Yo, Kyoto - Bush shifts his stance on global warming
Saturday, 6 October 2007
Fiona Harvey
The spectacle of US President George W Bush exhorting other countries to follow his lead in tackling climate change came as a puzzle last week to many. Since a 2001 speech in which he questioned the science of global warming, he had barely mentioned the subject until his State of the Union address this January, when a single mention crept in. Now the White House is seeking to be portrayed as leading the pack.
"What I'm telling you is that we've got a strategy, we've got a comprehensive approach," Mr Bush told senior government officials from the world's 16 biggest greenhouse gas emitters, including the US, who had gathered in Washington last week at his behest, "and we look forward to working with you as part of this global effort to do our duty."
According to US officials, Mr Bush has been sorely misunderstood on the issue. They maintain that, while presented as a wrecker of international agreements on global warming, his administration has been quietly forging ahead on plans to cut emissions.
Kurt Volker, principal deputy assistant secretary of state, last week told the Atlantic Council, an organisation that promotes US leadership in international affairs: "There is a myth out there about the US that we must debunk, that . . . we're just one big, gas-belching nation of polluters without scruples. The facts are that the United States cares a great deal about climate change, is actively taking and promoting steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is working together with the major economies of the world to develop a post-Kyoto framework for cutting emissions."
In a sidelong reference to the book and film by Democratic former vice-president Al Gore on risks to the environment, he added: "For anyone who took comfort in the myth of America as Dr Evil, this is an 'inconvenient truth'."
Mr Volker's message was hammered home during a week of activity that involved three high-level meetings on the subject in the US. More than 80 heads of state and government met at the United Nations in New York, the first time such a summit has addressed the problem. Some of them also attended the Clinton Global Initiative conference to hear Mr Gore and others. Finally, officials from the world's biggest emitters travelled to Washington for two days of talks hosted by Mr Bush and Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state.
But the White House's interpretation of its activities on climate change contrasts sharply with that of other governments at the talks and of environmental groups. According to their view, Mr Bush's new-found interest in global warming is intended for voters who will choose his successor next year, while the US continues to resist the stringent cutting of carbon emissions that scientists say is necessary to make a real difference.
Phil Clapp, president of the US National Environmental Trust, says of the White House stance: "There is about an ounce of action to every 200 pounds of rhetoric."
Mr Bush took pains last week to stress how much the US had in common with other nations in fighting climate change and declared that it had taken the lead in some low-carbon technologies. But despite the president's emollient words, "it was striking how isolated the US" was at the conference it had called, according to John Ashton, the UK's special representative on climate change.
Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, concedes that the discussions were "very vigorous", yet nothing was resolved except a decision to hold further meetings.
But even many of those sceptical of Mr Bush's motives agreed that last week's meetings at least marked a reversal of his attitude during his early period in office, when he rejected the international Kyoto protocol on reducing emissions and cast doubt on the human role in global warming. Elizabeth Bast, international policy analyst at Friends of the Earth, says: "It was good to hear him talking about climate change."
The extent of Mr Bush's shift of position, whatever its motivation, should not be underestimated. For example, early this year the US official view was that it was still "premature" to start discussing a successor to the Kyoto protocol, the main provisions of which expire in 2012. But last week, Mr Bush welcomed the chance to begin such negotiations at a UN meeting in Bali in December and Boyden Gray, US ambassador to the European Union, warned in the Financial Times that "the world cannot afford to wait" to start talks on a successor.
Sigmar Gabriel, Germany's environment minister, summed up both the magnitude of the change and the concern that it does not go far enough, when he called the Washington meeting a "great step for the Americans and a small step for mankind?. . .?In substance, we are still far apart."
Mr Bush last week acknowledged climate change as one of the "great challenges of our time". Tellingly, he even quoted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-convened body that has been attacked by many in Mr Bush's Republican party for perceived political bias, saying climate change was "caused largely by human activities". But he and US officials at the Washington meeting also emphasised the few areas of agreement between the US and developed economies such as the European Union, Canada and Japan. Mr Bush was also at pains to point out that there was no contradiction between economic growth and cutting emissions.
"Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases," he said. (The same proposition, that going green can lead to economic growth, was also put forward at the Clinton Global Initiative by former US president Bill Clinton and Mr Gore.)
The need to invest in new technology to reduce emissions is also a matter of agreement and all countries also recognise the need to set a long-term global goal to cut emissions. As a result, Mr Connaughton declared, delegates at the Washington meeting were "walking firmly on a lot of common ground".
But the areas of disagreement are still far larger. For example, although Mr Bush and Ms Rice last week both emphasised the desire for a global emissions reduction goal, the US did not advance any proposal for such a goal, leaving other countries to speculate that the US itself could not agree on what such an aim should be.
Divisions also remain deep over the question of legally binding commitments to cut emissions. The UN, the EU and other nations argue that only commitments to cut emissions that are legally binding at an international level will result in reductions. The US still opposes taking on binding international obligations but has suggested it could adopt domestic goals. Ms Rice told the Washington meeting: "Every country will make its own decisions, reflecting its own needs and its own interests [and will] tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best."
But Britain's Mr Ashton says: "There was very strong support [from other countries] that the effort needs to be led by a system of mandatory targets by all industrialised countries, including the US. Their proposition that you can have national targets is like saying that we will make promises to ourselves but not to anyone else."
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, adds that only binding targets for emissions cuts could provide enough regulatory certainty to persuade businesses to invest in reducing their greenhouse gas output. He points to the increasing number of businesses that support binding cuts, saying: "If you want to make investments now [such as in power plants], companies want to know what framework there will be in 30 years. That's why business has been out in front asking for clarity."
Mechanisms by which countries should achieve their emissions cuts also divide the UN and the US. Mr Bush made no mention of carbon trading, the system of buying and selling "carbon credits" set up under the Kyoto protocol. Instead, he said: "There are many policy tools that nations can use, including a variety of market mechanisms, to create incentives for companies and consumers to invest in new low-emission energy sources. Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of tools and technologies to achieve results."
But Mr de Boer maintains that an international trading system is the best way to put a price on carbon, thereby giving companies an incentive to reduce it, and at the same time ensure investment goes to poor countries.
Of the 16 emitting countries represented at the Washington meeting, more than a third - China, India, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia and Brazil - were developing nations. By various measures, China has either already overtaken the US as the world's biggest emitter or will soon do so. But, under Kyoto, developing economies are not required to take on binding emissions cuts.
The US, however, insisted several times last week that developing countries must bear more of the burden of emissions cuts. Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, told the Washington meeting: "All the major economies, not just a select few, [must] work together as equals to develop a way forward."
China, India and the other developing economies do not accept that they are equally obliged to cut emissions. They argue that although their overall emissions are large, these started later and per capita are much lower than those of rich countries.
A compromise may be possible - but it depends on the US. Yu Jie, climate adviser at the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Beijing, argues that China's emissions cuts should be seen in context: China is now "the factory of the world", which means that rich countries have simply offloaded some of their emissions by offshoring energy-intensive manufacturing to China and other developing countries and buying back finished goods. But she says the Chinese government is deeply concerned about climate change and is willing to agree to international action if the US does too: "China will be a follower if the US leads."
One possible compromise deal would be to give developing countries incentives to cut emissions rather than targets for emissions cuts, by rewarding them with development aid when emissions fall below a certain level.
There is little likelihood that any of the substantive areas of disagreement will be resolved in December at the Bali summit. A UN meeting scheduled to take place in Denmark in late 2009 will be the last chance to come up with a successor to the Kyoto protocol if it is to be ratified by national governments by 2012 when Kyoto expires.
While the rhetoric from Mr Bush and his officials has changed markedly in the past six months, the EU and other governments that have been frustrated at the lack of progress on tackling greenhouse gas emissions left last week's meetings unconvinced. The delegations spent much of their time on Capitol Hill talking to the Democratic party, which they suspect may provide Mr Bush's successor.
The spectacle of US President George W Bush exhorting other countries to follow his lead in tackling climate change came as a puzzle last week to many. Since a 2001 speech in which he questioned the science of global warming, he had barely mentioned the subject until his State of the Union address this January, when a single mention crept in. Now the White House is seeking to be portrayed as leading the pack.
"What I'm telling you is that we've got a strategy, we've got a comprehensive approach," Mr Bush told senior government officials from the world's 16 biggest greenhouse gas emitters, including the US, who had gathered in Washington last week at his behest, "and we look forward to working with you as part of this global effort to do our duty."
According to US officials, Mr Bush has been sorely misunderstood on the issue. They maintain that, while presented as a wrecker of international agreements on global warming, his administration has been quietly forging ahead on plans to cut emissions.
Kurt Volker, principal deputy assistant secretary of state, last week told the Atlantic Council, an organisation that promotes US leadership in international affairs: "There is a myth out there about the US that we must debunk, that . . . we're just one big, gas-belching nation of polluters without scruples. The facts are that the United States cares a great deal about climate change, is actively taking and promoting steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is working together with the major economies of the world to develop a post-Kyoto framework for cutting emissions."
In a sidelong reference to the book and film by Democratic former vice-president Al Gore on risks to the environment, he added: "For anyone who took comfort in the myth of America as Dr Evil, this is an 'inconvenient truth'."
Mr Volker's message was hammered home during a week of activity that involved three high-level meetings on the subject in the US. More than 80 heads of state and government met at the United Nations in New York, the first time such a summit has addressed the problem. Some of them also attended the Clinton Global Initiative conference to hear Mr Gore and others. Finally, officials from the world's biggest emitters travelled to Washington for two days of talks hosted by Mr Bush and Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state.
But the White House's interpretation of its activities on climate change contrasts sharply with that of other governments at the talks and of environmental groups. According to their view, Mr Bush's new-found interest in global warming is intended for voters who will choose his successor next year, while the US continues to resist the stringent cutting of carbon emissions that scientists say is necessary to make a real difference.
Phil Clapp, president of the US National Environmental Trust, says of the White House stance: "There is about an ounce of action to every 200 pounds of rhetoric."
Mr Bush took pains last week to stress how much the US had in common with other nations in fighting climate change and declared that it had taken the lead in some low-carbon technologies. But despite the president's emollient words, "it was striking how isolated the US" was at the conference it had called, according to John Ashton, the UK's special representative on climate change.
Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, concedes that the discussions were "very vigorous", yet nothing was resolved except a decision to hold further meetings.
But even many of those sceptical of Mr Bush's motives agreed that last week's meetings at least marked a reversal of his attitude during his early period in office, when he rejected the international Kyoto protocol on reducing emissions and cast doubt on the human role in global warming. Elizabeth Bast, international policy analyst at Friends of the Earth, says: "It was good to hear him talking about climate change."
The extent of Mr Bush's shift of position, whatever its motivation, should not be underestimated. For example, early this year the US official view was that it was still "premature" to start discussing a successor to the Kyoto protocol, the main provisions of which expire in 2012. But last week, Mr Bush welcomed the chance to begin such negotiations at a UN meeting in Bali in December and Boyden Gray, US ambassador to the European Union, warned in the Financial Times that "the world cannot afford to wait" to start talks on a successor.
Sigmar Gabriel, Germany's environment minister, summed up both the magnitude of the change and the concern that it does not go far enough, when he called the Washington meeting a "great step for the Americans and a small step for mankind?. . .?In substance, we are still far apart."
Mr Bush last week acknowledged climate change as one of the "great challenges of our time". Tellingly, he even quoted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-convened body that has been attacked by many in Mr Bush's Republican party for perceived political bias, saying climate change was "caused largely by human activities". But he and US officials at the Washington meeting also emphasised the few areas of agreement between the US and developed economies such as the European Union, Canada and Japan. Mr Bush was also at pains to point out that there was no contradiction between economic growth and cutting emissions.
"Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases," he said. (The same proposition, that going green can lead to economic growth, was also put forward at the Clinton Global Initiative by former US president Bill Clinton and Mr Gore.)
The need to invest in new technology to reduce emissions is also a matter of agreement and all countries also recognise the need to set a long-term global goal to cut emissions. As a result, Mr Connaughton declared, delegates at the Washington meeting were "walking firmly on a lot of common ground".
But the areas of disagreement are still far larger. For example, although Mr Bush and Ms Rice last week both emphasised the desire for a global emissions reduction goal, the US did not advance any proposal for such a goal, leaving other countries to speculate that the US itself could not agree on what such an aim should be.
Divisions also remain deep over the question of legally binding commitments to cut emissions. The UN, the EU and other nations argue that only commitments to cut emissions that are legally binding at an international level will result in reductions. The US still opposes taking on binding international obligations but has suggested it could adopt domestic goals. Ms Rice told the Washington meeting: "Every country will make its own decisions, reflecting its own needs and its own interests [and will] tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best."
But Britain's Mr Ashton says: "There was very strong support [from other countries] that the effort needs to be led by a system of mandatory targets by all industrialised countries, including the US. Their proposition that you can have national targets is like saying that we will make promises to ourselves but not to anyone else."
Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, adds that only binding targets for emissions cuts could provide enough regulatory certainty to persuade businesses to invest in reducing their greenhouse gas output. He points to the increasing number of businesses that support binding cuts, saying: "If you want to make investments now [such as in power plants], companies want to know what framework there will be in 30 years. That's why business has been out in front asking for clarity."
Mechanisms by which countries should achieve their emissions cuts also divide the UN and the US. Mr Bush made no mention of carbon trading, the system of buying and selling "carbon credits" set up under the Kyoto protocol. Instead, he said: "There are many policy tools that nations can use, including a variety of market mechanisms, to create incentives for companies and consumers to invest in new low-emission energy sources. Each nation must decide for itself the right mix of tools and technologies to achieve results."
But Mr de Boer maintains that an international trading system is the best way to put a price on carbon, thereby giving companies an incentive to reduce it, and at the same time ensure investment goes to poor countries.
Of the 16 emitting countries represented at the Washington meeting, more than a third - China, India, Mexico, South Africa, Indonesia and Brazil - were developing nations. By various measures, China has either already overtaken the US as the world's biggest emitter or will soon do so. But, under Kyoto, developing economies are not required to take on binding emissions cuts.
The US, however, insisted several times last week that developing countries must bear more of the burden of emissions cuts. Hank Paulson, Treasury secretary, told the Washington meeting: "All the major economies, not just a select few, [must] work together as equals to develop a way forward."
China, India and the other developing economies do not accept that they are equally obliged to cut emissions. They argue that although their overall emissions are large, these started later and per capita are much lower than those of rich countries.
A compromise may be possible - but it depends on the US. Yu Jie, climate adviser at the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Beijing, argues that China's emissions cuts should be seen in context: China is now "the factory of the world", which means that rich countries have simply offloaded some of their emissions by offshoring energy-intensive manufacturing to China and other developing countries and buying back finished goods. But she says the Chinese government is deeply concerned about climate change and is willing to agree to international action if the US does too: "China will be a follower if the US leads."
One possible compromise deal would be to give developing countries incentives to cut emissions rather than targets for emissions cuts, by rewarding them with development aid when emissions fall below a certain level.
There is little likelihood that any of the substantive areas of disagreement will be resolved in December at the Bali summit. A UN meeting scheduled to take place in Denmark in late 2009 will be the last chance to come up with a successor to the Kyoto protocol if it is to be ratified by national governments by 2012 when Kyoto expires.
While the rhetoric from Mr Bush and his officials has changed markedly in the past six months, the EU and other governments that have been frustrated at the lack of progress on tackling greenhouse gas emissions left last week's meetings unconvinced. The delegations spent much of their time on Capitol Hill talking to the Democratic party, which they suspect may provide Mr Bush's successor.