Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham reaching across the aisle

Skimming over the headlines this morning, what I thought was a standard positive-thinking op-ed at the NY Times entitled “Yes we can (pass climate change legislation)”, transformed into an exciting development when I noticed the authors of this piece – Senators John Kerry (no surprise there), and Republican Lindsey Graham. 

Though there were some foreshadowing signs, after a practical witch hunt on the 8 Republican representatives who dared to vote in favour of the House bill back in June, the chances of any constructive partisan debate in the Senate seemed slim. 

Since John Mccain lost the elections, the Republican Party was nearly unanimous in opposing any climate action (Mccain talked of addressing climate change during his campaign). Not only is a significant number of elected Republicans set firmly in the climate denial camp, but also since Obama took office, Republicans automatically opposed anything suggested by Democrats, be they Congress or Administration (this recently reached a ridiculous level when far right pundits rejoiced in Obama’s failure to secure the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. More moderate Republicans pointed out that hosting the Olympics is harfly a partisan issue). That is why Graham’s recent remark - “I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.” – was already a newsworthy item. 

So what is the compromise Kerry and Graham outline in their joint opinion piece?

1) “we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security” – as I mention above, this statement is still important in American domestic politics, where – unlike in most other countries – many elected officials still refuse to acknowledge climate change as a legitimate problem.

2) “while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power” – strong support for nuclear energy is important to many Democrats as well, and without it no climate or energy bill is likely to pass Congress.

3) “climate change legislation is an opportunity to [break] our dependence on foreign oil…we must recognize that … we will continue to burn fossil fuels … The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal.” - clean coal was also a recurring theme in both Mccain’s and Obama’s approach to climate change during the presidential campains. Even more so than nuclear energy, coal is a sticking point for Democrats representing coal-producing states. An emphasis on clean coal might help these Senators to swallow the climate bill pill, but it is important to keep firmly in mind that carbon capture and storage is still far from being a sure thing.

4) “we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration” – that is certainly a compromise. Focusing mainly on energy security issues, as has sometimes been done to promote the climate agenda, makes drilling for more American oil a logical solution. That however, does not help to combat climate change.

5) “we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas” – unlike many Republicans, proponents of climate legislation – including leading companies – realise that ignoring the business opportunities inherent in moving towards a low carbon society will not help the US regain economic leadership nor supply new jobs in a time where unemployment is still on the rise.

6) “we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards…we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses… there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased” – Kerry and Graham recognise that tackling climate change and transitioning to a low-carbon world is a complex process, one that cannot be done smoothly without some involvement from the government.

And if the above isn’t convincing enough, they provide one final reason why Congress should act – “If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.” – as expected, the EPA’s swift progress on GHG emissions is a good incentive for legislators to deal with this huge issue in a more balanced and systematic way.

Just in time for the UN summit in New York next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned earlier this week that due to the Senate’s busy schedule it might not act on a comprehensive climate change bill until 2010. Health care and regulatory reform are also high on the Senate’s agenda, and according to Reid’s statement, the climate change bill might have to wait until the other two are dealt with.

This follows Senators Boxer and Kerry’s announcement at the beginning of the month, that rather than early September, they are now aiming to unveil their version of the bill at the end of the month. A target that was repeated this week by Sen. Kerry saying that “We are aiming for this month.”

Reid’s statement naturally caused quite a stir, though it was later somewhat retracted by Reid’s spokesman, who commented that “no decisions have been made” on floor timing for a comprehensive climate and energy bill. And two days after his original comment, Reid insisted that he hopes to move a climate bill “as quickly as we can”

In response though, the EU ambassador to the US expressed his concern by the delay which will push the decision about a US climate policy until after the UNFCCC meeting in Copenhagen, noting that “if this were to happen it would open the United States to the charge that it does not take its international commitments seriously, and that these commitments will always take second place to domestic politics“

This feeling is echoed by the concerns expressed by environmental organisations such as Environmental Defense Fund, whose international counsel Annie Petsonk pointed out that “The appearance to the international community would be that the U.S. Congress is just adrift,” and others who worry that this lack of domestic progress in the US will give other countries an excuse not to act as well.

Obama’s administration also acknowledges the importance of US legislation to international progress as was evident when Todd Stern, the State Department’s special climate change envoy, testified in front of the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming saying that “Nothing the United States can do is more important for the international negotiation process than passing robust, comprehensive clean energy legislation as soon as possible” and stressing that “President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our entire Administration are committed to action on this issue“

Progress Nonetheless

Even though the legislative process is delayed, the US is still making progress in its attempt to curb GHG emissions, as evident by two developments in the past week.

On Monday Interior Secretary Ken Salazar signed an order setting up a Climate Change Response Council and eight regional response centres to study and respond to the expected impacts of climate change on wildlife and historic places. The order also includes a commitment to produce a plan to reduce the Interior Department’s own greenhouse gas emissions, including setting a firm target. The Interior Department, which manages 20 percent of the land in the United States, will also explore methods to sequester carbon by storing it underground and by absorbing it through forests and rangelands.

The following day the EPA ,along with the Department of Trasport, moved ahead with car emissions regulations – unveiling the proposed rules based on the outline presented by the president in May.

These two developments give somewhat more weight to Todd Stern’s warning to countries such as China and India, that if there is no cooperation on international action to reduce emissions, Congress is more likely to put in place protectionist measures, as at least the US can show some domestic progress.

These actions though, while beneficial in mitigation of CO2 emissions, are not as reassuring to other countries of the US willingness to tackle climate change as actual legislation. The US failure to ratify Kyoto is still very much on everybody’s mind and Obama will have to work hard to convince other countries, especially major players like the EU and China, that any agreement signed in Copenhagen – if one is at all signed – stands a good chance of later passing Congress. This might motivate him to be involved more closely with the legislation than he has been so far (more like he has been with health care reform), which in the end might result in a better bill. If that happens, Reid’s statement would have been for the better.