The U.S. and Climate Change: A Difficult Political Match
Published in Terra
(Italy) on 5 September 2011
by Emanuele Bompan (link to original)
(Italy) on 5 September 2011
by Emanuele Bompan (link to original)
Translated from
by Mattia L. Nappi.
Edited by Mark DeLucas.
The cuts to the State Department and the U.N. climate agencies put forth by the Republicans would put at risk the fight against global warming. Here are the players of this arm wrestling.
The United States has always played a controversial role in the climate negotiations promoted within the the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bill Clinton was not able to sign any law to reduce the number of U.S.-made climate-altering gas emissions; for eight years, George W. Bush strenuously opposed to any regulation of emissions, preventing the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Obama, since the beginning of his tenure at the White House, has repeatedly urged Congress to approve a climate bill, watered down into the American Clean Energy and Security Act — with many concessions on nuclear energy and natural gas — and finally reduced to the Energy Bill, which is open to offshore drilling in Alaska. Three increasingly weak bills attempting to put a cap on emissions were passed by the House but blocked by the Senate. Now the new Congress, which is firmly controlled by the Republican Party, and in particular by the emotional speaker of the House, John Boehner, is prepared to destroy any possible future proposal that gets to the House that contains, if only by accident, the word "climate change."
It is the new fear, said a Capitol Hill source who actively works on legislative texts about environmental issues explains. You say “climate” and they trot out every possible reason to denigrate climate science, speaking of deceit, fraud, manipulation. Presidential candidates such as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann declare outright a war against the Environmental Protection Agency. The Minnesota candidate stated that she will put an end to “the EPA's regulatory reign of terror”* — the EPA’s regulations on air and water pollution that “kill thousands of jobs.”** According to several people interviewed, members of think tanks and Washington environmentalist lobbies, the new targets are climate negotiations and a series of UN initiatives created in order to slow global warming.
In other words, the Republicans' desire is to see the U.N. framework fail. As we analyze the “Republican-led” budget cutbacks, it emerges that the funds for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be cut out, weakening the strength of the scientific institution and the financial support to the UNFCCC. The U.S. alone contributes as much as 14 percent of the U.N. Framework Convention's total management budget of $35 million. The fate of funding cuts is bound to an amendment by Florida Republican Congressman Connie Mack, after being approved in a subcommittee.
Public funding: The goal as his press office explains to Terra, is to eliminate all U.S. funds for global activities and initiatives combating climate change. In addition, with U.S. companies strained by the existing environmental regulations, it is time that other countries do their part to improve the climate, removing the burden on the U.S. The fate of the amendment, however, is unknown.
Even more serious are the cuts — still only hypothetical — to the budget of the U.S. State Department, to which the climate negotiating team led by Todd Stern belongs. Although in December, in Durban, South Africa, the team will discuss the future of climate negotiations, now gotten to a critical point (either progress or die), here in the U.S. there is urgency in Foggy Bottom’s corridors to get the necessary resources to continue the work started by the Copenhagen Accord. The State Department has not released any comments to Terra, but, as it emerged from some press conferences, there is concern about budget cuts related to the State Department's cooperation and development projects, which also include climate negotiations. Among the various spending reductions that have been proposed, the most relevant might be cuts to the Climate Investment Fund and the Global Environmental Facility.
The first, the Climate Investment Fund, is the development fund that promotes low-carbon projects in 45 developing countries, supervised by the World Bank. This financing allow nations with scarce capital to create large-scale projects in solar and wind technologies, prevent deforestation and develop strategies of resilience and adaptation to climate change. The second, the Global Environmental Facility, was born 20 years ago, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, to help the poorest countries in implementation of strategies for environmental conservation. Because of pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama's 2012 budget would reduce funding from $143 million to $70 million. At the moment, we do not know what will happen to the "super fund" known as the Green Climate Fund, proposed during the Copenhagen negotiations and created in Cancun in 2010; it would raise, until 2020, funds of $100 billion a year from industrialized countries.
We do not know about its fast-start version, which is struggling to take off, due to the reluctance of many Western countries to allocate resources in the middle of a potential double-dip recession. Congressman Mack’s amendment and the cuts to the State Department provoked several angry reactions from environmentalists and congressional representatives. "An outrage that we cannot overlook,” says Jake Schmidt of the environmental association the Natural Resources Defense Council. “These are difficult times, but cutting these funds will not help to save our destiny."** Not everyone in the Republican galaxy is in favor of these proposals. Jim DiPeso of the Republicans for Environmental Protection is surprised, "It's absurd that Congress is contemplating shutting off dollars to such landmark initiatives as IPCC and UNFCCC. An already tense atmosphere on Capitol Hill becomes hyper-taut when politicians hide behind supposed deficit-hawk credentials to justify shrinking the budget to match their ideology.”
*Editor's note: The quoted remark was in fact delivered by Jon Huntsman.
**Editor's note: The quotes, although accurately translated, could not be independently verified.
The United States has always played a controversial role in the climate negotiations promoted within the the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Bill Clinton was not able to sign any law to reduce the number of U.S.-made climate-altering gas emissions; for eight years, George W. Bush strenuously opposed to any regulation of emissions, preventing the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Obama, since the beginning of his tenure at the White House, has repeatedly urged Congress to approve a climate bill, watered down into the American Clean Energy and Security Act — with many concessions on nuclear energy and natural gas — and finally reduced to the Energy Bill, which is open to offshore drilling in Alaska. Three increasingly weak bills attempting to put a cap on emissions were passed by the House but blocked by the Senate. Now the new Congress, which is firmly controlled by the Republican Party, and in particular by the emotional speaker of the House, John Boehner, is prepared to destroy any possible future proposal that gets to the House that contains, if only by accident, the word "climate change."
It is the new fear, said a Capitol Hill source who actively works on legislative texts about environmental issues explains. You say “climate” and they trot out every possible reason to denigrate climate science, speaking of deceit, fraud, manipulation. Presidential candidates such as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann declare outright a war against the Environmental Protection Agency. The Minnesota candidate stated that she will put an end to “the EPA's regulatory reign of terror”* — the EPA’s regulations on air and water pollution that “kill thousands of jobs.”** According to several people interviewed, members of think tanks and Washington environmentalist lobbies, the new targets are climate negotiations and a series of UN initiatives created in order to slow global warming.
In other words, the Republicans' desire is to see the U.N. framework fail. As we analyze the “Republican-led” budget cutbacks, it emerges that the funds for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be cut out, weakening the strength of the scientific institution and the financial support to the UNFCCC. The U.S. alone contributes as much as 14 percent of the U.N. Framework Convention's total management budget of $35 million. The fate of funding cuts is bound to an amendment by Florida Republican Congressman Connie Mack, after being approved in a subcommittee.
Public funding: The goal as his press office explains to Terra, is to eliminate all U.S. funds for global activities and initiatives combating climate change. In addition, with U.S. companies strained by the existing environmental regulations, it is time that other countries do their part to improve the climate, removing the burden on the U.S. The fate of the amendment, however, is unknown.
Even more serious are the cuts — still only hypothetical — to the budget of the U.S. State Department, to which the climate negotiating team led by Todd Stern belongs. Although in December, in Durban, South Africa, the team will discuss the future of climate negotiations, now gotten to a critical point (either progress or die), here in the U.S. there is urgency in Foggy Bottom’s corridors to get the necessary resources to continue the work started by the Copenhagen Accord. The State Department has not released any comments to Terra, but, as it emerged from some press conferences, there is concern about budget cuts related to the State Department's cooperation and development projects, which also include climate negotiations. Among the various spending reductions that have been proposed, the most relevant might be cuts to the Climate Investment Fund and the Global Environmental Facility.
The first, the Climate Investment Fund, is the development fund that promotes low-carbon projects in 45 developing countries, supervised by the World Bank. This financing allow nations with scarce capital to create large-scale projects in solar and wind technologies, prevent deforestation and develop strategies of resilience and adaptation to climate change. The second, the Global Environmental Facility, was born 20 years ago, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, to help the poorest countries in implementation of strategies for environmental conservation. Because of pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama's 2012 budget would reduce funding from $143 million to $70 million. At the moment, we do not know what will happen to the "super fund" known as the Green Climate Fund, proposed during the Copenhagen negotiations and created in Cancun in 2010; it would raise, until 2020, funds of $100 billion a year from industrialized countries.
We do not know about its fast-start version, which is struggling to take off, due to the reluctance of many Western countries to allocate resources in the middle of a potential double-dip recession. Congressman Mack’s amendment and the cuts to the State Department provoked several angry reactions from environmentalists and congressional representatives. "An outrage that we cannot overlook,” says Jake Schmidt of the environmental association the Natural Resources Defense Council. “These are difficult times, but cutting these funds will not help to save our destiny."** Not everyone in the Republican galaxy is in favor of these proposals. Jim DiPeso of the Republicans for Environmental Protection is surprised, "It's absurd that Congress is contemplating shutting off dollars to such landmark initiatives as IPCC and UNFCCC. An already tense atmosphere on Capitol Hill becomes hyper-taut when politicians hide behind supposed deficit-hawk credentials to justify shrinking the budget to match their ideology.”
*Editor's note: The quoted remark was in fact delivered by Jon Huntsman.
**Editor's note: The quotes, although accurately translated, could not be independently verified.
Previous article![]( "The 9/11 Attacks Were 10 Years Ago: What Has America Learned?")
