Climate and the War: Time Is Running Out

Everyone is talking about peace and the climate these days. If there were a Nobel Prize for environmental protection, Germany would be a strong contender; the American President, on the other hand, would not have much of a chance. The United States emits more greenhouse gases per capita than any other nation while doing very little to remedy the situation. Meanwhile, Barack Obama will accept the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo just a few days after he announced that he is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

The Climate Conference has another week to wait before Barack Obama shows up. He will journey to Copenhagen on December 18, bringing with him very few concessions. From the American point of view, his priorities are just about right: peace, as it is understood in the USA, takes precedence over the climate; that means defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and assuring the global dominance of western values like individual freedom and a free market economy. If the United States has any expectations from us, it would be that Germans take more responsibility for world peace as defined by them.

Angela Merkel and a majority of Germans have different priorities: if they expressed their wishes to America, they would include more U.S. responsibility on environmental issues. Afghanistan could wait, not only eight days, but up to eight weeks. Germany does not want to make any course corrections concerning Obama’s new strategy in the Hindu Kush until the conclusion of the Afghanistan Conference in London at the end of January. But that is just a delaying tactic: Chancellor Merkel will learn nothing at the London conference that she does not already know; she is merely trying to avoid an unpleasant subject.

The same may be said about the United States, but not about Obama. The United States gets the most blame for why there will be no binding agreements on greenhouse gases in Copenhagen – agreements which are merely memoranda of understanding between nations that will pretend they are politically binding. Obama will not make any commitments beyond what the U.S. Congress allows. Kyoto proved that presidential agreement to treaties abroad is worth nothing unless the president gets congressional approval at home. So Obama will offer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent of 2005 levels; that translates into only a 4 percent reduction compared to Europe’s contribution, which is based on 1990 emissions figures. However, he is fighting to increase that figure. He has told the American people that the United States is two decades behind others in environmental awareness. He is pressuring the people and those politicians fearing for their re-election in 2010 to rethink their positions. His task is as difficult as Merkel’s will be to convince the Germans to send more combat troops and training personnel into the Afghan war. When will she finally make as courageous a decision as that?

Or they could strike a deal like this: Merkel helps Obama in his fight to get more environmental protection, and Obama gets support for the Afghan war from Merkel by signing an agreement that for every one thousand ton reduction in CO2 emissions made by the United States, Germany sends one soldier to Afghanistan. Politics might be a big tradeoff, but that sort of business would never fly, and rightly so. Both leaders could, however, do more by explaining their counterpart’s valid priorities to their own citizens. But only those who take political chances can ask that from others. Wait-and-see might be soul soothing in the near term, but it never lasts very long; sooner or later, the bill comes in.

There is not enough time left for Afghanistan or the climate to justify the decision making pace in either Germany or the United States.