The POLITICS of CLIMATE CHANGE

The POLITICS of CLIMATE CHANGE SPRING, 2005 CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW JULIE TREPECK AND LEAH TRACHTMAN jtrepeck@kentlaw.edu ltrachtman@kentlaw.edu

Today’s Discussion I. Defining Politics II. Introduction to the Climate Change Issue III. Taking a Political Approach to the Issue IV. What has been done so far V. What can we do? Where are we left?

The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, political party, or a citizen of that government What is POLITICS?

All these various definitions of “politics” are applicable when discussing the politics of climate change, relating to both the problems and issues various nations are having with each other, as well as within each individual country

IMPORTANT THINGS TO KNOW BEFORE WE CAN DISCUSS THE POLITICS INVOLVED: • There is a clear correlation between the global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) • When the CO2 suddenly rises then the temperature also suddenly rises • But … the temperature lags behind the CO2 rise due to the large capacity of the oceans • Therefore, even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere now, the temperature would continue to rise for several decades • Since the effects of change would not be seen for years to come, people believe that the sense of urgency for this issue can be put on hold

BUT… There is a sense of urgency!!! THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY: • The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that by 2050 over 100,000,000 peoples’ homes across the world will be under the sea • And “the effect of greenhouse gases was ‘the most obvious explanation for [global] warming . . . since 1950.’”

THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM • Therefore, if we wish to stabilize the CO2 concentrations at the current level, then we need to stop emitting 3.5 billion tons which we currently accumulate in the atmosphere each year, which means an immediate 60% cut in emissions

The Scale of the Problem (con’t.) • There are 6 billion people in the world • Currently, we each emit, on average 1 ton per person per year • Each person needs to reduce this emission to 0.4 per year to reach a 60% cut

WHAT COULD HAPPENIF WE DON’T ACT • Frequent and severe droughts • Bushfires • More storms • Rising ocean levels • Ant invasions • Hotter weather • Dust storms • More frequent floods • Rising temperatures • Deteriorating water quality from evaporation “Climate change [is] a deadly threat and the most serious environmental issue facing the world.”

So….WHAT DO WE DO? One answer: Take a POLITICAL APPROACH to this social and political issue

This is not a partisan issue and does not lie along party lines, so it is a different kind of political stalemate than we see with other political and social issues!

OPPONENTS These people have a bad reaction to any kind of environmental regulation Believe that any kind of national or global response to this issue is a lost cause All kinds of people are in this group, even our elected leaders and representatives in our own White House and Congresses (state and national) These are people who perceive that their economic and political interests would be threatened if we were to address this issue in a substantive way (ie. companies and industry sectors who are wrapped up in the status quo) PROPONENTS Believe we need to take this issue seriously and move forward Alarmed about the science, implications, and dangers of a warming world Believe there are real opportunities for individuals, companies, and the nation as whole to develop, sell, and use new technologies that will protect the global climate Bi-partisan elected leaders who are committed to climate solutions THE PARTIES TO THIS ISSUEold vs. newstatus quo vs. changedo nothing vs. acting decisively and now

THE POLITICAL PROBLEMS • The fear is that these 2 major parties, which are torn and arguing between conflicting political imperatives, will still be fighting and trying to resolve the conflict when the sky is burning • The stakes are enormously high, but we are talking about the kind of world we want to live in one day and leave for future generations • The critical stumbling block is that the parties have not agreed to any long-term target for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations or any fundamental principle by which to allocate future quotas between countries • Although agreements are signed, little time is spent focusing on climate. • Those who are for change and doing something now to fix this problem are few • People sent to conventions to develop new protocols and agreements know little about climate and tend to lose sight of the real issues behind legal and political stalemates **By facing the political standstill we can avoid environmental impacts that will be catastrophic **

SO……WHAT DO WE DO BEFORE TIME RUNS OUT?WE NEED TO MOBILIZE MORE PEOPLE TO THE SIDE OF CHANGE AND EDUCATE PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF WE DO NOT ACT NOW

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR 1992 • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change • Created at the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro • Key aim: “To stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels which would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system.” • However, the problem remained that there is much confusion as to what these levels should exactly be • Industrialized countries were encouraged to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) 1995 • Conference of the Parties 1 (COP1) [began a long and ongoing process where conferences were held and each one is where nations meet to evaluate the accords and compliance with meeting emissions reduction targets] • Held in Berlin • Agreed to the Berlin Mandate • This required industrialized countries to commit to legally binding targets to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions by a 3rd conference • No commitments were made by developing countries 1996 • Conference of the Parties 2 (COP2) • Held in Geneva • Little significant agreements were made

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) July 1997 • Byrd-Hagel Resolution • U.S. Senate passed a resolution that it would not agree to anything (1) that would harm the U.S. economy, and (2) that did not include meaningful commitments from developing countries • Passed 95 to 0 • Operated under the assumption that a global problem requires a global solution • Believed that greenhouse gas emissions of developing countries were rapidly increasing and were expected to surpass emission of the U.S. and other industrialized countries, as early as 2015 • Believed that not including developing countries in agreements would harm the U.S. economy, including significant job losses, trade disadvantages, and increased energy and consumer costs

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) December 1997 • Conference of the Parties 3 (COP3) • Held in Kyoto • Kyoto Protocol was developed at this Conference • An international and legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases emissions world wide • Excluded developing nations from any commitments • Clinton Administration, even after its Byrd-Hagel Resolution, went ahead and negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol; however, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification • Kyoto did not amount to much in terms of achieving significant reductions in global emissions, but it sends the clearest signal yet that much of the world, except the U.S., had moved toward the side of the proponents for change and taking action to avoid the disasters in our future due to climate change

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) November 1998 • Conference of the Parties 4 (COP4) • Held in Buenos Aires • Agreed on a plan of action to follow up on the Kyoto Protocol, including processes for stimulating technology transfer 1999 • Conference of the Parties 5 (COP5) • Held in Bonn, Germany • Further progression on implementing the Kyoto Protocol and to make it more achievable and practical

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) 2000 • Conference of the Parties 6 (COP6) • Held at the Hague, Netherlands • Intention was to wrap up the last 3 years of negotiations on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol • Talks here collapsed due to unreasonable demands made by the U.S. and its unwillingness to compromise • European countries held strong in their insistence that the U.S. not get special treatment • Once again, nothing was demanded of developing countries

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) 2001 • Conference of the Parties 7 (COP7) • Held in Marrakesh, Morocco • Focus of this meeting was to agree to the legal text covering the outstanding technical aspects of the political agreement reached in Bonn earlier this year, which concerned how to legally implement the Kyoto Protocol • This Conference ended with an agreement on how to enforce the Kyoto Protocol on tackling climate change • The U.S. was not present at this conference

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) 2002 • Conference of the Parties 8 (COP8) • Held in New Delhi • A common theme from this round of negotiations involved many wealthier nations trying to push the idea of developing countries having to commit to reduction targets as well “As with previous climate change negotiations, political agendas and interests have appeared to prevent much of substance coming from this convention” December 2003 • Conference of the Parties 9 (COP9) • Held in Milan • Here, an agreement was reached on definitions and methodologies for forest management projects with these as a focus of this meeting • At this conference, solutions were found to some of the issues which had been in discussion and on the table for a long time

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) 2004 • Conference of the Parties 10 (COP10) • Held in Buenos Aires • This marked the 10th anniversary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change coming into force • Discussions here included a variety of climate related issues, including: • Impacts of climate change and adaptation measures • Mitigation policies and their related impacts • Technology measures • Entry into forcing the provision of the Kyoto Protocol • Attempted discussions for a plan for what would be done beyond 2012, which is when the Kyoto Protocol is set to be implemented • In post-Kyoto discussions developing nations worried that they would be forced to reduced emissions

WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.) 2004 • Conference of the Parties 10 (COP10) (Cont’d) • Here, yet another meeting ended where much was said but very little was agreed upon • Some of the most powerful nations pushed only for their own interests and others are attempting to stifle or weaken climate change actions • Even the European Union who have pushed for action more than most are finding that their emissions are increasing rather than decreasing THE PROBLEM? THIS IS THE STATE OF AFFAIRS WE ARE LEFT WITH TODAY

More about the Kyoto Protocol as it stands today: • These guidelines are not merely a set of short term emission targets for the industrialized countries of the world • This is a global agreementthat lays out an exact framework for how to negotiate future commitments to addressing the challenges of climate change • This Protocol is intended to stretch over the course of this entire century, or until the grave problem of climate change is resolved

In short… • Even with all of this being done, climate change still remains unquestionably the most urgent environmental challenge in the short term and the long term • The convention process identified actions to address climate change mitigation • Kyoto Protocol was the only concrete multilateral instrument, however, for combating the Greenhouse Effect • While the Kyoto Protocol was a significant achievement, it is just the first step in a long process to get the whole world involved in this global-political problem before it is too late Therefore, the only conclusion to draw from all of this that we need further actions to be taken!

What should we do? MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE NEED TO GET THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MORE INVOLVED WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD AND ACTIVE IN COMMITING TO REDUCING EMISSIONS AND ADAPTING TO CURRENT CONDITIONS REGARDING THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Is change on the horizon? • THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK IN THE U.S. REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY HAS SLOWLY BEGUN TO CHANGE • THE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO PARTICIPATE TO CONTROL CLIMATE CHANGE HAS GROWN CONSIDERABLE SINCE PLANS INITIALLY BEGAN • IRONICALLY, HOWEVER, PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. TO GET INVOLVED IN THE INTERNATIONAL EFFORT TO CONTROL CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BECOME MORE PREVALENT SINCE BUSH’S DECISION TO OPPOSE THE KYOTO PROTOCOL • But…WHILE WE CAN SIT HERE AND RECOGNIZE U.S. EFFORTS AND PRAISE THEM FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE ALREADY, WHAT THE U.S. LEADERSHIP NEEDS TO REALIZE IS THAT IT SIMPLY HAS NOT DONE ENOUGH AND IT HAS NOT COME CLOSE TO THE ACTIONS MADE BY OTHER NATIONS

Involving the U.S. in the Kyoto Protocol • Ultimately, the U.S. must be involved in any international attempt or solution to the problem of climate change; however, this does not mean that the other countries involved in the Protocol should not move forward with their attempts and plans for change • While the Bush Administration appears to stay away from the international effort to control climate change, by the EU and other industrialized countries moving forward this is the best way to enhance and demand future participation from the U.S.

Q: What can international politics do to get the U.S. involved? A: Continue to move forward with the Kyoto Protocol WHY?

Reason 1: If the EU and other industrialized countries that are already involved in the Protocol were to abandon their plans it will just validate the U.S. government’s argument that the rest of the world is not committed to reducing emissions in order to control climate change and the disasters that will result. The leadership shown by moving forward and continuing to implement Kyoto will demonstrate to the U.S. that it is lagging behind in a very important international-political effort

Reason 2: Other countries can lead by example and show the U.S. that emissions reductions are economically possible and feasible, as well as also being beneficial; this will counter the U.S. argument that emissions reductions involve unacceptably high costs and could lead to an economic breakdown

Reason 3: • In implementing Kyoto, the countries involved will have to develop new technology in order to reduce emissions; this new technology will inevitably spill over to the U.S. and the U.S. will see that reducing emissions and making changes are technically feasible and perhaps even less costly than the U.S. anticipates

Reason 4: • The technological developments involved in implementing the Protocol could give relevant areas of industry an advantage over countries that are being less efficient • If the countries that are working to reduce emissions were able to become more economically efficient through their emission reduction, the U.S. would be encouraged to become involved and simultaneously weaken their economic argument for non-involvement

Reason 5: • With the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, an international emissions trading market will develop, which will thus create an entirely new area of business opportunities • But, to reap the benefits of these opportunities, the U.S. must become a party and join in the international effort

Q: What can YOU do on a personal level to get the U.S. more involved? A: Take Action, use our political processes, and realize that EACH PERSON can make a real difference in the fight against climate change

What does this mean? What should WE do? • Tackle the problem on all different levels: • Nation by Nation (including unification of emissions standards) • State by State • City by City • Business by Business • Person by Person While it is hard to mobilize the United States in the international realm, there is much we can do within our own nation to force involvement by the U.S.

Mobilization of Businesses • Working hard to educate businesses of the advantages of fighting climate change is one of the most important and influential groups to target • The business lobby in USA is extremely powerful and it is afraid of the economic ramifications of the Kyoto Protocol • Global Climate Coalition = a group of large businesses concerned at their bottom line if the Kyoto Protocol was signed • There were huge propaganda events and advertisements by Congress; BUT, since this is who Congress hears from, this is who Congress backs and believes it must follow • This only makes it harder for Washington to sign any Agreements or treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol

Mobilization of Businesses (Con’t.) • We need to encourage companies that membership in the Global Climate Coalition can ruin their image among its consumers as it works against what consumers want; but we have to make it clear to businesses that what we want is change to fix this critical problem • Businesses need to be encouraged to adapt their images not just to petroleum companies, but to energy companies as well, following the lead of major corporations, such as Shell and BP • As consumers each of us can have a big impact on this very influential group

Mobilization of Businesses (con’t.) • PERHAPS CHANGE IS CLOSER THAN WE THINK WITH THE BUSINESS SECTOR, SO CONSUMER ACTION BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT • Ford, Dupont, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, General Motors have pulled out of the Coalition • We need to encourage companies that by staying in an being involved with the Coalition will affect their images and cause consumers to boycott their products • Many companies have begun to promise to help reduce emissions and take other steps to help tackle climate change “Some of the exiting companies, such as BP Amoco, Shell, and Dupont, joined a progressive new group, the Business Environmental Leadership Council, now an organization of some 21 corporations. This new outfit, founded by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says, "We accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences."

Mobilization of Businesses (con’t.) PARTNERSHIP FOR CLIMATE ACTION • This is a new business coalition that has been formed by many of the larger and influential companies, along with the Capitals on Environmental Defense • This newer coalition has pledged to reduce greenhouse emissions by its members to levels meeting or exceeding Kyoto’s requirements • Major Companies involved: BP, Alcan, Dupont • More companies, however, need to be encouraged to join this group in order to make consumers happy

What should we do? (con’t) • Create different Focus Points: • Target emissions quotas • Creating a trading system for nations to trade emissions amounts • Look at Key Sectors where changes will be most efficient • Transportation industry, including air travel • Power industry • Creating energy policies driven at climate change (ie. the British have developed a 50-year blueprint for development of its national energy policy) • Adaptation [while we can minimize effects of climate change, we also need to adapt in order to minimize future inevitable costs due to our past behavior]

What should we do? (con’t) • Educate the people of the U.S. on the threats of climate change, which will, in turn, get more people involved on the right side of the debate • Educate our legislators and representatives on the threats of a non-active approach in the fight to reduce emissions and take action to control climate change before it is too late

Acting on an individual level is they way one person’s actions make a difference to social and political issues Before anything becomes an important issue to our legislators and representatives, they need to see, hear and understand that the issue is important to constituents Putting pressure on and lobbying to our representatives to make important changes is what politics is really all about Pressure from constituents is what forces our elected officials to take action Therefore, it is just as much up to us to push for change as it is for our leaders to actually make the change WHY we need to educate our legislators and representatives:

How to get involved in the political fight against climate change: • Join coalitions and groups already formed • Sign Petitions that are online • Lobby our elected officials • Write your Senators • Write your Representatives • Pass out fliers to other people, who will in turn also push our leaders to encourage and support change

What else can you do? • In 1993, Portland, Oregon became the first city in the U.S. to implement its own CO2 reduction plan • It joined a Partnership of Municipal Governments, which eventually also included other U.S. cities, such as Denver and Minneapolis • Portland’s goal was to cut CO2 emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 • Portland’s plan also included: • Synchronizing traffic lights • Planting 75,000 acres of trees to absorb CO2 • Incorporating low CO2 vehicles for the City • While Portland’s emissions have actually risen, those increases are due to a population boom in the City and has nothing to do with the Plan that the City adopted; on a per capita basis, emissions are down There are no reasons that other cities across our nation can take similar measures and it is our job to make out leaders aware of these simple steps that can be taken and that can work and be proven effective

Another Important Step Each of Us Needs to Take: • While the benefits of emissions reduction will not be seen for years, an economic downswing and economic harm will be felt immediately • While politicians realize that global warming is a long term problem, there is very little political risk for them in the short term; by the time we are in serious trouble they will be long out of office • Therefore, it becomes important for us to take action now to make this a serious part of the political agenda of each person running for office in the next election • According to a Time/CNN poll, while the majority of Americans are concerned about climate change, they are more worried about increased prices and the personal economic harm they may feel by taking action against this problem

Therefore, while politicians are part of the problem, each of us also needs to be willing to make certain sacrifices to show our politicians we are willing to make the changes we demand, in order to save ourselves from the long-term disastrous effects of climate change!

THE END

The POLITICS of CLIMATE CHANGE