Pro & Con: Climate Change
Christoph SuessThe Bush government still refuses to commit the United States to the multilateral climate change regime set up under the Kyoto Protocol. Although transatlantic action on climate change was discussed at the recent US-EU Summit, no real progress has yet been attained on emissions targets. The Canadian government has already announced that it does not attempt to meet its targets any longer. Yet, if global climate change is to be tackled seriously, North America must be part of any future agreement on emissions; otherwise emerging economies such as India and China, already major emitters, are unlikely to join in such efforts.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair showed at the Gleneagles summit two years ago that determined leadership at the G-8 can actually deliver results. For example, he achieved complete debt forgiveness for 18 of the world’s poorest countries. As this year’s summit at Heiligendamm is approaching, the question therefore arises whether the German government, together with its European partners, should not seize this opportunity to press US and Canadian leaders to commit their countries to stronger emissions caps, especially in pursuing an effective international climate change agreement beyond 2012, when Kyoto expires.
Pro:
- Credibility: Germany, the biggest European economy and the current holder of the EU Presidency, has a strong record on combating climate change. Under Kyoto, it pledged to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 21 percent from 1990 levels before 2012, and so far has done extremely well: levels have declined 18%. In addition, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a former minister for the environment, as which she worked extensively on the Kyoto set-up. Germany therefore has a lot of credibility on these issues and should pull its weight.
- Leadership: Europe has taken a leading role on combating climate change since the start of the Kyoto process. EU member states have recently pledged to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent before 2020, going to 30 percent if other world regions—particularly the United States—join them in their efforts. This could serve as an incentive for the US and Canada to commit themselves to new, binding targets.
- Window of Opportunity: Given the latest evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is currently a lot of support among US and Canadian citizens for stronger action by their respective governments on climate change. Some additional pressure at the international level may be helpful in order to stimulate domestic debate in those countries.
Con:
- Arrogance: Europe should not lecture the United States. The Bush administration has been doing quite a lot in recent years to combat climate change, although using a voluntary, far more technology- and market-driven approach. Besides, there have been recent signs that the German government itself is uncertain about cutting back on greenhouse gases if this will put the German economy at risk.
- Ignorance: Europeans haven’t acknowledged that US action on climate change is already taking place at the state level. For example, the New England states (as well as neighboring Canadian provinces) and California are already taking quite strong action on climate change. One could even say that the US is therefore implementing Kyoto through the back door. According to Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Kurt Volker, between 2000 and 2004, a period of rapid economic growth, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased by only 1.3 percent, whereas the EU-25 increased collective emissions by 2.1 percent.
- Déjà -vu: The European approach of setting fixed emissions targets resembles that of the Kyoto protocol and is therefore doomed to fail. There is no chance of convincing strong domestic opponents in the US, namely Congress. Canada’s present government is wary of multilateral solutions to global problems and follows a “made-in-Canada” approach on climate change, along the lines of the US. In fact, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper was once the biggest domestic opponent of Kyoto. And Mexico, which has also been invited to Heiligendamm, is not willing to reduce its emissions while doing so poses a risk to economic competitiveness, hoping to benefit instead from financial and technological transfer.
Which of these options do you favor? You can see how users voted on this here . We would also appreciate your thoughts, comments and any additional policy recommendations you might have on this topic.
Related Materials from the Atlantic Community:
- American Mayors Going Green, Reports Anne Underwood
- Jeffrey D. Sachs on the Climate Change Revolution
- Andrew C. Revkin on the ‘loser-regions’ of Climate Change
