The presidential candidates and climate change.

"A problem ignored is a crisis assured": Henry Kissinger.

When George Bush became president in 2000, he questioned whether climate change was real or not and Washington disengaged completely from international negotiations over tackling these issues. Bush has gone down in history as the biggest obstacle to getting any agreement on what the world needs to do about climate change.  The only gesture Bush made was in agreeing to “consider and adopt” a long-term goal of cutting emissions by half by 2050 (at last July’s G8 summit).  All he got from the rest of the world was a humiliating rebuff.

After these eight years of inaction, both presidential candidates broadly agree that they want to change all that. Both are committed to taking action on global warning.  Both are ready to join a global cap-and-trade system to regulate and reduce carbon emissions. Both intend to sell the necessary dramatic changes enthusiastically to the voters. And both promise five million new jobs as a result of this commitment.

But whereas McCain in general stresses market incentives as the way forward, Obama also wants to engage more fully with the rest of the world in forging a decent post-Kyoto agreement, and Obama wants the US to be a central player in the climate change dialogue.

The candidates: 

Individually, Obama intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels (by 2050) in a plan that ensures all industries pay for their emissions and to reinvest the $15 billion to alternative energy. Obama appears to have thought out the initiatives more fully.  He wants to see a federal lead in getting a decent infrastructure to ensure rapid transmission of renewable energy.

McCain wants a 60 percent reduction in carbon levels below the 1990 levels (by 2050), but he has not said how he would allocate the carbon credits or the revenue. He also wants an end to the huge government subsidies and research funding of the past. He wants all energy sources, including nuclear energy, as cwell as renewables to be part of the solution.  McCain has thought carefully about the car industry. He wants to see a prize for a commercially viable battery package, to encourage the move away from gasoline-powered vehicles. But McCain has called for an end to the ban on coastal oil drilling, whereas Obama would support a compromise:  some coastal drilling only if it included support for alternative energy and environmental safeguards.

Sarah Palin:

Then there is Sarah Palin!  This has clearly caused unease among most of the environmentalists since they see her as an ally of the oil industry.  What that could mean no one is yet sure.  It is unlikely that Palin herself will comment on the issue. She may be what we call a 'dog whistler':  making the right noises but getting her dogs to go in the usual direction without saying anything herself. Many of her supporters will be opposed to any adjustments to the staus quo. Most likely, it will become clear what she stands for only when the agreements for all these changes get thrashed out.

It could mean supporters of low gas taxes for vehicles and voters in the “rust-state” belt get listened to more sympathetically.  Big business might get a better hearing from McCain.  Equally though, big business may get harsher treatment from him since industries could take more notice from a supporter like McCain. Who knows?

Sticky problems:

But the central problem by far will be in getting the developing world fully on board and yet negotiating for the G8 countries to carry a heavier burden for cutting emissions at a level that is both acceptable to Brazil, Russia, China, India, South Africa and all the others.  Once that is achieved, there is still the problem of getting them to agree to cut their own emissions to a realistic level.  (Anyone who can achieve this should get the next Nobel Peace Prize!)

Is the US ready for all of this?

After all, we in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Europe are already used to an embryo cap-and-trade policy.  We are also used to big taxes for our petrol. And we’ve had far more talk here (and probably media coverage) about global warming and the changes we need to make.  Expect far more political problems for the new president in proposing, passing and implementing these new policies aimed at raising the price of energy, especially for all those Americans devoted to their gas guzzlers. They are locked into a car culture and a private transport system in ways that can hardly be changed now.  Our cities are more compact, we have a far denser network of public transport available as well as a burgeoning bicycle culture.

Both candidates may “understand the challenges involved, and want to lead the US to opportunities for a better world”….blah, blah, blah!

But the candidate who wins in the race for the White House will need to be tough enough to face the onslaught of opposition to all these changes: he will need also to be skilled at winning coalitions of support among senators and congressmen, and he will need to 'charm the pants' off the rest of the world too! 

None of that will not be easy.