If the world is to succeed at preventing catastrophic climate change, the United States must participate in a binding international protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—-namely, the Kyoto Protocol or its successor (see I). In addition to mitigating global climate change, such U.S. engagement would improve America’s image abroad and bolster climate and energy solutions at home, benefiting the U.S. strategically, economically, and socially (see II).
I. A planet divided cannot stand
The U.S. is the source of 22 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. But emission reduction efforts in the U.S. alone will not suffice to stem the climate crisis. Reductions from other major emitters must occur simultaneously, and this will not happen without U.S. leadership in an international agreement. China and India, the world's first and fifth largest emitters, have said as much regarding their participation in a post-Kyoto treaty, which the parties to the UNFCCC will hopefully agree upon before or during the Copenhagen conference (COP15) in December 2009. Without U.S. engagement, a binding global agreement by the largest emitters simply will not occur, making it impossible for the world to achieve the emission reductions (80% below 1990 levels by 2050) needed to avoid the most devastating impacts of global warming.
II. Opportunities knocking
Engagement in a binding global climate treaty promises the U.S. an attractive set of benefits beyond climate protection. A treaty embracing all major emitters would result in a large, unified market for emission reduction credits, making the global carbon trade more efficient and better regulated than it is under the current patchwork of regional markets. Without U.S. engagement, this global market will not materialize—-for America or for any other country. By participating in an international treaty, the U.S. would also gain access to the UNFCCC’s Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation programs, through which industrialized countries can earn emission reduction credits by helping other nations reduce their emissions, typically through the transfer of clean energy technologies. These programs represent real opportunities for the U.S. to build allies and repair its standing in the world. If it continues to reject the UNFCCC process, however, the U.S. will have to forgo these programs and their strategic benefits.
Lastly, American participation in a binding international treaty would help circumvent partisan attempts to undermine domestic climate and renewable energy legislation. The UNFCCC process has already evolved in ways that neutralize old objections to U.S. climate protection efforts. In particular, the innovation of binding sectoral (rather than national) emission reduction targets offers carbon-intensive developing economies like China’s the opportunity to realize real emission reductions (in, say, its automotive and cement manufacturing sectors) without freezing growth. Sectoral targets increase the likelihood of participation in a binding treaty by major developing economies, rendering irrelevant the claim, made by the U.S. Senate in its 1997 Byrd-Hagel Resolution, that U.S. engagement in such a treaty could send American manufacturing jobs directly to China and India. By signing and ratifying an international treaty and thereby endorsing this treaty’s emission reduction targets, the President and the Senate would build political consensus about level of emission reductions necessary for the U.S. In doing so, they would remove yet another roadblock to strong domestic climate and renewable energy legislation—-legislation that can mitigate climate impacts here and abroad, establish America as the leading player in the global clean energy economy, and soften inequality at home through the creation of green jobs.
Chris Detjen is a senior at the University of Michigan--Ann Arbor, where he studies politics and environmental science. In December, he will attend the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Poznan, Poland through SustainUS, a network of US youth committed to sustainable development.
Co-author Kyle Gracey is a joint graduate student in public policy and environmental science at the University of Chicago. He is the Chair for SustainUS - The United States Youth Network for Sustainable Development, and will help lead its delegation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Poznan, Poland this December.
The content is exclusively the personal opinion of the author. Under no circumstances should the content be attributed to CSIS, Next America, or the author’s employer, unless explicitly stated.
Are international treaties the best means for combating global climate change?
The issue of climate change has gathered remarkable momentum in recent years. Given that the climate change phenomenon is not confined by national borders, many argue that it will require a concerted global effort, led by the United States, to mitigate its impact. Others claim that individual countries, with particular assistance from the private sector therein, should tailor sovereign approaches based on their specific capacity and concerns. YOU DECIDE if international treaties are the best avenue for the United States to combat global climate change.
Previous Debate: Should the United States eliminate its nuclear weapons stockpile?
A (Proto) Call to Action
If the world is to succeed at preventing catastrophic climate change, the United States must participate in a binding international protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—-namely, the Kyoto Protocol or its successor (see I). In addition to mitigating global climate change, such U.S. engagement would...
|
A Post-Kyoto Climate Treaty Will Not Avoid Disaster – But There Is An Alternative
Two centuries of widespread fossil fuel use have created a climate crisis of potentially devastating scale. Greenhouse gas emissions and the resulting consequences of global warming are occurring faster than expected, and the window for meaningful action is closing quickly. The positions of developed and developing countries remain far apart...
|
Debates
Login
FOLLOW US ON:
International Treaties and Climate Change
While more and more people begin using CF Lightbulbs, cut down on heating and cooling costs, and take active roles in recycling True Religion their waste - I am willing to bet that there is still a significant portion of this country (among others) which has yet to do anything in the way of reducing its carbon footprint. By starting something as small as a local recycling effort, or a state-funded education program on Evening Dresses energy savings, we can bring a greater number of people "into the loop," so to speak.
The United States faces the
The United States faces the urgent challenge of using the year ahead to limit the risks of nuclear proliferation and to lower the level of nuclear weapons in the world. Achieving these goals is crucial to a peaceful century. President Barack Obama has undertaken a variety of initiatives to reduce American and Russian nuclear arsenals, dissuade states that have forgone nuclear weapons from acquiring them, stop the production of fissile material for military purposes, tighten measures to keep nuclear weapons from ever being used, prevent dangerous technology from falling into the hands of terrorists and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. vcp-410
In late September, leaders at the United Nations and the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh committed themselves to all these goals. Yet in the midst of those meetings, President Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy revealed that Iran had been secretly building a second enrichment facility with the potential to produce weapons-grade uranium. That ominous development dramatized the urgent need for renewed political will in support of arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament. testking 640-802
The U.S. and Russia must lead the world in reducing the risks associated with nuclear weapons. Since they possess 96 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, they can, together, significantly lower the global stockpile while at the same time setting an example for other states and catalyzing progress on multilateral agreements. testking 350-001
The U.S. and Russia are negotiating in Geneva to produce a strategic arms reduction treaty to replace START I, which expires in December. If those talks are successful, the U.S. Senate will consider the new treaty for ratification next year.
Enforcement
There is no guarantee that a given treaty will have the desired effect - especially in the area of climate change. Given that state actors themselves are not the actually admitting much greenhouse gas, it will be logistically difficult for a variety of reasons for states to meet any sort of target levels that are established. So enforcement and non-participation (e.g. on the parts' of the BRIC countries) are huge concerns.
Is this fact reason enough to avoid international legal attempts at combating the climate crisis? I say NO.
America Can Lead, Treaties Must Follow
If America actually passes legislation that promotes green technology - and Obama has indicated he will look to create a green revolution in America - it will go a long way towards showing the world that we are serious about climate control. If the world sees that we are serious, there is a far greater likelihood that meaningfull international treaties will pass. However, it is extremely important to point out that while America emits 22 percent of the world's green house gases, that still leaves a 78 percent. And while developing countries will be using more and more energy as the years go by, I'd be hardpressed to call countries such as India and China "developing" in the strictest sense of the word. That means that the only way to combat global warming is to bring everyone on board, and that can only be done through international treaties. But American leadership is crucial for any to meaningful treaty to become a reality.
Let's share clean technology
I believe Kevin Ummel’s approach to dealing with climate change holds more promise. International treaties should be pursued since collective action is vital, but treaty negotiations should not distract policy makers from implementing other plans that are more viable and can yield significant emission cuts in the short run. Given the severity of the climate change issue, clean technologies need to be treated differently from other goods. Determination of price and supply cannot simply be left up to the free market. When the greater good of the planet is at stake, profit-maximization can take a backseat. Just as there has been a push to bring low-cost AIDS drugs and anti-malarial vaccines to sub-Saharan Africa, there needs to be a push to bring low-cost clean technologies to major polluters in the developing world. At the same time, a variety of domestic policies ranging from higher fuel efficiency standards for cars to modernization of the power grid can be put in motion to reduce the U.S.’s giant carbon footprint.
In the meantime...
I agree with many of the points that the students at Dartmouth have made, in that we cannot simply "sign a treaty" and Global Warming will say "ouch, ya got me!" and pack up and leave. It is also important to note that treaties and agreements of this magnitude and on such a important subject may take quite some time to produce results. I think that - while we work together to produce these political agreements - there are things we can do that do not require nearly as much cooperation and (at least in the small scale) have very little impact on the economy. As cliched as it may sound, continued education of the world in energy savings, recycling, and waste reduction (along with incentives to do so) is our best bet for affecting immediate change.
While more and more people begin using CF Lightbulbs, cut down on heating and cooling costs, and take active roles in recycling their waste - I am willing to bet that there is still a significant portion of this country (among others) which has yet to do anything in the way of reducing its carbon footprint. By starting something as small as a local recycling effort, or a state-funded education program on energy savings, we can bring a greater number of people "into the loop," so to speak.
And, subsequently, as more and more people adopt an EDUCATED concern (as opposed to a concern solely fueled by the media), we may see more and more backing for the international treaties that are needed to solidify real change.
Just my Two Cents.
International Treaties and Climate Change
Within our discussion group, there never seemed to be a concern with whether or not an international, Kyoto-like agreement could accomplish the task of reigning in climate change. The concern
for people came with what degree of regulation was adequate. Students cited the economic difficulties inherent in addressing climate change as reason to not let an international body write climate change legislation. However, students on the
other side noted that whatever the cost now, it would be far less than the cost of inaction. Examples included the mandatory switch from pure gas to hybrid cars, which would prevent great amounts of emissions, yet until the price came down on the more expensive technology, such an act would create an unfair burden to
those who struggle with car purchases and payments. Also noted was the spread of globalization, and while produce from Peru was certainly cheaper for the consumer, weighing those savings against the cost to the environment in transportation proved to be less enjoyable.
Ultimately, the discussion unanimously called for action, but seemed to suggest that the low-hanging fruit should all be gathered before more difficult and expensive measures are put in place.*
*This is a collective profile of Dartmouth students, who come together to discuss and debate the topics on NextAmerica. Each comment is an entry that results from our meetings and captures general thoughts of consensus and significant dissenting opinions
Two useful avenues
I tend to favor a fairly kitchen sink approach to climate change. We're probably going to need to throw everything we can at it. In this case, I think we should still try for new treaties, but at the same time should pursue some of the approaches Kevin Ummel suggests. Budgets are of course limited, but treaty negotiations are more time intensive than money intensive, so doing the one doesn't preclude the other.
So, all in all, good ideas from both, sorry I don't have anything more divisive to say on the matter.
Join the Discussion