that significant climate change legislation might not get passed until 2010—well after Copenhagen has happened—concerns about the global ramifications of domestic policy talks are mounting. As Anne Petsonk, international counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, told the New York Times, the bottleneck here is sending a bad signal to the world. “The appearance to the international community,” she told the paper, “would be that the U.S. Congress is just adrift.”

The US Climate Bill

Which begs the question: Why is President Obama’s climate bill meeting with such opposition in Congress? (see video below: Senator Voinovich clashes with Senator Boxer over the Kerry-Boxer cap and trade bill.)

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
Economic concerns trump environmental worries among opponents of climate legislation. Senators on both sides of the aisle have reservations about the climate bill. Whether their constituents face unemployment or high energy bills, legislators are loath to add to economic difficulties in their home states.

Additionally, big business is bringing out the big guns in Washington, lobbying hard to halt legislation they see as potentially harmful to the bottom line. Two such opponents of the climate bill are the Chamber of Commerce and the oil industry.

The Chamber of Commerce, which pushes a wide-ranging agenda, recently came under fire for putting significant funds toward defeating the climate bill. Companies like Nike, Apple, and Exelon Corporation have even left the organization, citing the Chamber’s stance on climate change as the reason.

Reporting on the Chamber’s hefty lobbying budget—and its efforts to stymie the climate change bill in Washington—the AP cited the stance of an executive from the Mohawk Fine Paper company, also a recent Chamber defector, who said it adversely affected the company’s credibility to “belong to an organization that vigorously opposed action on climate change.”

Another powerful corporate interest slowing climate change legislation in Washington comes from the oil industry. According to Capitol Hill publication Roll Call, oil companies were among the top spenders on lobbying in the third quarter of 2009. The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil companies, shelled out $2.2 million on lobbying in the third quarter, up from $1.8 million over the three prior months, while ConocoPhillips spent nearly $4 million all on its own during the same period.

While some politicians claim that the fate of Copenhagen doesn’t hinge on the US passing climate change legislation—California Senator Barbara Boxer has come out publicly with this sentiment—many are wary. As the New York Times reported, those in the Boxer camp believe “that no agreement is better than a bad deal that cannot be ratified or endorsed.”

Who Picks Up the Tab?

The other obstacle at the Copenhagen conference will be who pays for any changes that come out of the climate conference. Aside from questions about whether the US will set an example for other countries to follow, there is the greater issue of how the economic impact of any potential global emissions plan will be met. As Elisabeth Rosenthal noted in a Times piece on the topic, the cost of an accord coming out of Copenhagen could be as much as $100 billion by the year 2020, with some economists estimating that costs will be closer to $1 trillion. That money is needed to help fast-industrializing nations convert to cleaner energy technology as well as help developing nations combat the natural disasters—droughts and famine, among other possibilities—resulting from climate change.

The support of developing nations like India, whose carbon emissions are rapidly increasing, is key to the success of any climate treaty. (image: article.wn.com)

Although companies ranging from Starbucks to Nike have noted that there’s more than an altruistic reason to assist third world countries suffering from the effects of global warming—natural disasters in these developing nations, after all, affect the flow of goods like coffee beans and cotton—the question of where the money comes from to support global efforts to combat climate change is still murky.

While Rosenthal noted that industrialized nations like the US have agreed in theory that any agreement coming out of Copenhagen will be financially underwritten by them, the lack of a clearly outlined plan is a major concern. “To date” she writes, “there is no concrete strategy to raise such huge sums. There is not even agreement about which nations should pay or in what proportion.”

Who will be underwriting the bill is, as Rosenthal aptly points out, the thing to watch: “Should contributors be only the industrialized nations, or should they include rapidly developing—and increasingly wealthy—polluters like China?”