Is the United States Back in the Game?

Coinciding with the announcement of his December 9th visit to Copenhagen, Barack Obama has just presented [greenhouse gas emission] reduction goals for the United States, looking ahead to 2020 and 2030. At first glance, the goals seem ambitious: -17 percent by 2020, -32 percent by 2025, and -40 percent by 2030, all as compared to 2005. But what’s the real story?

The reference year established in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol is 1990. Therefore, we must roll back the goals announced by the United States to that year, so that we can compare its commitments with those of other industrialized countries, and in the end, with the ambition we must have: staying below the 2 degrees Celsius [that scientists say is the maximum safe increase in global temperature].

Target Years

2020

2025

2030

Commitments Relative to 2005

-17 percent

-30 percent

-42 percent

Commitments Relative to 1990

-3 percent

-19 percent

-30 percent

Comparison of the United States’ commitments, as a function of the chosen reference year

So, good news or bad news? It’s all a question of perspective.

Let’s take the perspective of climate science, to start. Are these commitments sufficient? No, if we want to maximize our chances of staying below the 2 degrees Celsius mark. For industrialized countries, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sets a range of 25 to 40 percent reduction of emissions by 2020, a necessary stop on the way to a 75 to 80 percent cut by 2050. The United States is therefore not yet meeting the challenge, even if in the longer term, 20 or 30 years from now, the American targets could allow for a convergence of trajectories with the other industrialized nations.

When we take the political point of view, the dynamic is definitely positive. The United States’s commitment for 2030 is a nice political coup. It is an internal one, most of all, because the reduction measures that must be voted on by Congress are relatively modest, and thus acceptable to businesses and households. Looking at it another way, the United States has placed so few restrictions on its emissions since 1990 that the first efforts won’t be the most complicated to put in place. Let’s take an example: putting fuel efficiency standards on all cars in America should allow substantial reductions within ten years, without costing too much.

But on the diplomatic front, with less than 10 days until the summit in Copenhagen, American diplomacy has demonstrated its power. In announcing what everyone thought was impossible, that is, specific numerical targets for emission reductions, the United States is resuming a leadership role in the negotiations without actually putting forth too much effort to meet the real challenge. It is now up to the rest of the industrialized nations (Europe, Japan) and the major emerging powers (China, India, Brazil) to carry the expectations.

So, in the end, what can we make of this turning point in the negotiations? That the United States can sure do better. That it has the economic and political means to go farther than its tiny 4 percent. But, from a diplomatic point of view, well played!