President Obama tries to take sting out of Copenhagen collapse

Two main problems continue to plague the Copenhagen conference, the dates of which are quickly approaching (Dec. 7-18), threatening to leave everyone involved in negotiations asking the question 'what next?'.

The economic implications involved with enacting carbon regulations will affect each country in different ways.  For budding economies like China and India, curbing greenhouse gas emissions will limit the extent to which their individual economies can grow; in addition, countries just beginning their industrialization phase claim that America, Europe, and other industrialized nations have more responsibility toward fixing the problem that they themselves created over the course of the 20th century.

The U.S., on this issue, claims if emissions are limited in one part of world (for example in America) and they are left unregulated in another (China), then net emissions will stay the same, or even grow.  In addition, creating regulations in America for power companies and utilities to limit carbon while allowing China, India, and other developing nations to go unregulated will create an economic advantage for non-American goods.  These countries will then be able to undercut American prices on global markets.

Besides the culpability and international trade issues, the pricetag of launching a global clean energy industry is estimated to be in the trillions.  Who will pay the tab?  Should industrialized nations share clean energy technology freely with developing nations of the world?  Are China and Brazil really undeveloped nations and should remain exempt from emission regulations?

The fact that the nations involved in negotiations in Copenhagen were able to bring their own emission-reduction offerings to the table resulted in some nations pledging to go carbon neutral over the next decade while others brought more modest reductions to the table.  America's emission reduction target is still undefined due to the healthcare debate and the stalemate over the energy and climate bill in the Senate.

In essence, President Obama will send a delegation to Copenhagen empty-handed.  It does not appear likely that he will attend the international negotiations himself, although many arguments can be made for why he should, nor will he be able to give them concrete numbers relating to America's 2020 emission reduction figures. 

Developing and industrialized nations alike were waiting for America's leadership on the issue in order to help define the nature of the agreement that was to take shape in December in Copenhagen.  Recognizing that President Obama's hands were tied up in the healthcare debate in Congress and that American lawmakers simply do not possess the will to challenge the status quo, an unofficial (now quite official) admittance of defeat began echoing through the UN chambers and US airways.

Just over a month after he received the Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples", President Obama finds himself in the position to actually strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation on the issue of energy and climate.  Whether he takes the initiative to roll up his sleeves and get directly involved in negotiations in Copenhagen is still uncertain.  He should; the world wants to hear what he thinks should be done even if Congress can't get past their bickering.

The admittance that Copenhagen is a failure even before it starts seems to be part of a strategy to lower expectations so that a non-time-sensitive negotiation session can take place.  Joseph Romm over at ClimateProgress stated, "The new plan for Copenhagen makes the prospects for a successful international deal far more likely, and at the same time increases the chance for Senate passage of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill".

Perhaps in another year's time, the U.S. Senate will have worked through their issues and crafted and approved a bill that puts American emission reduction targets in definitive terms.  Perhaps then, America and the world can negotiate a deal more rationally.  "We haven't reached the point where a desperate gamble makes more sense than a calm effort to keep the momentum going." (The American Prospect)

President Obama said that the aim of the summit in December now "is not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues in the negotiations, and one that has immediate operational effect."  The White House further expanded saying that "a fully binding legal agreement would be put off until a December 2010 meeting in Mexico City." (AP)

In order to create an international climate treaty, the U.S. and China will have to work toward developing a more fluid working relationship.  On his recent trip to China, President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao initiated "the creation of a Sino-American clean-energy research center, with initial funding of $150 million, and an electric-vehicles initiative.  A plan was also aired to increase energy efficiency, especially in buildings.  The two countries also promised to work together on 'cleaner' coal and to co-operate on finding and using natural gas from shale". (Economist)

You can read more about the U.S.-China agreement at WorldChanging HERE.

There is no doubt that environmental advocates are disappointed with the Senate and President Obama for not being able to deliver on their promises when they said they would, given their majority status.  An international agreement may take another year, but those twelve months will be anything but boring for environmentalists.

The issues of energy, climate, and environmental sustainability are just about to come front-and-center on the agenda of every major world government.

_________________________________________________________

Alexander and Webb propose doubling nuclear power in new energy bill