RSS

November 30, 2010

Salvador Santino F Regilme, University of Osnabrück, Germany, Gold Contributor (77)

Dear Philip,
Thanks for sharing us your views regarding climate change. :)

I felt that your article provides a detailed and general background of some of the key initiatives within the US as well as the country’s internal political hurdles.

In spite of this, I wish to share my strong reservations against the way you responded to the over-all theme of the climate change policy workshop which is on how Europe and the US may cooperate in creating incentives in the fight against climate change. And with this in mind, I suspect that your over-all strategy (as explicated in this article) was for Europe to encourage these regional initiatives in the US such as the one you have enumerated. If this is the case, in what way does this become more effective and seriously impactful (in terms mitigation and adaption, at the global scheme of things?) considering that climate change’s perilous effects can be attributed to a host of multifarious stakeholders?

Though I may agree that there appears to be a much more informed understanding among the political elites in Europe regarding climate change as compared to the US, how do you explicate more on this purported idea that Europe occupies the moral high ground to actually push these several sustainable environmental successes in the US?
Moreover, in what way does the US will actually reconsider this purported support and encouragement from Europe with the latter’s success in sustainable practices and anti-climate change actions? The last question is indeed of cardinal importance considering the context that the US appears to have ‘ignored’ Europe in COP15, which is by far, the most symbolically-important event in global environmental governance recently.

Second, as the article’s title suggests that both the “EU and the US should lead by example”, but at the same over-accentuating how EU appears to be in a moral pedestal to be a model for the US, how do you reconcile these two apparently conflicting propositions? The title suggests that it must be a responsible partnership between these two Atlantic powers yet at the same time over-emphasizing the unparalleled success of the EU in environmental governance. How do you fix this ambiguity in these conflicting policy paradigms that you have just presented? What are the chances for the US to actually listen and take into account seriously European success stories on environmental governance given America’s hegemonic status?

Third, I also find the characterization of “climate policy as energy policy” as overly simplistic and uni-dimensional, devoid of any other considerations that other key stakeholders of this climate change debate. In fact, in the opening salvo of the article which says that “actions against climate change need to be global”, nowhere in your article was there an attempt to consider the need to tackle other key stakeholders (China, India, Russia – as top polluters also; global civil society; companies etc etc) through transatlantic powers’ (EU and US) global leadership – considering their wealth of resources and long history of strategic leadership in global governance. Instead, the acute problem of the article’s characterization may be gleaned on its’ on focus upon the policy failures (and some isolated successes, or you have used this term – ‘regional’ initiatives) within the US and how Europe may be able to step in. In the grand scheme of things, the climate change debate is much bigger than that, and more importantly, I suspect that the best way forward is for the EU and the US to re-capitalize their political capital in trans-Atlantic cooperation and provide strategic and responsible leadership in this urgent issue of global environmental governance. Also, I strongly conjecture that the way you painted the picture of how the EU having successful initiatives and a seemingly-united political consensus on how climate change is indeed policy problem in contrast to the US is, to say the least, overly-selective and Euro-centric which ignores how other key stakeholders within the global, national, local levels are also pivotal in the successful strategy against climate change.

Fourth, when you say that the EU and the US must “focus on the promotion of renewable energy”, I hope that you explicate further the justifications for this; considering that such approach would be extremely-costly for other top polluters from the developing countries and may indeed be somehow dismissive of how important also to consider carbon emissions reduction as a policy goal. It may be more rationally-strategic to invest institutional resources both in renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction at the same, through which trans-Atlantic powers may find a significant point of cooperation wherein both of these goals may also be promoted within the policy realms of the top polluting countries in the developing world.

Fifth, taking into account your proposition that “European actors should…keep up the pressure on the Congress not to fall further behind in terms of action on climate change, progressive states such as California should be supported”, in what way does this purported pressure can be operationalized?

Again, thanks a lot. I am looking forward to your clarification.
Kind regards,
Santino

November 30, 2010

Ntambaazi Williams George, University of Osnabrueck, Germany, Silver Contributor (41)

Dear Philip,

I find your article tackling the very important but always neglected aspect of making climate change a political issue. I commend you for your excellent grasp of particularly US domestic climate change politics and policies that always face legislative roadblocks at the national level. This failure on US's part to demonstrate political committment echoes with suspicion overseas.

Insights into the political conditions under which a successful comprehensive legislative package on climate change may occur in US are very relevant for the wider world. A statement by Senate Minority Leader Hon. Mitch McConnell (Ziel: determined to see a one-term Obama, irrespective of his progressive policies), brings to bear how majority of US politicians are detached from the fundamental challenges of our time. Progressive policy bi-partisanship and compromises songs which we here from time to time are more in theory than in practice.

The major issue in the global climate change fight requires the US to successfully and effectively adapt to a changing environment. The US politicians (Senators), who are lagging behind now (failed to pass climate legislation) compared to their EU counterparts must show climate discipline and arrive at a joint political understanding of a desirable future on climate change.They must be able to view the world as a whole atleast on climate change by closing the gaps into the dynamics of their domestic political landscape calculations.

After that, the US will find a receptive audience especially with the EU especially on energy policies and substantive equivalence or compromise from BRIC nations. After all climate change is a core aspect of the western nations identity.
The the rest of the developing nations will just come on board for as long as there is unanimous participation and realisation that climate change decisions have no losers but only mutual greening or political -economic gains.

Therefore, the EU should not only support progressive states within the US like California but also climate change politically committed and progressive developing nations especially in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

I thank you

November 30, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear Santino, Ntambaazi,

let me clarify a few points you raised :)

Ntambaazi, I agree with you. ;)

Santino, let me answer in more detail. Though it was not my initial headline, I still believe the "leading by example" theme can be applied. To put it in brief, I see the EU ahead of the US in terms of climate change action and instead of just blaming "the US" I outlined the complexity and pointed to some stakeholders that are more promising for cooperation than others. From my point of view it is absolutely critical to know where common ground can be established and thus being able to have a more precise plan for cooperation.

Moreover, as we've discussed before, I see "leading by example" to be the theme that needs to be focussed on. This applies for both, the EU and US. It is true that I outline the problems of the US on the national level in more detail, but I propose ways to circumvent these in order to achieve the overall goal - this is, having strong action against climate change both in the US and EU so that they can actually lead by example.

Moreover, I intentionally took this approach to focus on the two actors themselves as I assumed that the majority would focus on the international relations issue. If you've analyzed the various COPs, you'll see that the success or failure of each of the conferences is directly connected to the domestic problems/situation of the EU and the US. This applies for Kyoto, Bali, Poznan as well as for Copenhagen.

This is not to say that the climate change issue is limited to these two actors, but they shape the international debate and negotiatons decisively. Moreover, if I would have had the space I certainly would have taken the broader picture into account - as I've done in my comments on the other articles. However, I had not and thus decided to focus on one issue.

Having said that, let me get back to your detailed points :)

With regard to your "moral high-ground" comment, again, I did not intend to play the blame game. I'm well aware that the EU has its very own problems as have the US (I could have written article only over the EU's problems, but as it is the US that lacks behind, I focussed on them). Rather more, as outlined above, it's a question of who can cooperate with whom. By the way, why should not the EU help american progressive actors in the way you want the US and EU to help developing countries? Isn't the overall goal the same?

Again, I believe that both EU and US have to lead by example, which doesn't mean that they actually are at the moment! That's a crucial difference. Neither the EU is acting the way it should in terms of going forward nor is the US. However, they CAN and SHOULD lead by example as soon as possible.

Actually you're right with regard to my "climate policy is energy policy" statement. It is simplifying, but I guess nobody wouldn't see that. Maybe I should have rephrased it as "Energy Policy can help finding common ground". As outlined in my article, aside from energy efficiency improvements, renewable energies provide the fastest way to help change our energy systems and thus mitigate climate change. That is surely not to say that it is the only way but one of the more promising ones.

With regard to being "Euro-centric" I guess you're only right in that I intentionally limited the focus of my article. I very much believe that we need multi-stakeholder engagement, but I took that for granted. Again, the overall point I was trying to make was that if the EU and the US want to take over the political leadership in global environmental governance questions, it is them who have to lead by example and that they're not quite there.

With regard to your fourth point, I don't really see the difference between "promoting renewable energy" and "carbon emission reductions". Isn't the one crucial for the success of the later? Moreover, the cost argument doesn't convince me as more and more renewable energy techniques become cheaper and accessible around the world. Wind power for example is competitive even without subsidies. Moreover, I called for joint US-EU research programs that should help not only overcome technical issues but economic barriers as well. Finally, it is the development of the energy structure in the developing and emerging countries that will shape the next 40 to 50 years. If they can be supported in applying renewable energies now instead of fossil fuel technology that's the way to go forward. But in order to convince them, again leading by example is key.

Finally, from my point of view, the one and only reason for the Congress to act will be out of economic necessity. While this is a tricky issue, there are ways to set up economic barriers. One example is Ontario's law that demand local production of renewable energies in line with what the essence of sustainability is all about. Many have threatened legal action and it is likely that the case will end up before the WTO. Still, the more cases like this will appear, the stronger the message will sound. Moreover, striving for a global emission trading scheme should be continued, starting with regional actors and then broadening the scope. At some point the Congress will have to join in.

Alright, I guess that should clarify some of my points.

Looking forward to your answers, Philip

November 30, 2010

Edson Ziso, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Silver Contributor (46)

Thank you Philip for your article.

Having gone through it a couple of times, i felt that though you demonstrate admirable knowledge of the domestic goings-on in the US vis-a-vis climate change policy, the overall theme of incentivising for the same was given scant attention. I am of the opinion that the pollution of the environment is a painful, but obvious reality of our time. Industrialisation alongside modernisation is an incontestable desire for virtually all human beings and with it comes such vagaries of which climate change is one of them. Hence incentivising could be the key term here. To that end, any progressive policy has to admit this reality and try as much as possible to be prepared to reward (incentivise) current, potential or would be polluters to minimise at least the rate of pollution and indeed go for other cleaner forms of production at most. A lot of political, economic and social give-and-take is core to this initiative. I would have therefore liked to see how EU and US cooperation in specific sectors can influence climate change policy. Essentially, simply asking for mere 'co-operation' between the EU and the US somehow simplifies the whole game as idealistic but certainly it cannot be that simple.

Further, i do not subscribe to limiting this debate within EU or US circles for i believe pollution is occurring and will indeed occur in all corners of the globe, albeit on a different scale. In many parts of the developing world, so desperate is the desire to fight poverty via any means (and indeed one day, via industrialisation) that reducing emissions is definitely lower on the agenda list. What kind of co-operation therefore could the EU and the US enter into to assist these parts of the world to prioritise the future generation when the current also deserve to live? In short, are you willing to take climate change dynamics out of the EU and the US as a forward looking agenda?

Thank you

November 30, 2010

Unregistered User

Dear Phillip,

thank you for your interesting contribution and your valuable description of domestic limitations in the US as regards and international climate change legislation as well as regional initiatives in the US - an aspect that is regrettably often forgotten or at least underestimated when Europeans discuss about what the US "shall do" and what is done that I also emphasized in my essay.

I strongly agree with you that the EU should pay attention to regional initiatives in the US - something that i also pointed out in my essay and that is actually already done, for example by the German initiative called "Klimabrücke" which aims at putting into contact regional and civil society climate change initiatives at both sides of the Atlantic. I believe that you, Santino, underestimate the relevance of those regional initiatives - or "isolated successes" as you called them - for the general position of the US towards climate change policies, especially when taking into consideration that the political responsibility for climate change relevant issues such as infrastructure, transport and electricity primarily lies within the states.

As regards your assessment of the US lagging behind, I agree with the overall picture while at the same time understanding Santino's concerns that the EU presents itself and is presented as a sort of "climate policy hero" which might easily result in unproductive and unnecessary finger pointing towards the US. It is important to understand the different initial starting points for the EU and the US: While the overall population in the EU stayed stable, the population in the US increased by about 30 percent compared the 1990, the base line year promoted by the EU in the global negotiations and rejected by the US for the very same reason outlined above. Furthermore, the US did not profit from the so called wind-fall (and in the case of Germany wall-fall profits) resulting from the dismantling of heavy industry in the former Soviet states in Eastern Europe and the Eastern part of Germany. All these factors must be taken into consideration when assessing the US performance, in order not to create a feeling of frustration for being judged by a region with comparably easier conditions to reduce CO2 emissions.

The mentioning of renewable energies as a means of reducing emissions is very important from my point of view. I would like to add one reason why this does not only help to tackle the overall problem but could also be very interesting for the US and thus a feasible policy that you only mentioned in relation to China: the reduction of energy dependence from politically unstable countries and regions. The reduction of dependence from fossil fuels is actually the major reason for the US to invest in renewables as pointed out by many policy analysts but also by Obama already in his time a senator.

Finally, I would come back to Santino's concern that the US as a hegemon will not respond to European pressure as already illustrated by ignoring the EU last year in Copenhagen. I think the picture is slightly more nuanced. In general I do believe that the EU can morally (and also economically) pressure the US to a certain degree. The fact that the EU was as Santino phrased it "ignored by the US at COP 15" can be rather explained by the EU underestimation of the US concern with China than by the US hegemonic position in general. The EU has for a long time observed bilateral climate negotiations between the US and the EU without trying to get actively involved or even acting as a mediator. Taking into account that the EU strongly supports the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and has thus a somewhat softer position as regards binding Chinese commitments that the US, the EU would be in a favorable position of mediating between the two countries which has not really been exploited so far. In conclusion, I believe that the relations between the "triangle" US-EU-China are of crucial importance for the further development of the negotiations that we should take into consideration when writing our common policy proposal.

Thanks again for your interesting contribution and looking forward to your response!
Julia

December 1, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear Edson, Julia,

thank you for your contributions. With regard to your questions, Edson, I would like to point you to my responses on the other articles where I illustrate that we certainly have to take the bigger picture into account. Moreover, as argued before, I believe that we should have incentives in place, though as an add-on to stricter regulations. Furthermore I agree that simply calling for "more cooperation" is not helpful, though I would like to point your attention to the fact that I specifically named stakeholders to address and issues to be touched upon, e.g. renewable energies, energy storage technology and smart grids. Research on these topics is key in order to enhance the knowledge about and the availability of a sustainable energy structure.

In addition, I would like to simply support all comments made by you, Julia. I think we pretty much agree in our assessments. Aside from that I would like to highlight that throughout my entire comments I tried to make clear that my objective is not to point fingers or blame the US, but rather outline the complex political situation and provide options for cooperation as in the fields described above that would be able to circumvent these problems. Accordingly I see and agree with you when pointing to different base scenarios, while at the same time would like to emphasize that we discuss policy action in general. It is less a question of "how much" but rather "if at all" taking action.

Moreover I totally agree with you on your argument with regard to the support for renewable energies. Actually you make exactly the very same point I made with regard to a comment from Santino yesterday (China) :)

Thank you again both for your input, Philip

December 1, 2010

Basia A Bubel, NYU, Platinum Contributor (191)

Great article. I find it very frustrating that there is so much divide within the United States when it comes to Climate Change. And it is even more frustrating that the republicans seem to be focusing all their attention toward not having Obama win reelection. As a US citizen, I wish our government would pull itself together and lead by example through the challenges that will face us with Climate Change.

December 1, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Hey all,

honestly, from now I will try to refrain from too many comments on some of our lengthy exchanges. Please consider my previous side notes under the preceding article on efficiency. While we all often have a point, (aggressively) criticizing for the sake of criticizing by way of re-heating old arguments pinned to differences that, benevolently interpreted, probably don’t exist or are peripheral in the first place, shouldn’t be our way to go. Please tell me PRIVATELY (so we don’t hold up the debate) if you feel addressed and really need examples. But much rather: consider the chance we have here to make some of our generation’s voices heard a little in policy circles on this most important issue. So please don’t let the competitive nature of this exercise interfere too much with its eventual outcome, which we will hopefully reach with a great deal of consensus at least on REALLY important points. Enough said.


So, to Philip’s piece:

I really liked it overall, as well as specifically its expertise and general attitude. Aiming to lead by example when it comes to emissions reductions is generally a very positive, and especially in this case much needed thing.

Philip also obviously knows a great deal about current measures and initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic. But, and here comes a downside: concerning recommendations, this excellent review to some degree stays just that: a review. It is way ahead of current actions, and very much up to date with current discussions, but, unfortunately rarely ahead of THEM, which would have been the cream on this nice cake.

Some recommendations are clear, straightforward and mostly practicable, although most of them seem obvious, already pursued or little concrete like “fostering cooperation in the field of renewable energy technology”, or in “electricity storage technology”, or building “new and intelligent grids”. Likewise: Philip, you say “the reasoning for the promotion of renewable energies from a political strategy point of view should not solely be based on emissions reductions but should focus on the economic and strategic benefits”. I completely agree, but: how so? The energy independence card, like you do with your China example, is played at least since Jimmy Carter, with obvious results. On its actual effectiveness I slightly disagree with you (and Julia, too, whose comments otherwise were great throughout in content and style, I agree).

My point is: there have to be more PERSONAL incentives for everyone, not just national ones. But budgets are constrained, so even with stimulus money (see below), just doling out subsidies or the like in large quantities is unlikely. We need innovation, maybe here more than anywhere else. I am really interested, so if you know more please give us more detailed ideas, Philip, or anyone else. Otherwise, or in any event, I am looking forward to your comments on my thoughts on this, come Friday. I also see great potential for synergies when having to put together our recommendations as a group for this Workshop…


Another set of issues: U.S. domestic politics, a main part of the article. In my humble outside onlooker’s opinion, also judging from previous discussion on the other articles, Philip can be commended for both a greatly accurate view and a neat portrayal of U.S. domestic constraints. Another slight BUT: Unfortunately, you sometimes risks throwing their sufficient consideration out the window when devising your own recommendations for U.S. measures, Philip:

Openly taking EU experience as best practice for measures? While Obama rightfully does what he can to avoid the inevitable European (i.e. “big government”) tag? By spending more out of the much hated stimulus money, even if already passed? I agree, that IF more of it is spent, which happens currently, much of this should be done with a view on promoting green jobs and growth. But it especially making the European connection is politically very risky, and I am missing that small but important consideration in your article (not to assume you’d disagree, this is just a suggestion for improvement). “Fuel subsidy cutting”, for instance, is a whole different sell, at least to the “Government is our problem” crowd. BUT it touches on strong interests, too, such as farmers, and perceived U.S. life style in general. So these are just small differentiations, but important ones. How would you address them, given that you have the political insight? To do you justice: when you differentiate between U.S. regions, on the other hand, you implicitly seem to make at least some of those differentiations, which I really like. Of course, places like California or New England would be much more susceptible to “European best practice” (not least because saving face, they have lessons to offer in return).

Why am I stressing all this? Climate-wise, one absolute priority should be emphasized - with all the desirability of more drastic change: Barrack Obama HAS TO BE RE-ELECTED IN TWO YEARS, otherwise, looking at any currently remotely probable alternative, the world would most likely lose the U.S. as any meaningful actor on at least climate change - for at least another four years. Sadly, this is not an option to be risked. So again, positive ways to bypass those political constraints are badly needed.

But even given the need for more cooperation, “cooperation” may not always and in any form be desirable. Take your proposal to link up European and U.S. regional emission trading systems/schemes: a current problem of most of them is that in them the price of emission allowances is far too low to induce the change needed fast enough. This is because too many of them are given away by governments cheaply or even freely because of industries’ political clout. In any single one of them, the challenge is that every spineless or even pre-enlightenment politician wants to pamper and protect their special interest clients from costs. Thus discipline is required for anything like this to work. That, however, would be much more difficult internationally, absent strong supra- or international structures (like the EU among purely European states). Therefore, this proposal may mean that in a common system arguably less stringent regional U.S. regulators, even if progressive in national terms, may ruin European carbon prices, and thus even further ruin incentives on this side of the Atlantic, too. Or should that be accepted in exchange for the prospect of the entire U.S. eventually joining in? I am not saying it couldn’t work, but those issues would have to be accounted for and choices made explicit in any such concept. If anyone of you has good ideas on this, I am happy to hear them.

If we can agree, however, that a strong framework of cooperation is needed to mount something as substantial research- or even implementation cooperation (like with transatlantic emissions trade), using at least potentially controversial trade policies to fight each other would clearly be the wrong way. This goes also for the WTO’s institutional stability absent a rather-sooner-than later political agreement, be it as part of Doha or not. You DO NOT want WTO Panel or Appellate Body members decide over issues this big without explicitly agreed upon guidance by the member states. This should come before the Waxman-Markey bill or anything like it is passed, be it in the U.S., Europe, or elsewhere.

But even desirability aside, this is approach is hardly viable for political considerations, too: you WILL NOT succeed in pressuring either of biggest global economies of the world into submission, especially if you thereby do climate change sceptics the favour of merging them general nationalist streams, of the “buy American” crowd in trade issues.


Generally I believe that Philip and Julia make a good point when they stress the importance of regional emission trading initiatives. Eventually, nothing but their showing that things can practicably be done will lead to U.S. national implementation, weighing much more than experience elsewhere. Because if the latter counted so much then the U.S. would hardly have needed decades for e.g. health care reform.


I also think that energy policy by itself doesn’t make for climate policy, especially as there are still obvious zero sum power games out there as renewable energy technology doesn’t provide the silver bullet solution for all our needs yet. So everyone will have to make at times painful compromises and to a degree take losses in welfare, which is left aside in your piece. So I agree with Santino on this note - although generally not in the fundamental nature of his opposition, as we were clearly volume constrained and your approach could still accommodate considerations like those you later offered in your clarifications, Philip.

Lastly, I agree with Edson when he says that while what the EU and U.S. do is crucial, others and their perspectives should not be left out. However, given the already content-wise scope of Philip’s (there very good) article that may have diluted it unduly, so no reproach here (;

That much from me, further constructive comments are as always much welcomed. Best to you all -

Jan

December 1, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear Jan,

thank you very much for your (lengthy) comment ;) I'll try to answer as brief and precise as possible in the spirit you proposed and that I wholeheartedly welcome :)

First of all, I admit that your comment on the missing cream is spot on ;) Though, even if solutions or ways forwards have been outlined before, I still consider them worth pointing to and strengthening the necessity to apply them ;) Moreover, my entire article focussed on the question of "feasibility" and thus ideas for more innovative but politically more problematic approaches were left out.

In addition, you're right when pointing to the "energy independence" argument as being well-known, but I guess this argument is NOW becoming way more relevant as we'll more and more see that our fossil fuel based economies already have and further will see that they rely too much on imports form politically instable regions (that is not only with regard to fossil fuels, but applies for resources in general, taking the "scarce earth China" issue for example into account).

From what I get, you ask for incentives for citizens across the world to change their living style and consumption patterns. Well, while I do agree in general, again I point to the timeframe in which we need to act. Having said that, incentives on a personal level can only be achieved through state level actions (US due to strong states, EU due to policy power issues). What actions could that be? Well, in terms of energy efficiency, there are for example showcase experiences where the entire neighborhood could see who consumed how much, which then led to a competition among them. Another idea would be to improve the public transport system in cities and providing citizens free tickets based on their environmental behavior (maybe linking it to hot water consumption). Aside from incentives, I still favor regulations, though politically more complicated but policy wise more successful.

Straight to the point, you are correct in that you criticize me for praising the EU too much while not referring to the many problems of the EU and its policy actions itself. I answered this already in previous comments, so let me rather answer your more interesting point with regard to Obama.

Again, you are right in that you point to the political risk of cutting fuel subsidies and the like. However, this point was rather meant as "what could the administration do despite the situation in the Congress". Obama will not get huge funds approved for renewable energy subsidies, so cutting the existing ones on fossil fuels remains the only option at hand. This is a highly complex balance act and given the political situation not without risk. Without question Obama's reelection is key, the question is, on what platform he should ran. I believe that it is a matter of communication to explain why investments into the renewable energy sector and cutting subsidies in energy intensive sectors are key for a sustainable future. I don't believe that the supporters of the tea party and the republican voters can be convinced, but I have the hope that the "undecided moderates" between the two sides could be won over. Especially as investing in new energy technology along with the needed infrastructure can run under the "job-creation" title. It is this industry that already has created more jobs in several states then the fossil fuel sector.

With regard to linking emission trading scheme I agree with your point, especially as the current system is far away from being perfect. But it is the US that has great experiences with permit based trading schemes and the named regional ones will differ in their functionality from the european one as well. Accordingly, taking experiences from both sides into account when linking them is key.

Lastly let me answer your trade policy point. You're right in that this is a crucial and tricky issue to touch upon, but if you ask for more innovative approaches, you might have to go there ;) I'm not saying that the EU and US should fight each other with trade policies - though they sometimes do - but that we at least could have policies in place that provide incentives for more favorable sectors and limitations for the ones that are not benefitting our climate. Or to be more strict, California mandates every car producer that seeks to enter its market to have at least one zero-emission car for sale. Why don't we apply such a policy in the EU as well?

Thanks for your comments, Philip

December 1, 2010

Jan Schierkolk, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Gold Contributor (86)

Hey Philip,

Sorry, my comments would have been much shorter if I hadn’t responded to all the previous comments in them. I’ll reconsider that.

About energy independence: I actually wouldn’t worry so much about real supply cuts, but more about price stability. Because even as the much dreaded state oil companies run the show globally these days, they have largely proven to be reliable suppliers to anyone who pays best. In the case of the U.S., just look at the unhindered supply from Venezuela, despite all political frictions. Plus, despite domestic oil slowly starting to run out, recent shale gas findings and development may help to calm some nerves on the other end (although not those of environmentalists, considering the process).

Thanks for your ideas on life style changing. I’d hope to find some form of big frame to couch them into so efforts get comparable globally, which may bring a lot of incentives. Against misunderstandings: I am not completely against regulations, and they can be much more efficient, or even without alternatives. I’m just saying that in the long run, attitude changes will have a more durable effect, because they are what makes daring new regulation possible in the first place, or may make it even unnecessary. But of course, your time frame concerns are valid here.

I didn’t say subsidy cuts were impossible. In fact, out of the few measures you talked about in that paragraph or sentence, I found them even the most palatable, precisely because this can be sold to the small government crowd. I just meant that even wouldn’t happing without a fight. But that, in general, Obama could do more, after he fell so flat on his face trying to be bipartisan until recently (:

His showed a very dismal performance when he left out the biggest imaginable opportunity to drive home the need for green energy of his presidency so far: the BP disaster in the Mexican Gulf. I was puzzled. I bet he himself regrets that now.

As much as you don’t suggest the U.S. and EU should engage in trade wars, I wouldn’t rule out border measures and the like becoming necessary against most persistent climate villains. That, however, should be fleshed out multilaterally (in the WTO), and not by one big country or block thereof on their own. Because then (leaving aside the bad aspects here) much of what we credit the WTO for would be in danger. I didn’t suggest you don’t see that, too, by the way.

Great comments and clarifications. I like your staying close to the issues. Looking forward to more interaction!

Best,

Jan

December 2, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear Jan,

thanks for your comment. Just a very brief answer. I believe that price stability is a result of resources becoming scarcer and higher political instabilities, thus didn't go more into detail on that, but surely you're right. Venezuela is a good example for your argument, though I'd argue that the Ukrainian situation in the past have shown us the other side of the coin ;) With regard to shale gas I would be VERY cautious. You're aware of the documentary "Gasland" that points to all the problems around it? Moreover, all the deep-see drilling we see is a consequence of the lack of easier accessible resources. Aside form the environmental risks, the more complex the method to extract the needed fuels is, the more expensive it gets.

In addition I didn't understand that you assessed subsidy cuts to be impossible but that you had a valid argument with regard to the risk of going for it ;) I guess we agree on that front.

With regard to trade wars I moreover didn't rule the option out but took a more cautious approach. Though I pointed to the possibility of using them in one of my comments on one of th other pieces pointing to the case in Ontario with regard to the mandatory share of domestically produced equipment which will surely become a WTO case...

Again, thank you very much for your comments. I think they are spot on and bring the discussion considerably forward.

Philip

December 2, 2010

Philip Strothmann, Free University Berlin, Gold Contributor (76)

Dear all,

just a short addition: You might wanna check out this piece that just went online in order to understand in which direction the US is heading on the national level... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/house-gop-global-warming-c... :(

Philip