The U.S. Dilemma

As I wandered with my friends through the dissipating crowds of activists, I hoped that their demonstration today had made an impact; that delegates representing nations were actually paying attention to the statements made by average citizens from across the globe. There is intense pressure on politicians to strike a deal here by Friday, but the path to such a deal will be incredibly complicated.

I had the opportunity to discuss the negotating process with a pair of men in the Italian restaurant we visited for dinner. They were talking passionately about something they obviously felt was of utmost importance, so I figured it was probably conference-related. Interested in what these men had to say, Natasha and I sat down near them. As it turned out, the two were representatives of a group that facilitates cooperation amongst non-governmental organizations (NGOs), hundreds of which are in Copenhagen today.

The two activists told us that the central question in the treaty right now is whether the U.S. will be a part of it or not. After Bill Clinton agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, he asked Congress to ratify it and was shot down, by a vote of 95-0. Although everyone is asking Barack Obama to pledge a firm commitment to cut U.S. emissions, we also don’t want him to make Clinton’s mistake and return home having made a promise the recalcitrant Congress won’t let him keep.

Obama has said the U.S. will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, compared to 2005 levels. These targets are laid out in legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate. If Obama pledges anything more than what the Congress is expected to approve, he might have a mutiny on his hands.

The problem is, most other nations are using 1990 as a baseline for their emissions targets, meaning that the U.S. target of 17% is actually only 4% compared to Japan’s 25%, France’s 34% and Brazil’s 42%. A good Copenhagen treaty would require uniform cuts across the board, say 30% for all countries by 2020, but there’s no way the U.S. will achieve that. So will targets be dumbed-down to accomodate our country in a least common denominator treaty, will we be incorporated in a different manner, or will the rest of the world move on without the second-largest global polluter?

-Andrew Dunn