November 24, 2009

By Stephen Murgatroyd
Columnist
Troy Media

Dr. Stephen Murgatroyd

EDMONTON, AB, Nov. 24, 2009/ Troy Media/ — With the Copenhagen climate change summit just two weeks away, the United States is moving towards making an offer to commit to reduce emissions by between 14 and 20 per cent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels – a level much lower than that offered by the European Union.

The challenge for the US is that its Senate has delayed dealing with the climate change legislation proposed by the House of Representatives until May or June of 2010. Both the Democrats and Republicans, concerned over the legislation’s provisions for cap on carbon and the development of a carbon market and the impact this will have on the economy, are now seeking a major rethink of the US’ approach to climate change. There is also concern over the idea that it is the US which should take the lead on the statement of emissions targets which others would follow – a strategy, according to several US Senators, that would put the US economy at risk. And as any proposal made at Copenhagen is subject to subsequent US legislation, the Obama administration’s strategy is very high risk and its position weak.

The environment industry, including lobby groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, are growingly increasingly frustrated with the US position in general and US President Barack Obama in particular. Pointing to increasingly alarmist studies which suggest that the planet is warming faster than previously predicted and that the Antarctic and Arctic ice is melting, the groups see Copenhagen as a “last chance” to save the planet. A failure to reach a binding agreement, even if there is an agreement to reach such a binding treaty within a specific time-table, is perceived by such groups as a repudiation of years of work leading to the Copenhagen summit.

They are also concerned that the Obama administration is willing to settle for a watered down agreement. They are right. The administration does appear to be willing to both settle for moving the goalpost for reducing emission from 1990 to 2005, thus minimizing the impact of any new ”carbon budget”, and  to accepting a level of CO2 in the atmosphere much higher than scientists recommend. The US administration is using a CO2 figure of 450 parts per million as the atmospheric limit it is working towards (we are already at 390), while the scientific community is strongly urging governments to work towards a reduction to 350 parts per million.

The Obama administration is worried that a tough treaty at Copenhagen would suffer the same fate as the Kyoto treaty did in the Senate, that is, it would not pass. As proof that this could happen, the administration points to Arizona Senator John McCain, who fought a Presidential election committed to climate change legislation but who is now backing away from that position. McCain’s shift in attitude reflects a political reality the administration has to deal with. His state, Arizona, would be hit hard by cap and trade, which could have a significant negative impact on jobs, so it isn’t surprising that McCain is backing away from climate change legislation.

It hasn’t helped by that Obama actually gives little weight to the climate change agenda, focusing on it only when abroad. At home, health care and the economy are seen as more critical issues requiring his attention. Gone from his rhetorical flourishes is the idea that five million new jobs can be created by focusing on green technology. Indeed, Obama now casts climate change legislation in terms of energy and energy security rather than in terms of “stopping climate change” – a major shift from the position he took just a year ago.

Whatever the US does will make or break the Copenhagen summit. The US position appears confused, unfocused and marginal, a possible description for the outcome for the summit itself unless the US moves quickly to clarify its position.