America Is the ‘X-Variable’ in the Climate Conference Agreement

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 1 December 2015
by Dongguo Liu (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Dagny Dukach. Edited by Melanie Rehfuss.
The parties attending the 21st United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris aim to issue a complete plan for how to respond to climate change by 2020. Today, in accordance with the U.N.’s request, more than 160 countries have already submitted to the conference independent plans for emissions reduction – a key condition for the successful development of the final agreement. However, according to relevant institutions’ analyses of the commitments suggested in the independent reports submitted thus far, the extent of the proposed emissions reductions is still far from the desired target, and available funding contributions are still far from the amount required to support these reductions. Because of this, there will be intense debate at the Paris conference, and it is yet to be seen what sort of final agreement will be decided.

Europe, China and many developing countries hope that by the end of the Paris conference, they will be able to sign a legally enforceable agreement. America, however, opposes this. Among developed nations, America is the greatest source of carbon emissions and is also the greatest potential funding source. Because of this, America’s attitude will directly influence the final outcome of the Paris conference.

To a large extent, the position the American government adopts is restricted by the U.S.’s internal political struggle. Responding to climate change has always been the subject of intense debate within the United States, and competition between America’s political parties has seriously hindered the Obama administration’s ability to operate. Although the Democratic Party supports a relatively proactive approach, the Republican Party, which represents America’s big capital and corporate interests, is strongly opposed to emissions reductions.

On Nov. 12, 2014, the U.S. and China published a joint declaration on climate change. At the Paris conference, both sides can negotiate their positions and issue a concrete plan that outlines their commitments to emissions reductions. In order to implement this, on Aug. 3 of this year, the American Environmental Protection Agency signed the “Clean Power Plan.” Obama has stated he hopes this regulation will be regarded as the core political legacy of his presidential career, and yet as soon as the plan was officially launched, it was met with intense criticism and opposition from America’s conservative powerhouse. On Nov. 18, the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee voted 28 to 21 to pass two resolutions in opposition to the Clean Power Plan. Although Obama can exercise his veto power to overcome these obstacles, the strong voice of domestic opposition within America will, at the very least, have a negative impact on the American government’s positions in negotiations.

I believe when it comes to reaching a final agreement, the biggest unknown variable is America’s 2016 presidential election. The GOP believes Obama launched the Clean Power Plan at the end of his presidency to make it more difficult for them to take power. With so many candidates loudly contending for the Republican candidacy, the GOP’s opposition to emissions reduction policies is a huge factor in the negotiations at the Paris climate conference.

The Obama administration is currently faced with a difficult choice: If the U.S. signs a non-legally binding agreement, it will likely be intensely criticized in the international community, and America’s national image will be seriously damaged. At the same time, if the U.S. signs a legally binding agreement, it could also be viewed as showing weakness and kowtowing to the GOP, since the agreement would then likely be overruled by Congress, just like what occurred with the tragedy of the Kyoto Protocol. From the perspective of political tactics, it is more likely the Obama administration will choose the latter option. Smearing the GOP with the negative publicity that comes with the hot-button issue of pollution certainly seems like it would be the sensible choice for the Democrats.

The form of the agreement will depend upon the content, but the content will also be restricted by the form of the agreement. The international community wants the U.S. to make a greater commitment to both emissions reduction targets and aid funding. At the same time, Obama feels ever-increasing domestic pressures, and so it is entirely possible that the U.S. will continue to remain somewhat disengaged. But if we make too many concessions to the U.S., the entire value of the agreement will be greatly diminished, and it could become a weak, “toothless” law. Therefore, the Paris conference will also present a difficult choice for the other countries in attendance. I can only hope that the Paris negotiations, which concern all of humanity and the future of our entire natural ecology, will not be hijacked by America’s partisan politics.

The author is an associate professor of international relations at Renmin University of China.


刘东国:美国是气候大会协议的X因素

正在巴黎举行的联合国《气候变化框架公约》缔约方第21次会议将就2020年之后如何应对气候变化做出总体安排。目前已有160多个国家按照要求向大会提交了自主减排方案,这为最终协议的达成创造了条件。然而根据相关机构对已提交的自主承诺作出的汇总分析,承诺的减排额度与要达到的目标还有较大的差距,援助资金的需求量与捐资量之间也存在着巨大差距,这决定了巴黎大会将充满激烈的争论,大会最终将缔结一个什么样的协议,这是留给世人的最大悬念。
  欧盟、中国及其他广大发展中国家都希望巴黎气候谈判最终能签署具有法律约束力的条约,但美国却反对。美国是发达国家中碳排放量最多的国家,也是资金援助能力最强的国家,美国的态度将直接影响着巴黎气候谈判的最终结果。
美国政府采取目前的立场在很大程度上受到其国内政治斗争的制约。党派之争严重妨碍了奥巴马政府的行动能力,在应对气候变化问题上,美国国内历来存在着激烈的争论。虽然民主党持相对积极态度,但代表美国大资本集团利益的共和党却强烈反对减排。
  2014年11月12日,中美发表气候变化联合声明,双方就巴黎会议谈判协调立场,并作出具体的减排承诺。为落实承诺,美国环保署于今年8月3日颁布了《清洁电力计划》,奥巴马声称希望以此为自己的总统生涯留下一个“核心政治遗产”。但该计划一出台就遭到美国保守势力的强烈批评和反对。11月18日,美国众议院能源和商务委员会以28:21的票数通过了反对《清洁电力计划》的两项决议。虽然奥巴马可以行使一票否决权来清除障碍,但国内强大的反对声音至少会对美国政府的谈判立场带来负面影响。
  笔者认为,达成最终协议的最大不确定因素其实是2016年美国总统大选。共和党认为,奥巴马在总统任期行将结束时推出《清洁电力计划》是为共和党上台执政制造困难。共和党在此轮总统竞选中民气一直很旺,它的反减排立场为巴黎气候谈判带来了很大变数。
  奥巴马政府目前面临着两难抉择:如果签署不具约束力的条约,会受到国际社会的强烈谴责,美国的国家形象会受到很大损害,同时也会被看做是向共和党低头让步的软弱表现;如果签署有约束力的条约,很可能遭到国会的否决,从而重演《京都议定书》的悲剧。从政治斗争策略来看,奥巴马政府选择后者的可能性更大。将保护污染的坏名声甩给共和党,这对民主党来说应当是一个明智的选择。
  协议形式取决于内容,内容也制约着形式。国际社会要求美国作出更高的减排和资金援助承诺,奥巴马承受的国内压力就会增大,美国很可能继续游离之外。而如果对美国作出太多的让步,整个协议的效力将大打折扣,可能是“没有牙齿”的软法律。因此,对于其他国家来说,巴黎谈判也面临着一个两难选择。但愿事关人类和整个自然生态未来命运的巴黎谈判协议不要被美国党派政治所绑架。(作者是中国人民大学国际关系学院副教授)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Topics

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?

India: World in Flux: India Must See Bigger Trade Picture

Palestine: US vs. Ansarallah: Will Trump Launch a Ground War in Yemen for Israel?

Ukraine: Trump Faces Uneasy Choices on Russia’s War as His ‘Compromise Strategy’ Is Failing

Related Articles

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

Cuba: Trump, Panama and the Canal

China: White House Peddling Snake Oil as Medicine