With climate-change talks resuming in Copenhagen in December, the US remains a long way from any coherent position.
In the past, the US has attracted significant international criticism for its stance on climate change, which included President Bush refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
This looked like it would change with the advent of the new administration. President Obama has repeatedly stated that America will lead the fight against climate change and has put forward proposals to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels by 2050, matching commitments made by the UK and the EU.
However, President Obama's medium-term target of returning to 1990 emissions levels by 2020 has been criticised by some for being under-ambitious. Critics are beginning to question the US’s new found commitment.
Part of the problem is lack of clarity about what priority President Obama gives climate-change legislation. He speaks passionately about climate change, but his abiding legislative objectives remain health care and financial regulation.
The main sticking point, however, is the Senate. The House has passed a climate change bill that, if enacted, would lead to radical change. It would cap carbon emissions at 17% of 2005 levels by 2020. It would also require the US to get 20% of its power from renewable sources, or from greater energy efficiency. But it has stalled in the Senate and, without significant effort from the Obama administration, it is unlikely to come to the floor this year. This leaves the US in a weak negotiating position at Copenhagen.
The US accounts for almost a quarter of the world’s total CO2 emissions. Although US emissions of CO2 from energy sources, such as gasoline and coal, fell 2.8% in 2008 as the recession and high fuel prices led to lower consumer demand for energy, much more needs to be done.
Climate change is testing a political system that has always had trouble making sacrifices now to ward off future threats. What is clear is that it will be challenging for US negotiators to make any serious commitments at Copenhagen.
In the past, the US has attracted significant international criticism for its stance on climate change, which included President Bush refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
This looked like it would change with the advent of the new administration. President Obama has repeatedly stated that America will lead the fight against climate change and has put forward proposals to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% compared to 1990 levels by 2050, matching commitments made by the UK and the EU.
However, President Obama's medium-term target of returning to 1990 emissions levels by 2020 has been criticised by some for being under-ambitious. Critics are beginning to question the US’s new found commitment.
Part of the problem is lack of clarity about what priority President Obama gives climate-change legislation. He speaks passionately about climate change, but his abiding legislative objectives remain health care and financial regulation.
The main sticking point, however, is the Senate. The House has passed a climate change bill that, if enacted, would lead to radical change. It would cap carbon emissions at 17% of 2005 levels by 2020. It would also require the US to get 20% of its power from renewable sources, or from greater energy efficiency. But it has stalled in the Senate and, without significant effort from the Obama administration, it is unlikely to come to the floor this year. This leaves the US in a weak negotiating position at Copenhagen.
The US accounts for almost a quarter of the world’s total CO2 emissions. Although US emissions of CO2 from energy sources, such as gasoline and coal, fell 2.8% in 2008 as the recession and high fuel prices led to lower consumer demand for energy, much more needs to be done.
Climate change is testing a political system that has always had trouble making sacrifices now to ward off future threats. What is clear is that it will be challenging for US negotiators to make any serious commitments at Copenhagen.
Comments