Bush, The World, and Climate Change

The stubbornness of the Bush administration to take an assertive leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is very disconcerting. Three monumental conferences occurred last week that have at least brought major international players to the table for negotiation, but our government’s rejection of placing firm caps on its emissions leave little room for compromise and leadership taking.

On September 24, The United Nations General Assembly convened a unique High-Level Session in which dozens of heads of states addressed the topic. On the twenty-sixth, the Clinton Global Initiative brought governments, NGOs, intellectuals, and media to focus attention on the issues of climate change from the bottom up, in effect, the kind of pressure that comes from civil society and industry that makes it possible to achieve many of the technological changes, but keeps all of us and our governments honest. The final event had the Bush administration itself host leaders from fifteen major economies for an unprecedented meeting.

For a week, all attention was focused on the most potent global emergency human civilization has ever faced. I commend President Bush for his forward-looking vision on at least realizing the bitter reality of climate change. What I cannot understand is why he would convene such an event amongst the major economies principally responsible for the vast majority of emissions if the U.S. itself is unwilling to solidify progress on the issue’s most crucial aspect: carbon caps.

The Kyoto Protocol sets environmental goals and obligations for its signatories to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases. Even Russia, a country that has consistently been moving towards state centralization, signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1999 (although there was some debate over its stipulations and it did not ratify the protocol until September 2004). Regardless, the refusal of President Bush and the Australians to sign the agreement back in 2001 virtually handicaps this initiative. Kyoto expires in 2012 and numerous conferences have moved many of the world’s powerful industrial economies (including the 171 signatories) to find ways to create a more pragmatic, feasible international regime. We are lucky that Kyoto is bound for expiration in the near future; the agreement was paralyzed from the start because its provisions did not require major emitters, most notably China and India, to reduce their emissions activities.

Both the United States and China are the world largest emitters, with the U.S. producing almost 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year according to the Energy Information Administration’s most recent estimate. It seems only logical that these states lead the crusade for survival. As such, they should commit to prompt, binding, enforceable greenhouse gas reductions, not make promises about aspirational goals. Anything less will fail to seriously address global warming, and all nations will suffer the consequences.

While the U.N. conference focused on how to replace its existing treaty, President Bush’s conference took a different approach. Under the U.S. plan, there would be no minimum requirements or penalties for failing to meet goals. According to Secretary of State Rice, a “pledge and review” approach should be pursued whereby any state can create its own policy and present it at international meetings. This bake sale approach lacks a whole load of shortening. It is only really appropriate for poorer nations.

In his speech at the State Department, President Bush noted, “Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.”

Unfortunately, without mandatory cuts in these greenhouse gases, no state will transparently abide by the quota if they know full well the U.S. is not concerned with the same restrictions. The lack of third-party enforcement on this issue is a highly debilitating factor. Effectively getting nations to set their own emissions limits is not the answer. Inter-state bargaining in this fashion is no longer an option. A comprehensive, enforceable alternative to Kyoto is the only way to get every industrialized nation to set binding targets.

President Bush has effectively put the U.S. at the center of the global warming debate but has done so in the most of arrogant ways: challenging the legitimacy of the U.N. just one more time. By refusing to attend the U.N. proceedings on the twenty-fourth and instead opting to focus on his gathering of leaders the following Friday, he has impeded progress on this pandemic. History shows that competing initiatives between the world’s hegemonic power and trusted international institutions lead to grave discord.

Alleviating the world of the problems associated with climate change cannot be accomplished in a unilateralist, adventurist manner. Bush has come to believe that any problem can be solved with American might. The effects of global warming are blind to race, ethnicity, creed, or socioeconomic status. This is an issue that will require every invested power from every part of our globe to come to a joined consensus. If the U.S. will not take the lead and enforce binding commitments who will? I surely doubt China will be up to the task.