Climate change: Will the U.S. be a leader or a laggard at Copenhagen conference?
The U.S. has an appointment with history. The upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, slated for December, represents an opportunity for the U.S. to urge the world into taking serious action on climate change -- and reclaim America's leadership role in world affairs, a role that has taken a beating of late. Or the U.S. could retreat from that leadership opportunity, sink back into bickering over short-term domestic disputes, and continue what seems to be an ever-increasing slide into paper-tiger status.
That's the worry of former Irish prime minister John Bruton, now the European Union's ambassador to the U.S. Calling for action on New York radio station WNYC last week, Bruton called America's overconsumption of fossil fuels and dependence on unfriendly countries a national security issue. His remarks echoed those of Energy Secretary Steve Chu, who, when he was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, urged the U.S. to take the long view on climate change and to take action:
Last week Bruton praised new U.S. efforts on climate and energy policy, noting that making serious changes before the summit in Copenhagen would give the U.S. great leverage to negotiate: "If the U.S. is moving on this issue, then it's in a position to say to China and the other carbon dioxide–emitting countries, 'Look, we're acting. Now you have to act, too.'"
Bruton cited the Senate's climate and energy bill, introduced last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.), which is more ambitious than the beleaguered Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House this summer and which, as many critics have observed, proposes loopholes for polluters and weak carbon-dioxide target limits that will be reached anyway, even without the legislation.
The Senate's more ambitious measure, to cut carbon-dioxide emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels, coincided last week with the Environmental Protection Agency's announcement of stiff regulatory penalties for big greenhouse-gas polluters. The two announcements -- an awakening jab from Sen. Boxer, with a threat of a right hook from the EPA -- seemed coordinated to bolster the Obama administration's aim of curing opposition to climate legislation and to spur Congress to enact meaningful carbon-dioxide reductions before the Copenhagen summit.
But all of that changed as the week came to an end. On Friday, the Obama administration seemed to throw in the towel: Remarks by Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Climate Change Policy, suggested that the U.S. will arrive empty-handed at the historic talks in Copenhagen -- not merely as a follower but a laggard. The U.S. currently emits a quarter of all greenhouse gases: more carbon per person every year -- about 20 metric tons -- than any other country, according to the Energy Information Administration's Emissions Per Capita data). China emits between a quarter and a third of that amount, according to the EIA, and India about one-tenth.
In September, French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy went into full-on scolding mode, indirectly addressing China and the U.S. by saying it was tie for polluting nations to "transcend the role playing, the empty speeches, the petty diplomatic games and to table concrete proposals." And Bruton, responding to the U.S.'s foot-dragging, sounded like a teacher reacting to a dog-ate-my-homework excuse. "The deadlines have been well known," he said. "It's been known for years that Copenhagen was the deadline for making a decision to replace the existing arrangement, which is the Kyoto Treaty."
Some observers hold out hope that the U.S. may get its act together. "Last week I spoke with some of the people in Washington and New York who work the hardest to press this through Congress. I know that senators and other people in the political spectrum are doing a tremendous effort," said Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's minister for climate and energy. And Bruton tried to keep positive: "I would like the U.S. Senate, which has a democratic majority, and the House, which also commands a democratic majority, to give a democratic president the option of going to Copenhagen because he knows that if he does, he has good news to bring."
So has the Obama administration given up on its historic opportunity, conceding that it can't manage crucial legislation on both health care and climate change simultaneously? "If the United States wants a leading role in the 21st century," Hedegaard said, "then there is an expectation that they, one way or the other, join in here." But without meaningful climate change legislation to back it up, the U.S. can only serve up more "empty speeches" in Copenhagen.
Mark Svenvold, author of Big Weather: Chasing Tornadoes in the Heart of America, teaches at Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey.
That's the worry of former Irish prime minister John Bruton, now the European Union's ambassador to the U.S. Calling for action on New York radio station WNYC last week, Bruton called America's overconsumption of fossil fuels and dependence on unfriendly countries a national security issue. His remarks echoed those of Energy Secretary Steve Chu, who, when he was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, urged the U.S. to take the long view on climate change and to take action:
Last week Bruton praised new U.S. efforts on climate and energy policy, noting that making serious changes before the summit in Copenhagen would give the U.S. great leverage to negotiate: "If the U.S. is moving on this issue, then it's in a position to say to China and the other carbon dioxide–emitting countries, 'Look, we're acting. Now you have to act, too.'"
Bruton cited the Senate's climate and energy bill, introduced last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.), which is more ambitious than the beleaguered Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House this summer and which, as many critics have observed, proposes loopholes for polluters and weak carbon-dioxide target limits that will be reached anyway, even without the legislation.
The Senate's more ambitious measure, to cut carbon-dioxide emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels, coincided last week with the Environmental Protection Agency's announcement of stiff regulatory penalties for big greenhouse-gas polluters. The two announcements -- an awakening jab from Sen. Boxer, with a threat of a right hook from the EPA -- seemed coordinated to bolster the Obama administration's aim of curing opposition to climate legislation and to spur Congress to enact meaningful carbon-dioxide reductions before the Copenhagen summit.
But all of that changed as the week came to an end. On Friday, the Obama administration seemed to throw in the towel: Remarks by Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Climate Change Policy, suggested that the U.S. will arrive empty-handed at the historic talks in Copenhagen -- not merely as a follower but a laggard. The U.S. currently emits a quarter of all greenhouse gases: more carbon per person every year -- about 20 metric tons -- than any other country, according to the Energy Information Administration's Emissions Per Capita data). China emits between a quarter and a third of that amount, according to the EIA, and India about one-tenth.
In September, French Prime Minister Nicholas Sarkozy went into full-on scolding mode, indirectly addressing China and the U.S. by saying it was tie for polluting nations to "transcend the role playing, the empty speeches, the petty diplomatic games and to table concrete proposals." And Bruton, responding to the U.S.'s foot-dragging, sounded like a teacher reacting to a dog-ate-my-homework excuse. "The deadlines have been well known," he said. "It's been known for years that Copenhagen was the deadline for making a decision to replace the existing arrangement, which is the Kyoto Treaty."
Some observers hold out hope that the U.S. may get its act together. "Last week I spoke with some of the people in Washington and New York who work the hardest to press this through Congress. I know that senators and other people in the political spectrum are doing a tremendous effort," said Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's minister for climate and energy. And Bruton tried to keep positive: "I would like the U.S. Senate, which has a democratic majority, and the House, which also commands a democratic majority, to give a democratic president the option of going to Copenhagen because he knows that if he does, he has good news to bring."
So has the Obama administration given up on its historic opportunity, conceding that it can't manage crucial legislation on both health care and climate change simultaneously? "If the United States wants a leading role in the 21st century," Hedegaard said, "then there is an expectation that they, one way or the other, join in here." But without meaningful climate change legislation to back it up, the U.S. can only serve up more "empty speeches" in Copenhagen.
Mark Svenvold, author of Big Weather: Chasing Tornadoes in the Heart of America, teaches at Seton Hall University in South Orange, New Jersey.
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Fed stalls on Chinese bank deal, costs taxpayers $1.7 billion
Dell in a handbasket: Should founder Michael Dell resign?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
10-06-2009 @ 1:54PM
FOXYLYNX said...
I THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION BETTER CONCENTRATE ON JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. WE ARE IN SUCH DEEP TROUBLE AND NO REAL END IN SIGHT. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WHEN THE PRICE OF OIL GOES WAY UP AND OUR DEBT IS SHREDDING THE DOLLAR? EVERY THING IS GOING TO COST EVEN MORE. WE HAVE BEEN VERY BADLY ABUSED AND THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT FOR THAT EITHER. OUR GOVERNMENT LOOKS OUT FOR THE GOLDMAN SACKS PEOPLE AND TOO HELL WITH THE PUBLIC. I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE WHO TRUSTS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY FAIR MINDED AND GOOD FOR THE MASSES. TERM LIMITS!
Reply
10-12-2009 @ 11:15PM
Ron said...
Actually, now that we have regained control of our White House we are on our wat to recovery. It's going to take a while to undo what the oil companies, banks, insurance companies and mortgage lenders have done to us over the last eight years (not to mention the pharmaceutical companies), but it will happen. It would be a lot faster if these stupid brainwashed bushies would stop getting in the way every time the special interest groups' talking heads tell them to.
10-06-2009 @ 8:28PM
AntonioSosa said...
Ideally, the U.S. would lead the world in exposing the climate change SCAM. Unfortunately, with a U.S. hating Marxist as a President, the U.S. may lead the scam!
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 9:35AM
Dave Miller said...
The USA has done it's part in fighting global warming. We have shut down many of our industrial plants,the basis of our economy. We will be doing more as the tax and spend,power grabbing government(the "health bill" is only to put more power into the hands of Demoncrats) further destroy our industrial,agricultural and construction economic base. More plants will close because the banks and state goverments will not lend the money to business they were given for stimulus.
Hopefully China will send us foreign aid as we did for so many countries.
Dave Miller
Reply
10-14-2009 @ 12:16PM
Crankie Frankie said...
I'm not saying that the polution isn't bad for our earth, but lets get one thing straight right now. There were two seperate ice ages, and both of them melted without any industry. This is earths natural warming cycles.
We got Van Jones out, Rangle is his way out, Pelosi is next then we impeach opur sad excuse of a President, NOBAMA.......what a loser!!
10-07-2009 @ 11:01AM
Mark Svenvold said...
Hi Everyone: I'm reading and enjoying your comments. Many thanks for taking the time to respond to this article. So far, however, nobody has actually responded to the main point made by Ambassador Bruton-- that if the US wants to be taken seriously by the world community, it needs to pass serious climate legislation before the upcoming talks in Copenhagen.
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 11:44PM
Bill said...
"...The U.S. be taken seriously..."??? Are YOU serious? This whole "global warming" thing is another government/Al Gore B.S. and hype. Al Gore is poised to make a financial killing with this nonsense, or didn't you know that?
10-12-2009 @ 12:17PM
deek said...
Mark - that why the US should not bother to attempt to be "taken seriously" by the world community by dropping in line with the bogus science that has predicted this supposedly "man made global catastrophy". The varying activity of the sun results in global warming followed by global cooling, followed by global warming, followed by global cooling, ad infinitim. This cycle has been going on for centuries with and without co2 emissions.
10-12-2009 @ 7:22PM
MC said...
If WE want to be taken seriously, should we not expose it as the SCAM that it is?
10-07-2009 @ 3:53PM
MyKisa said...
....all about control....they decided carbon dioxide is bad...now they will create wealth from it, and control your life even more...if they were serious about "globaloney warming" we would be using hydrogen for many of our energy needs....no sir, it is only about control
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 5:00PM
MC said...
Climate change? ROTFLMAO!
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 5:09PM
Lee Czerniak said...
As temperatures continue to "fall" we still have the idiot crowd yelling Global warming. Liberal political scam beyond comprehension. These idiots do not realize the "real world", instead live in their marcist fantasy which they continue to impose on our freedom and liberty. People are waking up libs....you see it more each and every day...and your now losing!!
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 5:52PM
rmcfa23125@aol.com said...
Warming and cooling on earth is controlled by the sun. We had a few years of high solar radiation, and now that is turning into a big tax scheme by liberals in government. We could be heading for another mini ice age, but it is now politically incorrect to talk about it.
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 5:53PM
Rich said...
Warming and cooling on earth is controlled by the sun. We had a few years of high solar radiation, and now that is turning into a big tax scheme by liberals in government. We could be heading for another mini ice age, but it is now politically incorrect to talk about it.
Reply
10-07-2009 @ 11:42PM
Rich said...
Drill here and drill now. It is snowing in Montana. Where is Al Gore? They are going to tax the holy heck out of us using this phony warming as a pretex to take our money and waste it on more pork and kickbacks. Just say NO !
Reply
10-09-2009 @ 11:54PM
Karen said...
Al Gore presented a very upbeat view of Copenhagen today at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference, while other speakers presented a more realistic expectations.
Reply
10-12-2009 @ 11:33AM
Pierre said...
It's supposed to SNOW at my house tomorrow! October 13th! So....your article is about the global COOLING that has been going on since 2000?? Yeah, that must be it.
Reply
10-12-2009 @ 12:35PM
Mark Svenvold said...
Let's remember that there is a disinction between localized weather and global climate.
And if the consensus of scientific research is to remain meaningful, and if it is going to guide us toward sound policy making, then we have to acknowledge what most scientists have found about the global climate--that it's warming up far beyond any prior fluctuation that can be measured. This is a fact. A fact, if that word is to remain meaningful, is not subject to debate.
We can debate what might be done about global warming, but to say that global warming is bogus or an invention, or a lie, etc, is to leave the arena of reasonable public discourse.
Reply
10-12-2009 @ 1:26PM
Morgan McDonald said...
I am sorry to inform you, but the UN's IPCC long ago left the arena of reasonable public discourse. There are presently over 30,000 scientists (including 9,000 PhD's) who believe the science that supports Global Warming is fatally flawed. They have requested a debate of the issues and the UNIPCC basically said the same thing you said--the debate is over. Their minds are made up and they don't want to become confused by any facts.
News flash. . .the debate isn't over just because the supporters of one side say it is over and refuse to engage further in the arena of science and proofs. John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel is actually suing Al Gore to force the debate to be joined--if only through the courts. Similar lawsuits in the UK have found the "conclusive evidence" for global warming caused by manmade CO2 to be sadly lacking and have consistently sided with the anti-global warming case.
If you could put down your Kool-Aid glass for a few minutes and actually look at the evidence and the arguments against global warming being caused by man made CO2, you might write a completely different article.
This issue and the proposed remedies are too important to our way of life and too draconian for one side to declare victory in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
10-12-2009 @ 10:13PM
Tom said...
The global warming "scientific" studies are seriously flawed and have been called "bad science" by more than not. Politicians know the following is fact: Say it enough times and it becomes so. In other words, they use marketing tricks to get their agendas moving forward and that is called: Perception is Reality.
Check the science again and don't fall for the Hockey Stick Trick of fudging the numbers to create a spike. Oh, another point: ALL science is ALWAYS up for debate - ALWAYS. - just ask Darwin.
Last Point for debate, Politicians Motive: Follow the money - taxes and utility take over. Mexico, just today, took over their utilitiy companies. THAT, SIR, IS A LOT OF MONEY IN THE POCKETS OF POLITICIANS. HOW CORRUPT IS MEXICO ?????? OPEN YOUR EYES.