RSS

The Copenhagen Summit is a crucial date for the international community, whose success or failure will determine the future possibilities of global cooperation against climate change. This date is also a challenge for Obama in light of his very ambitious environment. Yet, Obama will have to face serious challenges before an agreement is reached. Most importantly, he will have to restore trust with the EU and secure its cooperation, to stand united against more skeptical countries; the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China).

It does without dispute that since the 1990s, the US has often been at odds with the international community on climate change, which resulted in its estrangement. In the US, the reality of global warming and the idea that securing sustainable development could be a synonym for economic prosperity has been more contested than embraced from various politicians and scholars. Obama's oratory qualities will not be enough to change the trend, and some remedial education will have to be provided. For instance, Obama could use the television to communicate the danger of climate change to the American public and hence, plant the seed for changing the attitude towards the US’s environment policy. Likewise, he will have to secure the cooperation of the US Congress, which —fearful of an adverse effect on the economy— has been reluctant to adopt climate change measures. Despite the fact that Congress did not propose significant amendment of the recent recovery package, turning Congress into pro-environment will pose as a significant challenge.

On the international stage, the lack of collective action has been largely evident and the US carries part of the blame for the inaction. But it is to benefit of US credibility to initiate international negotiations with legislative accomplishments. Convincing the EU to cooperate will not be a problem as the EU has for some time been longing for this. Joint action between the EU and the US, will encourage cooperative attitudes from more countries. To create stronger links to the EU, the Obama administration should participate in the initiatives of the UNFCCC, to reverse the lack of progress which characterized the Poznan Conference, which took place in December 2009. For Copenhagen to succeed, negotiations have to be prepared long before the summit. This way, similar opinion can merge, and collective action and international cooperation will not once suffer a setback.

Beyond the necessary rapprochement with the EU, the US should be prepare for tough negotiation with the BRICs. Indeed, there is a significant division between the developed countries and this group of developing countries. Given the the fact that the economic development of the BRICs should not be impaired and that the developed countries are more responsible for greenhouse gases, the developing countries argue that they should participate differently to the global effort of controlling environmental degradation. Since any successful agreement will have to provide for these difference, it is vital that negotiations start now. The US and the EU will face a challenge in securing cooperative attitudes and will have to make compromises and contributions. For instance, the US and the EU might have to the transfer of technologies to help BRICs adjust. The key is mitigation commitments versus financial help. Further, the USA should keep reminding developing countries of the various climatic risks they will face in the coming years. In the case of China, while the recent UN report on pollution holds China accountable, the whole issue was quickly forgotten with the international scene doing nothing about it.

Therefore, to achieve success in Copenhagen, the US has to, as of today, initiate talks with the BRICs. The current financial crisis threatens the global economy, yet it should not become an excuse to postpone action. On the contrary, the crisis should be seen as a chance to start moving towards a new model of development.

Marek Kubista is a MA student at Sciences Po Paris.

March 3, 2009

Dániel Antal, , (7)

• 0
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I think that the technology transfer has limitation, as the financial stakes are very high, especially in the case of Russia, which is totally dependent on the sale (and consequent burning) of fossil fuel. Otherwise I fully agree with your main argument.

Tags: | Russia | finances |

March 4, 2009

Rob Steer, Freelance, Gold Contributor (100)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Whilst acheiving global agreement on climate change issues is the ultimate aim, I fear that such an agreement may still be some time from being realised. It will require the US and other developed countries taking the lead to ensure others follow.

As well as securing the support of his electorate and political colleagues and counterparts, Obama, and for that matter all World leaders, must engage with business leaders to ensure that despite the current economic climate, their support and enthusiasm for adopting green measures is not diminished.

It is often the case that in times of recession, businesses look to cut their most expedient programs, and for many organisations, research and development into greener technologies fall into this category.

The commercial sector must realise that they must work in collaboration with government on climate change issues, or face the prospect of being heavily legislated to compel them to comply.

Tags: | Obama | climate change | Business | Copenhagen Summit |

March 4, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

A major problem that many environmental activists have is that they are treating climate change as a purely political problem rather than the multifaceted thing that it is.

The author poses the issue as one of how to convince the US public, or how to convince Congress. They are actually the same problem - convince the public and the Congress will follow sooner than later.

But what is frequently neglected is the solution-side of this dilemma. Pure social engineering solutions are probably doomed to failure in the US because most people do not wish to live in cramped apartments rather than spacious detached houses. They wish to have cars rather than public transportation. You can force them to live in the approved manner by impoverishing them through economic policy and heavy taxation, but ultimately they will revolt by voting for alternatives.

Some social/political engineering may work, but the only changes which will endure are those which increase people's feeling of well-being or at least not reduce that feeling.

That does not even begin to address the problems of the developing world, those fced by India and China. To stop the flood of coal-burning power plants being built in China one needs more than international regulation and moral suasion - one needs better alternatives. One could say similar things about the US love affair with the car.

Al this points to the need for 'market-clearing' solutions to ecological problems. We need solutions to power generation and energy use both greener and cheaper than current technology. The development of such solutions will tend to naturally force dirtier, older, technologies out of the marketplace.

Without such solutions I think all the convincing in the world will not have much effect. Effectively you are doing what the priesthood used to do - trying to make people feel guilty for doing what people do - which is sin. A century ago the priesthood tried to make people feel guilt for fornication and drinking - today the sins are different but the methods the same. This may have an effect - but given human nature - not enough of one. Particularly when the chief priests live a conspicously rich lifestyle, as most do. I might listen to Ralph Nader, who lives in an apartment and uses public transport. I'm less likely to listen to Al Gore, who lives far from any city, with multiple cars, a heated pool, and who uses private jets. The reason is obvious, I think. Nader is morally consistent - Gore is not.

March 4, 2009

Marek Kubista, Sciences Po Paris, Silver Contributor (52)

• 3
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Thank you for your comments.
To Donald Stadler: first of all, I don't think that ecological problems are only political ones. Obviously, private companies have a huge role to play, and are more reactive to face issues than governments, often glued in administrative mazes. Yet, this was not the subject of my article. I wanted to point out one issue, the one concerning the agreement to a new convention vs climate change.
Then, I will have to disagree with you on two points: first, it is not always true that when you convince the public , the Parliament follows: just look at the case of the Iraq war in Europe, English people were massively against the war but it did not prevent the Parliament to vote in favor of it.. Anyway, in the case of the USA and climate change, my point was that on one hand, you have to convince the public to change its habits.. to make them aware of the issue.. and on the other hand, Congress has to be convinced to vote on the specific issue of climate change because the convention of Copenhagen, if approved, will have to be passed by Congress, and this is going to be a huge challenge for Obama.
Second point, you assert that people in the USA don't want to live in cramped apartments and want to use cars rather than public transportation. I don't think that such assertions are really worth discussing. How can you assert that? You just generalize. First, I think that you can and you have to change people's habits if they are becoming dangerous. Second, one exemple, New Yorkers live in cramped apartments and use public transportation...and I don't think they are unhappy about it... Third, living in carbon-free houses and using public transportation can increase people well-being. Ecological houses can be very spacious and using cars can be really stressful: just think of NYC again... I would really prefer take the subway there...and it is the same in most European cities... using public transportation can be cheaper, faster and less stressful!
At last, concerning China, it is obviously difficult to convince this country, but China has expressed its views a long time ago: they are willing to cut emissions if the USA does it as well. refer to: William Chandler, "Breaking the suicide pact: US-CHina cooperation on climate change", Carnegie endowment for international peace, May 2008.

March 4, 2009

Jerome Norris

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

As an American who frequently visits Europe and sees quite often the higher use of ecologically-friendly energies via. windpower, smaller vehicles, etc. I hope Obama seizes this upcoming opportunity to set a stronger course for our country in Copenhagen.

March 4, 2009

Ciaran Laird, University College Dublin, (6)

• 2
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

'How do you solve climate change?' is no longer a million dollar question but one that seems to lie on the border between the eventual destruction of the planet as we know it or the ability to survive within a sustainable framework. It is extremely important that we come away from the summit in Copenhagen with an agreement, but even if we do, will it be enough?

The world, as a whole, has for too long ignored the growing signs of global warming. It has now reached a concerning level and so the developed countries seek to mitigate the extent of the damage. This is a world wide problem that, to be effectively curtailed, will have to be address by the world as a unit. But I fear that this will not be possible.

One of the major problems lies in the development of countries throughout history. The fact that we have countries throughout the world in various stages of development produces a major difficulty. And it’s a difficulty that the developed world must accept due to history. Many of the developing countries are post colonial states and believe that they should have the right to develop, just as Europe and the U.S. had theirs. They fear that their economies will suffer further if they have to switch to environmentally friendly systems. This fear would not have been helped by the United States' scepticism of treaties such as Kyoto.

The U.S. has taken up the position as the no.1 power in the world but has not fully lived up to the responsibility o this position, especially on issues of climate control. The young Obama administration has been heard making great promises to the effect of bringing about effective measures to curb global warming but we wait in hope. The U.S. and the EU have to take the initiative and show the world that they are serious about climate control and that they can be trusted.

It remains to be seen what comes out of the Copenhagen summit, but one item that is mentioned by the author and previous commenter’s could play a vital role. Technological transfers could be what it would take to allow the summit to succeed. Technological and Intellectual property rights have always been at the centre of global talks. If the developing countries were aided to implement the new technologies, it might not cause such an economic problem.

Copenhagen will most likely bring about positive results due to the support of the new American administration, but whether it will be able to tackle the tough issues remains to be seen.

March 4, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

Marek, you wrote:

"Second point, you assert that people in the USA don't want to live in cramped apartments and want to use cars rather than public transportation. I don't think that such assertions are really worth discussing. How can you assert that? You just generalize."

Fine, let me qualify that. Most Americans don't wish to live in cramped apartments and use public transport. Not even most New Yorkers wish to live in cramped apartments, though many Manhattanites live quite happily without a car.

"First, I think that you can and you have to change people's habits if they are becoming dangerous."

Ummm, right... You propose to regulate the unruly habits of others because you regard them as 'dangerous'? Kind of you to care....

"Second, one exemple, New Yorkers live in cramped apartments and use public transportation...and I don't think they are unhappy about it..."

I write from knowledge, not ignorance. I have lived in New York and now live in cramped quarters in London - and use public transport exclusively. I would do the same were I to have the chance to live and work in Paris. There are reasons why enduring cramping and crowded public transportation make sense. These are cultural capitals with a range of work and amusements which are virtually unique in the world, so people put up with crowding.

Try the same thing in Chicago or Des Moines and it would not work so well because the compensations are not there. I worked in a place called Telford (in the UK) for a year. A 'planned' city (shudder). No culture whatever apart from the shopping mall, large chain pubs, and chain restaurant. I lived in a suburban house without a car, took a bus to work. It was pretty bad.

Later on I moved to Shrewsbury, a very old city nearby, and commutted to Telford on the train. Not a cosmopolitan place, but the presence of a few good pubs & restaurants, and some interesting architecture made all the difference.

Try to build tentements in Telford and make people live in them and there will be revolution. The car is the only thing which makes such a place bearable.

March 6, 2009

Rob Steer, Freelance, Gold Contributor (100)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I thought Secretary of State Clinton's comments on this issue today were very interesting, particularly in linking the challenges relating to climate change to the current economic crisis. I wonder if they have now set a benchmark for US cooperation and involvement in any proposed international agreement in Copenhagen?

I think that having repeatedly made comments stressing the importance of tackling climate change, it would be very difficult for the Obama administration not to play a leading role in this area.

Tags: | climate change | Hilary Clinton | Obama | Copenhagen Summit |

March 9, 2009

Ria Voorhaar, Atlantic Community, Bronze Contributor (17)

• 1
•  
•  
• 
• 

I like this comment! What's this?

I quite agree that a huge challenge for Obama is convincing the American power machine that dealing with climate change means a more secure economy and more sustainable jobs. That's the challenge for the whole globe...

But I think that if anyone can start to challenge the status quo, it has to be Obama and his slick PR machine!

The fact of the matter is, all countries of the world are going to have to be on board for Copenhagen. Every country will be affected and every country has lots to lose by not halting climate change.

It is time for the national interest to become a global interest in a way that makes globalisation look like a children's lemonade stand.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org