EurActiv Logo
EU news & policy debates
- across languages -
Click here for EU news »
EurActiv.com Network

BROWSE ALL SECTIONS

EU cautious about new Obama climate policy buzz

Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Published 11 January 2013

The EU has reacted coolly to speculation about a potential new direction in US climate policy during President Barack Obama’s second term.

Environmentalists say that Obama is considering a climate change summit in the White House, and EurActiv understands that US State Department officials expect a significant statement on climate change, imminently.

This could be made either by Obama in his State of the Union address in early February, or by Secretary of State-nominee John Kerry in his confirmation address shortly before.

But a senior EU official's lead reaction was merely that Brussels would be “closely watching what is said in those statements”.

“It is very clear that what happened in New York – and with last year being the warmest on record in the US – is going to fuel the discussions on climate change, and provide more momentum for this debate, but we’ll have to see how it is translated into policy,” he told EurActiv.

European policymakers are cautious about Obama’s intentions after limited progress at a United Nations climate summit in Doha in December, and the president’s dismissive reaction to an EU suspension of plans to include international airlines in its Emissions Trading System (ETS).

“You will remember that there was once a hurricane called Katrina that also led to big discussions [about global warming] so only time will tell,” the EU source said. “A single swallow doesn’t make a summer.”

Climate change barely figured in the recent US election, but Obama raised some expectations of policy movement with a poll-night victory speech, signaling a desire to protect future generations from “the destructive power of a warming planet".

The president faces a Republican-dominated US House that has consistently blocked moves to stronger climate action, and powerful energy-intensive interests opposed to environmental legislation.

But his pick for US foreign affairs chief, John Kerry is a professed climate action enthusiast, who unsuccessfully tried to push a bill establishing a ‘cap and trade’ carbon market through the US Senate, and a mood for action is tangible.   

Broad-based political coalition

On 5 January, Washington’s chief climate change negotiator, Todd Stern, said that Obama was looking to build a broad-based political coalition capable of mobilising the environmental sentiment created by Hurricane Sandy’s traumatic path through New York last October.

“You can’t get much done without public opinion on your side, but there’s not much you can’t accomplish if the public is with you,” Stern added. “That is true for climate change as well.”

An early spring conference is reportedly planned to explore ways of using "limited public funds" to leverage hundreds of billions of private sector dollars for climate aid.

Obama’s staff believe that a change in climate policy is impossible without pressure being brought to bear on the US Congress from a political coalition mobilised outside Washington, EurActiv understands. 

As the president does not need to stand for re-election, a legislative opportunity is seen if Obama can successfully steer a consensus-building debate now.

Coalition building

“The Obama Administration needs to build a political coalition in the US to find out what’s politically possible on climate, because nothing is going to happen in Congress without political support,” one Brussels-based diplomat said, adding that a parallel consensus accommodating pro-growth sentiment in the developing world was also needed.

But on the international stage, the US is still viewed as being in a transitional phase between the Kyoto rejectionism of the Bush years and a global consensus that goes much further.  

“I would like to leave Obama a little more time to be more precise on his climate policy,” said Bo Kjellén, Sweden’s former chief climate change negotiator. “You cannot command progress”

“But the point with regard the 2-degrees Celsius target is that we don’t know how much time we have,” he told EurActiv.

Long-term indicators

Long-term indicators suggest that a sea change in transatlantic thinking is under way, with the State Department and US military both now treating climate change as a national security issue.

Republican think tanks too have recently begun advocating a carbon tax, albeit one to be offset by other tax cuts for high-earners.  

Yet in international negotiations, Washington continues to push for a ‘flexible’ replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, branding as ‘unworkable’ approaches based on binding emissions reductions by the countries most historically responsible for them. 

Instead, the US proposes allowing all nations to make agreed voluntary commitments to an agreed goal – such as keeping atmospheric CO2 concentrations below 450 parts per million (ppm), the 2 degrees trigger point. They are currently at 391 ppm, and rising by nearly 3ppm a year

US diplomats hope that a "menu of options" can emerge from the Major Economies Forum (MEF) which brings together 20 of the biggest emitting countries, that could in turn be fed back into the UNFCCC process.

Such a position may be the most that the Obama administration feels it can currently sell domestically, but it still falls below the minimum that many in the developing world are prepared to accept.

“Obama needs to capitalise on the greatest awareness of climate change in years, and transform the US into an enabler for greater climate action as opposed to dragging the rest of the world down into a race for the lowest ambition,” Lies Craeynest, the economic justice policy advisor for Oxfam told EurActiv.

Congresssional mid-term elections

Some analysts hope that House and Senate mid-term elections in 2014 will change the Washington power balance but EU sources warn that there is no guarantee.

Rather, they say, the focus must remain on the 2015 deadline agreed at December’s Doha Climate Summit for a new legal framework to inaugurate a second round of emissions cuts in 2020.

“We have to start the serious talk this year, not only with the US but also with emerging economies and other industrialised nations,” an EU official said. “We can’t wait until after the mid-term elections to talk about the 2015 agreement.”

In the meantime, environmentalists are on tenterhooks ahead of a State Department environmental impact assessment of the stalled Keystone XL pipeline that would bring tar sands from Canada to the US.

The paper is expected within months and Kerry’s decision on whether to approve the project will be another sign of the new administration’s environmental direction.

Kjellén said that he most hoped to hear a declaration of the importance of an active global climate policy in Obama’s State of the Union address, and possibly creating further incentives for investment in renewable energy.

But in an echo of Stern’s words, he pointed to the growing significance of forces outside of Capitol Hill in providing ballast to climate efforts.

“It is very important that NGOs and researchers and anyone engaged in the climate issue continues to keep up the pressure,” he said.

Next steps: 
  • 2013-2020: Fund-raising due to begin to capitalise the Green Climate Fund.
  • September 2013: Next regular meeting of the ICAO Council.
  • By Oct. 2014: IPCC to deliver fifth scientific assessment of climate change.
  • 2014: US mid-term elections
  • 2015: UNFCCC nations slated to agree a successor deal to Kyoto
  • 2020: New Climate treaty due to come into effect
Arthur Neslen

COMMENTS

  • We have certainly had our fair share of disappointments, especially those of us who had hoped that national politicians would have the courage to break away from business as usual when the world is rapidly approaching a critical tipping point. President Obama is perhaps the biggest culprit. For all his soaring rhetoric, he has achieved next-to-nothing on the climate front. There is only so long you can continue to blame everything on the 25,000 lobbyists who barricade change in Washington.

    My survival philosophy has always been to find positive signs in the world without being unrealistic. And, believe it, or not, there have been some positives.

    Take the changes in attitude in the U.S. since superstorm Sandy, or the numerous instances of brave Mayors who have taken many wise local decisions despite the opposition from the Senate and the Congress at the national level, or, as I read in a recent article by Elizabeth Kolbert, in The New Yorker, about the positive perception of carbon dioxide tax by Republicans, Democrats and industry leaders.

    But these hopes are tempered by Obama’s announcement that a proposal on carbon tax will never be on his agenda. And it is precisely here that we need courageous politicians. Climate change is a global issue and we need smart laws that indicate a desired direction. Our society needs to move away from a fossil-based economy. And that applies to all countries. Sweden is one of many countries that can demonstrate positive examples of the role that carbon dioxide taxation has had in reducing dependency on fossil fuels. Here, the use of bioenergy has surpassed the use of the fossil fuel, resulting in both a reduction in emissions and a better economy.

    Can we hope that we, as responsible voters, will hold politicians to account, and as responsible consumers, will set higher standards for business?

    As the generation who are the temporary guardians of this planet before it is handed down to our children, we have the obligation to try.

    More at http://bit.ly/WzYeCR

    By :
    Kaj Embren
    - Posted on :
    11/01/2013
  • Quote from today's Daily Mail, UK
    To put it mildly, it is a matter of enormous public interest that the Met Office has revised its predictions of global warming, whispering that new data suggest there will be none for the next five years.

    After all, the projection implies that by 2017, despite a colossal increase in carbon emissions, there will have been no rise in the planet’s surface temperature for almost two decades. Unquote

    What is happening here? Obama warms up to Global Warming and the Met Office revises its forecast putting doubt CO2 effects during the last two decades. Also IAE predicts coal to bypass oil as the primary fossil fuel energy for the world in 2017. In what circus have we landed? Mildly put our energy strategies and policies seem to be all over the place. Is anybody still rational and serious about the challenges of our current world?

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2259934/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Global-warming-inconvenient-truth.html#ixzz2HgMPXHVF
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    By :
    Richard Straub
    - Posted on :
    11/01/2013
  • Global Warming Proponents have actually caused great harm to our environment. The real issues are whether climate change (they don't call it global warming anymore) is significantly caused by mankind?; what is the 'right' climate to have?; whether it is wiser to use our limited resources to lock in a specific climate or use it to adapt to changing conditions?; whether environmental 'solutions' are causing more damage than benefit (food-to-fuel ethanol being one of the worst decisions ever; wind turbines that require massive resources to make and install, and much of the power is grounded because we can't use it); government policies that push manufacturing from efficient countries to inefficient countries and thus increase overall pollution; and tax schemes designed to benefit the energy/Big Ag mafia.

    When I wrote, The Carbon Trap, an ecopolitical thriller, I postulation that government encouraged companies and researchers to create technologies that ultimately will get out of control and cause more ecological damage than the problem they thought they were fixing.

    And the evidence is that the US government 'motivated' 40 million more acres be put into agricultural production for biofuel feedstock, with is concurrent increase in N2O emissions from fertilizer (296X worse than CO2 as a GWG), increase in pesticide, herbicide, and aquifer water. 25% of the rise of oceans is from groundwater drawdown that isn't replenished. Meanwhile the ethanol mandated in our fuel damages or destroys many of the 300 million open-cycle engines (per OPEI report); and half the vehicles tested (per EPA), thus increasing resource use to fix or replace equipment and vehicles that otherwise would have lasted many years longer, and also requiring more landfill space.
    All that drains Americans of financial resources and the government of tax revenue because expenses rise.
    Out in the Pacific Northwest, ratepayers are subsidizing with millions of dollars the windfarms to turn off their generation because we have a hydropower surplus and California is so bankrupt they won't buy the surplus.

    By :
    randydutton
    - Posted on :
    11/01/2013
  • @randydutton - your remarks are very interesting. What I miss in Europe is a rational discussion where facts are put on the table and theories and assumptions proposed and defended. Too often we hear that the "debate is over" because there is no reasonable doubt possible based on scientific evidence. I am not a scientist and I would not be able to come to a final conclusion myself I believe we have to remember Popper who made it clear that current scientific truth is subject to falsification. It is high time for Europe to organize this debate - various recent scientific results warrant a more open approach. The German "Energiewende" is another example that the risks of just jumping into renewables without having properly evaluated the situation can be a recipe for great troubles.

    By :
    Richard Straub
    - Posted on :
    12/01/2013
Background: 

The scientific consensus that humans are responsible for global warming is now compelling with over 90% probability, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN-backed scientific body.

Some 97%-98% of the world's scientists think it is "very likely" that global warming is caused by man-made activities, according to a survey published in the National Academy of Sciences in 2009.

Climate science has evolved greatly since the 1970s and models take into account carbon dioxide concentrations, solar radiation, land surface, ice sheet cover (and reflectivity), deserts (which also reflect radiation), forests (which absorb  CO2), ocean currents, and more.

But uncertainties remain surrounding the extent of future temperature rises and the effects they will have on the Earth’s complex ecosystem. In large part, these will depend on measures taken now to keep greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere below 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent.

More on this topic

More in this section

Advertising

Videos

Climate & Environment News

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Climate & Environment Promoted

Euractiv Sidebar Video Player for use in section aware blocks.

Advertising

Advertising