US: Who Needs a Binding Climate Treaty?
At an off-the-record briefing in Copenhagen, a US climate negotiator claims second prize can be better than first.
Who needs a binding global climate treaty?
That was essentially the message delivered by Jonathan Pershing, the Obama administration's deputy special climate change envoy, when he held an off-the-record briefing for US nongovernmental outfits at the Copenhagen climate summit on Tuesday. Speaking to about 200 people from various environmental groups, Pershing made the case that a non-binding political agreement—in which the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases would pledge to take various actions to reduce their own emissions—would be more effective than a treaty establishing firm and legally enforceable commitments, according to several people who attended the session. Pershing's comments mark a significant effort on the part of the United States to reshape the climate negotiations underway in Copenhagen. Though the Copenhagen session was initially conceived as the gathering where a hard-and-fast treaty would be crafted, there is now no chance of that happening. Pershing was trying to turn the absence of such an accord into a plus.
Pershing, a well-known scientist who has worked on climate change for decades, maintained that a binding treaty—which would mandate emission reductions and contain penalties for noncompliance—could easily stall. It would have to be ratified by the U.S. Senate (which would require 67 votes) and winning Senate approval would be no easy feat for the Obama administration. (The Senate does not yet have the 60 votes need to block a filibuster of pending climate change legislation.) Other nations also would have to approve it. He pointed out that the 1997 Kyoto global warming accord, which the US Senate never approved, took five years to be ratified around the world. If Copenhagen did produce a binding treaty, Pershing said, it would be years before it could go into effect. In the meantime, emissions would continue to flow. A political deal, he contended, could kick in immediately, with countries taking individual steps to meet self-established goals for reductions and working collectively to fund clean-energy programs in less-developed nations—and could lead to a binding treaty. World leaders have said they expect a non-treaty agreement would include immediate steps and set longer-term goals.
"This is front-page news," said one American environmentalist who attended the briefing. "The administration is going for a major reframing." In what seemed to be an attempt to position the United States to be able to declare success, Pershing was saying that the consolation prize could actually be better than the top prize.
At the briefing, Pershing cited all the unilateral climate-change action that the Obama administration is bringing to the Copenhagen table, including the announcement made this week by the EPA that it would regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. He hailed as a positive sign that over a hundred heads of state will be attending the summit. He noted that the United States would commit to contributing $1.4 billion annually to an international climate change fund, and that it was ready to put that money into play quickly.
But an important part of the US mission in Copenhagen is avoiding blame for the absence of either a binding treaty or a robust political deal. To that end, Pershing repeatedly noted that the major developing nations, such as China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, have to offer more—that is, be willing to commit to significant reductions and compliance measures. Those nations, he asserted, will be responsible for 97 percent of the future growth in emissions. Without concessions from them, he said, the US Congress would balk at whatever deal comes out of Copenhagen. And when he was asked why the United States was not committed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions to 350 parts per million—a level that many scientists contend is necessary to prevent possible climate change catastrophes—Pershing said that such a target would be impossible to reach without China and the other developing nations agreeing to deeper reductions. He noted that the Obama administration has pledged to reduce emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, but he suggested that won't be sufficient if China and the others do not adopt strict reductions. Moreover, he indicated that returning to 350 ppm—current levels are nearly at 390 ppm—may never happen. Consequently, he said, the United States and the rest of the world must proceed with an "adaptation program" and prepare to deal with the severe consequences of climate change. "We're stuck," he remarked, according to one briefing attendee.
Clearly, the Obama administration yearns for a strong agreement of some sort at Copenhagen. But any accord is likely to fall short of what many scientists and environmentalists desire, and the United States does not want to stand accused of being the obstacle to real progress. So at this briefing, Pershing, a man of science and diplomacy, darted back and forth between insisting that Obama administration actions could lead to success at Copenhagen and asserting that Chinese (and Indian and Indonesian and Brazilian) recalcitrance could doom the planet. Negotiating the PR shoals at Copenhagen can be as tough as negotiating the deal.
UPDATE: After this piece was posted, members of the US delegation pointed out that Pershing and the Obama administration still want a legally binding treaty and see a non-binding deal in Copenhagen as a prelude to such an accord. At a press conference the day after Pershing's off the record briefing, Todd Stern, the US chief climate envoy, said, "The last thing we want is for a political binding agreement to substitute for the effort to get a legally binding treaty."
This story was reported for Mother Jones as part of the Copenhagen News Collaborative, a cooperative project of several independent news organizations. Check out the constantly updated feed here. Mother Jones’ comprehensive Copenhagen coverage is here, and our special climate change package is here.
Comments
It really doesn't matter
It really doesn't matter anymore. According to scientist Nikki Gloudeman elsewhere at MoJo, we're all going to be doomed by 2020, not 2050.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/12/pics-what-will-happen-if-cope...
Hmmm... Little of what the US
Hmmm...
Little of what the US does internationally leads to treaties these days, but things like free trade agreements still move forward. They pass Congress as laws, not as treaties (majority in both houses, although of course majority does not work the way the framers intended in the US Senate these days).
My understanding is that other countries would have no objection to the US passing legislation to enact a climate agreement in this way.
We all agree that "any accord is likely to fall short of what many scientists and environmentalists desire." However, your tone is a bit puzzling. Is there any question that it is impossible to achieve 350 ppm without a breakthrough with China and India?
Pershing may have been lowering expectations, but if the expectations were that Obama would get a climate treaty ratified by the US Senate between now and 2013, or that Copenhagen could produce a legal framework to 350 ppm that would actually, you know, happen, those expectations were pretty far off.
Hansen thinks this means that Copenhagen is a waste of time, or something like that. I don't agree with that.
I have been a critic of
I have been a critic of Global Warming and Climate Change. If by chance this tactic will help make jobs, then go for it. People around the world need work regardless of green jobs or something to keep them going in life. I might not always agree but I have to admit with the current job market crisis were in today, people have to work and get jobs to pay their bills.
Obama has his mainstream media protectors just like Bush did
David Corn is just one of those protectors. This is the most vapid response to the U.S.G. climate policy that is scientifically inadequate, unjust and drafted by major polluters and corporate "environmental" organizations.
Hansen is right about Copenhagen b/c the Obama Administration has made clear that the approach it is currently requiring of climate policy is a cap-and-trade approach that has been ineffective and would also include 2 billion tons of CO2 offsets a year - cancelling any real emissions required by science.
Corn, stop kissing the Democrat's but and get in the trenches doing . . . journalism.
Marie, can you be more specific?
How exactly do you propose that Obama get all of this done? Arrest James Inhofe? What opportunities do you propose David Corn report?
Corn's report is not about the climate science. His report is about the reality of the politics in Copenhagen.
I know you think that Henry Waxman is a corporate sellout, etc. But how do you propose getting around the problems that Henry Waxman has been fighting for the last couple decades?
how should obama do the work necessary?
he's just the most powerful man in the world. he could start by speaking the truth about targets, timetables, the science, the impacts, the costs, the failing of cap-and-trade, the ease and transparency of instituting cap-and-dividend.
corn might as a journalist challenge the president on any of these.
he might also challenge/expose the corporate 'enviro' groups pushing 450-550 ppm who lobbied for these bills and who call copenhagen a success. Like NRDC and other us-cap members.
there's a movement driven by hope, science and a desire to survive with dignity (and not at the expense of africa or the less adaptive segments of our flora and fauna). corn (and obama) only have to remember this movement and open his eyes to see us and help give our challenges to 'false solution' the voice that we deserve.
ms
Let's have some reality
To anyone upset there won't be a binding treaty yet, let me point out that it doesn't matter if there are no adequate enforcement mechanisms, and I don't know what those would be. Moreover, there is no hope, none, that a treaty can get ratified. The Republican Party has become the Denier Party, and as long as they can get 34 votes, there will never be US participation in a climate treaty.
And bit of reality for those who think a few out of context e-mails disprove decades of research by hundreds of thousands of scientists: yes, temperatures are rising, and the last decade was the hottest.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/images/compare_datasets_big.jpg
Time for unilateral action
The reality is that IF you could get a treaty and IF you could enforce it, it would be great. However, the best thing that the US or any country could do is take action NOW -- unilaterally -- without asking for concessions or agreements with other nations. The problem is that negotiating a treaty is a game of prisoners dilemma. Look at the silliness of the whole thing. I won't reduce because you won't, so we'll all go to hell in a handbasket together. Now THERE'S thinking for you!
What are the advantages of unilateral action?
First, the Obama administration has multiple cards it can play. As Clinton showed, much can be done by executive order. Next, as I believe someone has already commented, forget the 67 votes and fight for legislation that will force emissions reductions in the US. You may not get the 60 many times, but at least it will be within reach sometimes.
Second, having taken what politicians seem to regard as the "risky" high road, the countries doing so can rightfully assert something that has long been missing: leadership. In leading by example one proves one's bona fides for speaking from the bully pulpit -- and one can do more, for example, by extending technological or financial help to other countries (many of whom are producing good CONSUMED in the US anyway), or bringing all the diplomatic "guns" to bear against those countries who do not rapidly follow suit in cutting emissions. Simply DOING something rather than talking about it opens options for real progress (targets be damned for the moment).
Third, if at least a consensus for action holds, one can imagine that the way could be opened even for reforming trade agreements (one would hope the WTO itself) to permit greenhouse gas tariffs if need be.
BTW, as we all know here, the US is THE country that must take the lead as it has the highest greenhouse gas output per capita on the planet. Why are only the African countries commenting on Emperor Obama's clothes? Let's all tell him it's time to do you-know-what or get off the pot.
Running a play by play of an
Running a play by play of an off-the-record briefing? Certainly "fearless" journalism, but it doesn't strike me as very "smart." As one of the NGO observers who was in this talk and many that he's given in the past few months, and who also does quite a bit of reporting (some have even called it journalism), I can say that these briefings have been invaluable for getting perspective and a lay of the land and a sense of what's really happening in the US delegation. I'm afraid that's done for.
I truly fear that the briefing tomorrow night, where I really was looking forward to getting a candid take on Tuvalu's move today, is going to be awfully thin. What this means is a lot less public understanding, not more.
We all need a binding treaty
We all need a binding treaty and that includes the USA. Reading Pershing's statements sadden me greatly, because they were coming from a person construed to be obejctive and highly educated and one who should be giving proper guidance in this whole problem of climate change. But the reasons he advances only demonstrate the selfishness and lack of consideration of America and the others alike for the developing world that is most affected by the ills of GHGs emitted by the USA, China, India, Japan, etc.
To claim that USA will not commit to reduce its emissions, if China, India and others alike do not commit to reduce their emissions is a traversty. Likewise, to claim that a non-binding deal would be a prelude to a treaty without an guarantees is an insult to our intelligience. Either the US commits or it doesn't so that we know it position and go along without it. Posterity will judge them for not having taken action at the time when they were most needed. Anyway, the rest of the World has progressed with the Kyoto Protocol without the USA, and now the USA, in its shame seems to be the mastermind behind killing of the Kyoto Protocol. We shall put blame where its is due for a failed Copenhagen treaty regardless of the machinations to hide behind others by the USA and others alike.
To claim that USA Enzyte will
To claim that USA Enzyte will not commit to reduce its emissions, if China, India and others alike do not commit to reduce their emissions is a traversty.
http://www.cheapclothesshop.com/
the selfishness and lack of consideration of America and the others alike for the developing world that is most affected by the ills of GHGs emitted by the USA, China, India, Japan, etc.
http://www.usa-jordans.com/
invaluable for getting perspective and a lay of the land and a sense of what's really happening in the US delegation. I'm afraid that's done for.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
