Cancun Is Hopeless If the U.S. Is Not Active

After experiencing the noise from the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009, people do not have much hope for success in the upcoming climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, beginning on November 29, and are focusing their attention on the 2011 South Africa climate talks instead.

Looking back at history, the U.S. attitude has had a decisive role in the ups and downs of the status of climate change negotiations in international politics in the past ten years.

In 1997, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which has become the blueprint of the new century for global climate action. Unfortunately, the U.S. government — the country with the most greenhouse gas emissions — backed out, which was a major blow to the global climate agreement. The Kyoto Protocol came into force eight years later, in 2005, as the international community’s confidence in climate change negotiations was gradually restored. At this time, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore successfully extended his political life by embracing the subject of climate change, and for this reason, won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

In the United States, 2008 was an election year. It was presidential candidate Barack Obama who promised the media that if he was elected, he would urge the U.S. to regain leadership in the global climate campaign. But since becoming president, he has been busy with the financial crisis and other things that he considers to be more important and has practically left U.S. climate policy aside, leaving all the decision-making for Congress to debate over.

Throughout 2009, the international community looked forward to the progress of America’s climate legislation. With lessons learned from the Kyoto Protocol, in which the U.S. signed agreements at international talks in the event that it did not accomplish domestic climate legislation, people now know that that signature did not count in the end. Unfortunately, the only achievement of U.S. climate legislation in 2009 was the “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” passed by the House of Representatives with a razor-thin majority. On the other hand, climate legislation in the U.S. Senate did not progress smoothly. Emission reduction targets and various emission reduction measures were constantly modified and targets were reduced, but nevertheless, the legislation lacked sufficient support in numbers from the senators. In July 2009, the U.S. announced that the Senate would indefinitely shelve the climate change legislation.

Some people say that the Democratic Party’s defeat in the 2010 midterm elections will be a turning point in U.S. climate legislation because Democrats hope to promote energy conservation, while the Republicans have long obstructed energy conservation and emission reduction legislation. This is not necessarily true. In my opinion, the failure of the U.S. climate legislation was only solidified by the midterm elections. When Obama came into power, the Democrats were in an excellent position. Not only did they gain the presidential throne, they also had a 60 percent absolute majority in the Senate. But even in this political situation, climate legislation did not make any progress in the Senate because many Democratic senators were opposed to it. The U.S. midterm elections did not change the failure of climate legislation in the political platform; it merely brought new supporters and opponents from individual states into power.

The focus of discussion in the international community in 2010 has been about how to escape America’s political shadow and get back onto the right track with international climate talks. One idea is to first steer clear of the U.S. during climate negotiations, while other countries sign a carbon emissions agreement and then force the U.S. to join this international climate movement through international public opinion. But this idea is, in fact, pinning all hopes for the success of global climate action efforts on whether a superpower will ultimately accept it. The international community can no longer tolerate the uncertainty of the United States.

Another idea is to first steer clear of the United Nations climate framework during climate negotiations, and with the help of the new G-20 platform, reach consensus between the most important economies in the world and later get approval through the United Nations climate conference. However, this approach lacks international legitimacy — it is equivalent to a few big nations making the decisions in global affairs and leaving the hundreds of small countries out of the global climate decision-making loop.

In order to reach a final consensus in the global climate conference, active participation from the U.S. is still needed. During the Copenhagen climate summit, the United States promised to provide $100 billion annually in aid to developing countries. But now it seems like this was just an empty promise. U.S. leaders need to show courage and determination to remove the many obstacles in their political struggle and unconditionally take the lead. These actions should not be all talk, but should be commitments that are transparent and auditable.

For the U.S. to re-establish its leadership position in the global climate campaign, it should provide aid and support — capital and technology — to developing countries by exploring the balance between economy and environment in the new development model, rather than setting up barriers during the economic development of developing countries. Only then will America’s opinions on global climate issues have hope of gaining support from the many developing countries, and climate talks can get back on the right track.