Asian Pacific leaders lowered expectations on Sunday regarding the summit on climate change in Copenhagen in December. They acknowledged that the world would have to wait at least until next year for a legally binding treaty to curb global warming. Does this reduce the threat to the US economy and US sovereignty?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. The LA Times outlines the strategy behind this tactical retreat:
The House has already passed a climate bill. Scaled-back action in Copenhagen could help push a Senate bill over the top by securing pledges for emissions reductions from China and India, and thereby reassuring moderate Rust Belt Democrats. Moreover, by coming to some sort of agreement in Copenhagen, negotiators could continue building momentum toward a final agreement, rather than deflating the ongoing talks.
“It allows us to solidify the commitments to action from major emerging economies that we have seen over the past year,” said Jake Schmidt, the international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, “and provide a clear signal that other countries really are taking steps to address their global warming and so the U.S. isn’t going it alone.”
If the United States passes a climate bill, most analysts agree, it greatly boosts the chances of a binding treaty.
Are the advocates of drastic reductions in economic activity in advanced countries and redistribution of wealth schemes at least scaling back their goals? No.
[Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke] Rasmussen’s scaled-back plan would still aim to include agreements on the most important features of any treaty. It calls for specific pledges by individual countries, developed and developing, to reduce their emissions of the heat-trapping gases scientists blamed for global warming, along with financial commitments from richer countries to help poorer ones adapt to climate change and transition to low-emission energy sources.
It would set deadlines, presumably next year, to fill in the blanks, including how to enforce the various commitments and how to structure the money flow from the richer to the poorer countries.
Read the LA Times’ full analysis here.
{ 1 trackback }