U.S. climate policy after Bush

2008-01-29 00:00

Last month in Bali, as the talks on a new climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Accord reached a crisis point, the United States was actually booed by the delegates of more than 180 other countries at the conference. The Bush administration's dogged refusal to accept any hard targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions had simply exhausted everybody else's patience. But in less than a year there will be a new president and then the U.S. roadblock will be removed. Won't it?

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, the three serious contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, have all pledged to cut U.S. emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by the year 2050, and all three accept that this can only be achieved by legal caps on emissions. The leading Republican candidate, John McCain, makes the same promises, except that he is only aiming for 65% cuts by 2050.

As for the other Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee also supports emission caps, although he has not proposed any specific target for cuts. Mitt Romney has made no commitments at all and pulled Massachusetts out of a regional deal to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants when he was governor. Rudy Giuliani isn't even sure that there is any connection between human activities and global warming.

But the likelihood of any Republican candidate winning the 2008 presidential election, in the midst of what is shaping up to be a quite nasty recession, is small. Even now, McCain is the only one who consistently holds his own in the polls when he is matched against any of the three Democratic contenders. So we can probably assume that the next U.S. president will be serious about climate change Ñ but that does not automatically remove the roadblock.

None of the candidates has agreed to sign up to any climate-change treaty that does not require the rapidly developing countries, above all China and India, to accept specific obligations too. George W. Bush used the exemptions for those countries in the Kyoto Accord as an excuse for rejecting the whole process, but the demand that they make their own commitments to control emissions is strong and bipartisan in the U.S.

Why is this an American bottom line? Because the U.S. is the world's greatest power and almost every senior official and politician in Washington believes that it should stay that way forever.

It will not, of course. The rapid economic growth of the two Asian giants practically guarantees that the U.S. will be just one of the three great powers by mid-century, for economic strength is the source of most other forms of power. But it still makes a difference whether that happens in 2025 or 2045, especially to Americans.

Nobody in Washington is prepared to give the emerging great powers a free pass on emissions, because they are afraid that it would help them to catch up with the United States. Any climate-change treaty that the U.S. signs, even under an administration that takes the problem with the utmost seriousness, will have to respect that concern.

The U.S. position is not actually so distant from that of the other developed countries. Being less concerned to safeguard their relative positions in the pecking order, the Europeans, the Canadians and the Japanese were willing to let the developing countries have a 15-year free ride under the Kyoto Accord. After all, the excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere now were almost all emitted by the old industrialised countries Ñ and back in 1997, they didn't realise how urgent it was to make deep cuts in emissions.

But they always intended that the developing countries should accept a share of responsibility for future emissions under the follow-on treaty to Kyoto, which is the one now being negotiated. Not an equal share, of course, because they are still relatively poor and their per capita emissions are vastly less than those of the developed countries, but they cannot just let their emissions rip.

The post-Bush U.S. is not going to be a pushover on emission targets for developing countries and it will have all the other industrial countries as its allies. There is just no point in France or Canada cutting their emissions if China's and India's are growing at 10% a year.

* Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.