by Eric Roston
First things first: The White House,
senators, businesses, environmental NGOs, lobbying groups, and the
international community conspired this week to shred any discernible
central narrative in the climate story. While this situation might be
easily recognized as a normal state of affairs—coming after the
singular focus on Copenhagen, and then the singular focus on the
holiday break—the diversity and scale of disagreements over how to
respond to climate risk are striking. (Caveat: News media are biased
toward reporting conflict).
China, India, Brazil, and South Africa (the BASIC bloc) plan to meet in New Delhi this month, ahead of the Jan. 31 deadline to submit their “mitigating actions” to the U.N. climate change secretariat. The Obama
administration and key senators reiterated their support for comprehensive legislation to set a market price for
industrial dumping of carbon dioxide emissions. The Environmental
Protection Agency found itself the target of criticism from the American Farm Bureau Federation over its new carbon-dioxide regulations. North Dakota is threatening to sue Minnesota over the latter’s new climate policy.
Looking forward to Copenhagen was more fun than looking back is. And
looking forward to Cancun (!) isn’t necessarily something everyone is
looking forward to. Oh, how to make sense of it all?
“Strategy” session: Good questions came in
after last week’s ruminations, none more fundamental than this: What
does “climate strategy” mean after Copenhagen? Let’s take a look.
Abroad: Judging by the proliferation of
tactical and other variety disputes this week, it’s clear that there is
no dominant strategy at the moment. The UNFCC process had the veneer of
dominance, but behind that it seems like it’s just every
carbon-polluting entity for itself. What we’re looking at now is
something of a reversion to (or progression toward!) the marketplace of
ideas, where plans to address climate change will compete for attention
from the politicians and policymakers who decide on courses of action.
Say what you want about the Copenhagen Accord hammered out by the BASIC countries
and the U.S.: It’s organic and lays bare observations whispered about
for some time. Robert Stavins of Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs writes, “The two weeks of COP-15 illustrated four specific problems, most of which were apparent long before the Copenhagen meetings.”
A snub to the European Union, the Accord was produced by a small group of
nations self-selecting, on the spot, based on geopolitics and economic
scale and perceived vulnerability. Perhaps this is a signal that the
new strategy is “anyone who can work together should work together.”
Perhaps this is a signal that China has enough influence to almost
unilaterally dictate the terms of international agreement. The confusion is epitomized by
U.S. deputy special envoy Jonathan Pershing and U.K. Energy and Climate
Change Secretary Ed Miliband:
Pershing: “It is impossible to imagine a global agreement in place that doesn’t
essentially have a global buy-in. There aren’t other institutions
beside the U.N. that have that … We are going to have a very, very
difficult time moving forward and it will be a combination of small and
larger processes.”
Miliband: “I am confident we can get an agreement as we have made a lot of
progress over the last year … We are trying to get consensus from 192
countries from very different places to be part of an agreement. That
is tough and that’s what Copenhagen showed.”
At home: This week’s Senate intrigue
concerned whether legislators might scoop the cap-and-trade system out
of climate legislation and run with a scaled-down energy bill.
Conflict-monger Politico glazes over the dispute and the Wall Street Journal‘s Environmental Capital blog concludes its “Scrap-and-Trade” post by saying that “[t]here’s reason to think a
clean-energy future could still be in the offing even if Congress does
take the path of least resistance and scraps plans for cap-and-trade
this year.”
The WSJ article looks at the Senate, but just down the street the EPA advances its plans to regulate carbon dioxide and other
heat-trapping gases. The farm lobby’s vocal opposition was met by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is threatening a lawsuit in language less incendiary than its call for climate science hearings last August. States are asking for more time and small businesses are opposing the policy. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). put off introduction of an
amendment that would nix the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide under
the Clean Air Act. The move came after the Washington Post reported that two lobbyists “helped craft” the measure.
Conventional wisdom holds that failure in the U.N. arena and
potential failure on Capitol Hill will push market-based program out to
the states. But if cash-strapped California is any indication, a cold
economy can cool interest in climate policy. The LA Times reports a decline in public interest in air pollution and related issues.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has suggested the state
hold off on implementing its new rules on the emission of heat-trapping
gases. So much for carbon-credit auctions on eBay …
The first big legal skirmish over a climate law could come between
North Dakota and Minnesota. The latter has put in place regulations
that could raise the cost of electricity in that state—even electrons
transmitted from neighboring North Dakota. N.D. Attorney General Wayne
Stenehjem threatened in late December to file a lawsuit, probably over
the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause. [Nicholas Institute Director
Tim Profeta has written about the issues [PDF] involved in the Environmental Law Reporter.]
Mailbag (Send your questions here!):
Another reader asked last week, Can the USCAP model apply to the global
climate framework? How do boundary-spanning entities like leading NGOs,
global business, and religious communities engage in a meaningful,
constructive way?
Respondents essentially answered the question with another
question: How has USCAP’s position emerged and evolved in the domestic
debate? The U.S. Climate Action Partnership is the group of more than two dozen companies and several environmental
NGOs. A year ago USCAP released an influential blueprint for climate
legislation, which was largely adopted by Energy and Commerce Chairman
Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in what became the House climate bill. However,
as debate over legislative details has become higher-pitched, there’s
no public indication that USCAP ever re-reached its initial escape
velocity.
A USCAP-like group focused on an international climate agreement
would likely experience similar pressures. The big ideas are hard, but
easier than the fine print. Another issue appears to be the structure
of the UNFCC events itself, which makes it difficult or impossible for
corporations to register and take part. The Major Economies Forum may
be a more receptive place for businesses who want to register their
voices.
The Haitian earthquake: There’s no direct
tie-in to this week’s tragedy, except this: The climate debates are
largely driven by our drives for lasting security and prosperity, and
the avoidance of human suffering.
Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead addressed students, faculty, and staff in a public letter, and directed attention to relief efforts posted here and here.
Eric Roston is Senior Associate at the Nicholas Institute and author of The Carbon Age: How Life’s Core Element Has Become Civilization’s Greatest Threat. Prologue available at here.
Related Links:
Coal ash first real test of Obama commitment to health and safety regulation
Copenhagen Accord is the priority, says U.S. climate envoy. But what about a binding treaty?
Stopping the Murkowski Amendment
