Ziptrek Ecotours

Leadership in December

December 2009

The election of Barak Obama seemed to offer a fresh start in the goal for substantial global emission controls. It was on October 13, 1992 when the United States became the world’s first industrialized nation to ratify a treaty on climate change.

The treaty committed its parties to the goal of preventing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” While it was a mouthful, it recognized the critical point that America and other developed nations (like ours) were largely responsible for the problem. In light of this, the pact set a different standard for these nations, which were to “take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.” At the time, President George H.W. Bush noted the special responsibilities of developed nations, which “must go further” than the others, and offer detailed “programs and measures they will undertake to limit greenhouse emissions”.

Over the ensuing seventeen years, The United States has simply not delivered on the leadership role it promised to assume. A year into Obama’s tenure the promises are being made yet again. There is a growing international sense of urgency, and there is opportunity, but will it lead to action? In September of this year, in front of the U.N., at what was billed the highest-level meeting on climate change ever, President Obama agreed with the desperate tone, and insisted, “The developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead.”

What would it take for the United States actually to show leadership, instead of just talking about it? Elizabeth Kolbert , environmental writer for “The New Yorker” suggests “it would have to impose binding emissions limits of the sort that it has spent the last two decades evading.” She notes that the Europeans, who are already operating under such constraints, have pledged to cut their emissions by 20% by 2020, and have said they would agree to a 30% cut if other nations followed suit. Meanwhile, the U.S. bill for a 17% reduction is bogged down in the senate. (Also, the U.S. is using a baseline year of 2005 as opposed to 1990, which the Europeans are using. This means that the proposed American cuts are far more modest than they sound.)

What does this mean for Copenhagen in December, where the Kyoto Protocol (which the U.S. never signed) will be replaced by a new international climate agreement? This new treaty is supposed to be the real thing, but China (recently the largest CO2 producer on an annual basis) and India can only be expected to accept emissions targets if the U.S., the largest source of cumulative emissions in the atmosphere demonstrates an unambiguous commitment themselves.

The new American administration’s sentiment is sincere, but there is a lot on its to-do list. It is imperative that emissions reductions targets make their way to the top for the Copenhagen meetings.