After much speculation, including people pointing out that Copenhagen is just around the corner from Oslo where he will receive his Noble Peace prize, President Obama finally addressed the issue of his possible attendance at the Copenhagen negotiations.

In a Reuters interview Obama said yesterday that he will go to Copenhagen “If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge”

This is still a far cry from a promise to be at the talks, which is what forty heads of state already indicated they will do (including UK’s Gordon Brown, Brazil’s Lula de Silva and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy) according to Yvo de Boer . Not only is he not promising to help reach that “brink of a meaningful agreement”, but his pinning his travel on his belief that all countries are “bargaining in good faith” seems to me like a potential ‘exit clause’ from this promise.

The main reason for this feeling is Todd Stern’s testimony last week in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee where he said that “some developing countries … focus more on citing chapter and verse of dubious interpretations … designed to prove that they don’t have any responsibility for action now”. His full testimony, as it was originally written, was – I felt – rather haughty and laid most of the blame for the slow progress of the negotiations on developing countries. Though his actual testimony was more balanced, with more focus on US’s and other developed countries’ necessary actions, to me the general tone indicates a lack of faith in developing countries negotiators on the part of the administration.

Some observers noted in the past that Obama is not likely to put himself in a position where he will be forced to personally sign a treaty he can’t be sure of passing in Congress. It is possible then that this half promise to attend comes now as it seems extremely unlikely that Copenhagen will result in a legally binding treaty, the hopes have now scaled down to achieving a “meaningful agreement”.

So while Obama coming outright and saying that he might go to Copenhagen is good news, I would have liked to see a much stronger commitment as, at least in this case, I don’t share Al Gore’s optimism when he told the Guardian that “He hasn’t told me that he will, and no one representing him has told me that he will. But I feel certain that he will.”

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.

At the G20 Summit, Indian officials will be discussing with various global leaders about the most pressing problems of in the past few months: the economy, terrorism, and climate change. However, as has been highlighted in previous Climatico blogs, while there is definite discussion on India’s climate change goals and plans- particularly given international events- the upcoming elections has left this current period on India’s domestic front somewhat dull in pushing forward climate change plans. It is unfortunate (but reality!) that the election transition comes at a time when Indian officials are beginning to negotiate, articulate, and create international climate change agreements. Especially, since India’s national action plan on climate change relies heavily on international partnerships for technology transfer, adaptation funding, and building ‘green’ economy capacity. It would be unfair to say that some of the actions taken by Indian officials at upcoming international summits will be moot, as climate change discussions within India are prevalent and span across so many sectors that it will definitely be an issue for the new government. However, there is level of disconnect whether these international agendas are reflective and responsive of India’s populous now and come two to three months from now.

Disconnect between national and international contexts?

On a recent U.S. tour, to increased partnership on renewable energy, including controversial civil nuclear powerdeal, Shyam Saran, India’s Special Envoy on Climate Change was in Washington, D.C. last week to articulate its views and aims in upcoming international climate change talks where much of the world is awaiting to hear the United States role and actions.

The U.S. Government has made clear its desire to include and engage with India on climate change goals with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating that India and the US have numerous areas where their partnership can be strengthened. Meeting with various US political figures and organizations, Mr. Saran highlighted that US-India cooperation on climate change will continue to aim at finance and technology initiatives. Todd Stern, U.S. special envoy on climate change, was “immensely impressed” with the Government of India’s national-level actions towards climate change.

However on the domestic front, are these international agendas reflective of India’s populous? Deepa Gupta’s blog , highlighting the India’s Climate Youth Movement, noted that India’s “informal sector is one of the greener sectors in India and the world” given its level of reusing and recycling in day to day activities. However, sheer volume in Indian cities can make this point irrelevant. For example, sewage waste and water pollution continue to be major problems in urban areas. Yet, in Mumbai, India’s largest slum, Dharavi, is home to approximately 100 recycling plants that produce plastic goods- from roadways to handbags.

Photo credit: Flickr/gruntzooki

On a promising note, Mr. Saran noted that India is looking into this, stating: “Recycling, zero-discharge chemical plants, water-positive processes and waste-to-power technologies are all going to play important roles in the future.” Furthermore, in India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change, power generated waste technology research and development is noted as a key initiative under the National Mission on Sustainable Habitat.

At this current juncture, there seems to be a lot of proposals and mission statements being presented by Indian officials who must communicate India’s efforts to address climate change issues to a diverse international audience yet there is a different level of communication between political parties and Indian citizens on the domestic front as campaign agendas take over. Arguably, climate change isn’t the only issue being discussed on the international arena nor is it the core issue in political elections but it has become an important issue in many ways. Already, in Karnataka, city government officials have been revisiting their climate change strategies to be responsive of changing factors including rise in car ownership and solar power development. It will be important to evaluate whether these two arenas converge following the elections and that international agreements are responsive of domestic opinions and perspectives.