Days before the Senate dispersed for its August recess, Harry Reid announced that a vote would not be held on a “bare minimum” energy-only bill, just weeks after the Senate gave up on comprehensive climate and energy legislation. The inability of the Senate to gain any traction on even the most modest of energy bills in the wake of one of the most devastating environmental disasters in history is a clear indicator that there is still a long road ahead toward a strong U.S. climate change policy. There is no better time to reexamine the debate, and the debate begins with the science.

The science of climate change is sound but complex. Climate change will affect different parts of the planet in very different ways, and it is impossible to precisely quantify the physical impacts on Earth’s surface, let alone the social, political, and economic implications of those physical impacts. But ‘uncertainty’ in climate models – the expected variability in data – is too often mistaken for uncertainty about the science itself, and the well-funded lobbyists wishing to cast doubt on the science have made an almost effortless practice of manipulating the statistics and skewing the facts. Still, much of the public’s misunderstanding about climate change persists because of serious flaws in messaging by the science community to counter the misinformation. In many ways, the purpose of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to bridge this communication gap with the public. But with recent polling suggesting that the U.S. public increasingly perceives climate change as a very low-priority issue, the IPCC – and the science community as a whole – needs to overhaul its communication strategy.

The IPCC’s communication problems have spurred plenty of controversy in the past. Last month, IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri sent an ill-conceived letter to the scientists participating in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), advising them to “keep a distance from the media.” The letter was widely criticized by scientists for seemingly encouraging a “bunker mentality.” In recent months, questions have also swirled around the validity of conclusions reached in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), particularly concerning the projected timeframe for the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Although a review by The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency found “no errors” that would impact any of the report’s 32 main conclusions, the agency did raise a concern that “the foundation for some of these conclusions could have been made more transparent.” But while the IPCC’s transparency may need improvement, its process does not. The IPCC has always had a very meticulous assessment process. The AR4 Summary for Policymakers was “approved line-by-line by all WMO and UN member governments” in a thorough three-day conference that was open to members of the media. And yet, due largely to its uncoordinated communication strategy, the IPCC has been unable to allay widespread criticism of its process. Even Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, has requested an independent review of the IPCC due for release next week.

David Ropeik, a risk communication consultant, offered the following perspective on the science community’s apparent communication gap in an exchange with Andrew Revkin of The New York Times:

“The passionate debate over why people don’t seem to “get” science is the newest chapter in an old discussion. Are people too stupid? Is our education system failing? Do scientists not “get” people, or communicate poorly? It’s time to move past those rather tired questions, because they are predicated on the assumption that there is an “It” to “Get”… some ideal truth that perfect reason can reach, if only the communication gap were bridged and “the facts” were made clear. That fails to acknowledge, as Drs. Jasanoff and Brulle have noted, that human perception of facts is not just a fact-based process. It is an affective mix of fact and feeling. We JUDGE facts. We INTERPRET facts. We run facts through our values and instincts and life circumstances and a host of other affective lenses that produce our beliefs. The gap isn’t scientists from Mars and people from Venus. It’s the gap between people from the mythical land we’ll call Rationalia ignoring evidence of how the real people of Earth actually behave.”

As journalist Chris Mooney has pointed out, polling shows that political ideology weighs heavier on an individual’s views about climate change than education level. Better educated Republicans are actually less likely to accept climate science than those who are less educated, while the correlation among Democrats is reversed. This appears to support Ropeik’s conclusion that information is not simply evaluated in a fact-based way, but rather that climate science is interpreted, first and foremost, in a “politically driven” way. To engage the public at a more “human” level, the IPCC and the wider climate science community needs to call on social scientists and communication experts to drive its messaging strategy, contributing to what American University School of Communication Professor Matthew Nisbet has called “a cultural shift in how leaders in U.S. science view public engagement.”

For many, climate change is just an abstract concept – a hazy set of possible scenarios that will play out gradually and often subtly in the all-too-distant future. In a sense, climate change will always be abstract, often guided just as much by faith as by tangible evidence because it is impossible to definitively attribute any specific environmental event to rising temperatures (the recent flooding in Pakistan, for example). But it is important to approach the issue in new and creative ways to make the theoretical more practical. Some skeptics will likely remain intransigent regardless of how irrefutable the evidence becomes. But when climate change is presented as a public health issue, as a national security issue, or as a moral issue, the message appeals to a much broader audience that would otherwise be unwilling, for purely political reasons, to accept the scientific consensus. The leap from science to policy will always be difficult because politics inevitably gets in the way. But if communication experts take on the challenge of overcoming the political obstacles with new messaging techniques and perspectives, climate change can eventually rise from a bottom-tier issue in the public’s eyes and real policy solutions can finally begin to take shape.

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Conference Kicks Off
2. Hazy Reasoning on Black Carbon
3. Bipartisan breakthrough on climate change

Today’s headlines have heralded two important new developments concerning the Gulf of Mexico oil spill: BP might finally be able to cap the gushing oil well, and the Obama administration has placed a new moratorium on deep-water drilling. Another event of potentially equal importance is receiving far less national attention: a commission created by President Obama to investigate the oil spill disaster is meeting for the first time.

The oil spill commission is the second major advisory panel Obama has formed this year, following his establishment of a blue-ribbon commission on the federal deficit in February. These commissions are addressing two of the most pressing and difficult challenges facing America: energy policy and our yawning national debt.

If, like most people, you are cynical about commissions, you probably assume that these panels will not accomplish anything other than giving our elected officials an excuse for delaying tough decisions while the commissions conduct their work. But my research on over 50 commissions from the past three decades reveals that, during crises, bipartisan commissions often use their powerful political credibility to spur major reforms. (I present these findings in Terrorism and National Security Reform: How Commissions Can Drive Change in Moments of Crisis, forthcoming from Cambridge University Press in 2011.)

Indeed, the oil spill commission, scheduled to report in November, is poised to have a large impact on energy policy. Its mission is to uncover the causes of the spill and make recommendations related to offshore drilling. Congress’ extreme partisanship and the pressures of an election season mean that the House and Senate may not be able to reach agreement on changes to offshore drilling regulations or broader elements of energy policy this year. This gives the commission the opportunity to shape new legislation when it reports in January.

The panel’s membership also boosts its chances for success. Obama has named as the commission’s co-chairs former U.S. Senator Bob Graham, a Democrat, and former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly, a Republican. Graham and Reilly are political moderates, and Obama has appointed pragmatists with scientific, engineering, and environmental backgrounds to the panel’s five other slots. With strong leadership from Graham and Reilly, such a group should be able to follow the example of the 9/11 Commission in conducting its work in a nonpartisan manner and issuing a unanimous report that gains broad public backing. The commission might then be able to prod President Obama and Congress to adopt its reform proposals, much as the 9/11 Commission did in triggering a counterterrorism and intelligence overhaul in 2004.

Less happily, the deficit commission faces much higher hurdles in its mission to bring the federal budget into balance. The lack of an immediate debt crisis means that members of Congress have less incentive to rally around a painful, but necessary, compromise that combines tax increases and cuts to entitlement programs in order to close the deficit.

Moreover, the deficit commission’s membership has poor prospects for maintaining a nonpartisan tone or issuing a unanimous report. The 18 commissioners include six Obama appointees and 12 members of the House and Senate named by the Republican and Democratic congressional leaders. Most of the Obama appointees, including the co-chairs—former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson—are centrists willing to support creative proposals for narrowing the deficit. But many of the legislators on the commission appear less open to compromise. For instance, Republicans Tom Coburn and Paul Ryan oppose any tax hikes, while Democrats Xavier Becerra and Jan Schakowsky seem resistant to significant cuts in Social Security or Medicare.

Even so, the deficit commission, which must report by December 1, is not destined to fail. In creating the panel, Obama ordered that its report required the approval of 14 of its 18 members, creating a lower bar than unanimity. If America’s fiscal situation goes from bad to worse in the coming months, creating a sharper feeling of crisis, commissioners will face growing pressure to reach agreement. It might then just be possible to muster 14 votes within the commission for groundbreaking reforms. Since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have agreed to bring the commission’s proposals to the floor in their respective chambers, a strong supermajority report from the commission might even, at a time of crisis, spur legislative action in Congress.

While the deficit commission faces longer odds for success than the oil spill panel, these two commissions are among our best hopes for restoring the country to fiscal sustainability and setting a new course for energy policy. Far from just being ways for politicians to pass the buck, commissions can be essential tools for bridging partisan divides on the most difficult national challenges.

Related posts:

1. Reconceiving the BP Debacle
2. Dubious Decisions on Drilling: Why Obama Should Reconsider Offshore Drilling in the Wake of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
3. Drilling Our Way to a Climate Change Solution?

British Petroleum has finally figured out how to get under the skin of the American Commander in Chief. President Obama, clearly irritated by BP’s lackluster cleanup efforts, has suggested that the British oil giant place in escrow funds sufficient to compensate those American citizens affected by the spill. (BP has just agreed to put 20 billion into an escrow account.) As a political decision, this is both a necessary and shrewd move on Obama’s part. But the underlying geopolitical realities that this oil spill has brought to the surface cannot be understood unless one thinks a bit more carefully – and creatively – about what the BP debacle really is, and what President Obama’s initial failure to take charge really means.

On the surface, the oil spill in the Gulf is an ecological disaster. On this understanding of what the spill is, the main problem is that gigantic plumes of oil – a precious natural resource – are quickly and relentlessly destroying the environment. As BP’s rogue oil eagerly escapes its underwater prison, our wetlands and diverse wildlife expire ahead-of-schedule and unnecessarily. The theory, then, is one of environmental catastrophe, and the dramatis personae are as vanilla as the theory: Barack Obama, beleaguered American President keen to end the crisis; Tony Hayward, the incompetent CEO of BP who makes for an easy target for the world’s politicians, pundits and public intellectuals; the American public, at once enraged and confused; and the shareholders of BP, hiding in the shadows, hoping that the cost of this crisis will not fall on their backs.

A better theory – more powerful and descriptively accurate – is available. This is no mere ecological disaster, but is, correctly understood, an attack on our political, economic, and cultural infrastructure caused by no single individual or institution but enabled by many. It is now well known that a number of indicators pointed toward the possibility of a spill of this magnitude. And yet BP and the relevant U.S. regulators did nothing.

In retrospect, Obama’s failure to properly reform the Minerals Management Service (MMS) is clearly a colossal error. The MMS, the institution that has for ages allowed the oil industry to self-regulate without meaningful oversight, specifically gave BP the authority to drill in the Gulf in April 2009 without doing a comprehensive environmental review of the potential dangers. The MMS thought it would be sufficient to encourage BP to “exercise caution while drilling due to the indications of shallow gas.” Translation: We know this project could go terribly wrong, but go ahead anyway; Americans simply must be able to enjoy their treasured Escalades.

Yet be careful how you conceptualize the BP debacle. This is not a case where an administration has simply failed to prevent an unforeseeable ecological disaster. Nor is this a case where one actor – Barack Obama or Tony Hayward or anyone else – should be exclusively identified as the critical point of failure. That said, it is true that the Obama Administration failed to properly protect U.S. interests and the American people. However, if we want to move forward, we must view ecological dangers of this order of magnitude as threats to our political, economic and cultural infrastructure. For what does it matter whether a terrorist organization or a multi-national company visits vast harm upon us? In either case our country could be maimed or crippled. Moreover, if we think of an oil spill merely as a regrettable “environmental” problem, we will be too eager to (1) punish a small subset of the guilty parties and (2) adopt stop-gap regulations that aren’t effective in the long run. This simply won’t do. We must instead come to terms with the strategic, economic and moral importance of moving to cleaner, safer sources of energy.

This way of conceptualizing the BP spill has some surprising implications. Consider just three:

First, if President Obama fails going forward to take real, substantial steps to prevent off-shore drilling disasters like this one in the future, he will in effect be failing to protect the United States from a grave political, economic and cultural threat. It would be quite similar to a sitting President failing to protect our economic and political institutions from terrorist attacks.

Second, the real strategic interests of the United States must be given pride of place when energy policy is created and enforced; we must temper our short-term concerns with finding new sources of oil and instead give primacy to clean energy solutions that work.

Third, we must really commit ourselves to clean energy in a way that makes a range of policy blunders – e.g., not forcing BP to do a comprehensive environmental impact and safety study before drilling in the Gulf – beyond the realm of the possible.

The BP spill is no ordinary ecological disaster. It’s an attack on our real, long-term interests as a liberal democracy that values meaningful self-government, human welfare, and responsible energy consumption. The sooner we realize this, the sooner we will be able to move in the right direction.

Related posts:

1. Dubious Decisions on Drilling: Why Obama Should Reconsider Offshore Drilling in the Wake of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
2. The Prospects for the Oil Spill and Deficit Commissions
3. Drilling Our Way to a Climate Change Solution?

With the oil slick from Deepwater Horizon lapping at the shores of Louisiana, all sorts of doubts about the wisdom of offshore drilling are suddenly gushing up to the surface. Environmentalists and liberals long against offshore drilling are latching on to the disaster as hard proof that the potential costs of offshore drilling outweigh any possible benefits. In his recent op-ed for the New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote, “President Obama needs to seize the moment; he needs to take on the “Drill, baby, drill” crowd, telling America that courting irreversible environmental disaster for the sake of a few barrels of oil, an amount that will hardly affect our dependence on imports, is a terrible bargain.” Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Florida, agreed, saying that “Drilling too close to the coast poses too great a risk to the economy and the environment of Florida and other coastal states.” Even Governor Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has decided not to allow additional offshore drilling in California in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Obviously, many of these reactions have more to do with politics and popularity than a sustained analysis of the costs and benefits of offshore drilling. But as my colleague John Prandato recently wrote, this is true for almost every aspect of the offshore drilling debate, which tends to be highly political rather than pragmatic in nature. Political considerations were largely behind Obama’s recent lifting of the ban on offshore drilling, a decision aimed at bolstering Republican support for climate change legislation. If it had worked, Obama’s concession might have been an acceptable sacrifice: Republican and conservative Democratic support is necessary to pass climate change legislation, and removing the ban on offshore drilling was seen as a potential trade for that support. Unfortunately, however, Obama’s gamble didn’t suceed. While Republicans dutifully applauded the decision, it isn’t clear that Obama won any actual Republican votes from it. And although some conservative Democrats, notably Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb, may sign on to support the bill, their backing comes at the cost of more liberal and environmentally-minded lawmakers such as Nelson. Thus, as a political strategy aimed at garnering the votes necessary to pass climate change legislation, Obama’s decision to open up offshore drilling is looking like a wash.

Without any political boons, the administration’s justification for its decision must now rest on the laurels of pragmatic policy- essentially, that the benefits of offshore drilling outweigh the potentially catastrophic human and environmental risks that are being made so painfully obvious in the Gulf of Mexico right now. Unfortunately, it’s not clear that offshore drilling is good energy policy. According to the best government estimates, around 18 billion barrels of technically recoverable crude oil were protected under the moratorium. At current consumption rates, if these offshore reserves were to become magically available to consumers tomorrow, they would only be able to meet the U.S.’s total energy needs for about 2 and a half years. But the oil will not be available anytime in the near future. At the very soonest, production would not start for at least another seven years, and there would be “no significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.” Overall, it is not likely that offshore drilling will go very far towards reducing American dependence on foreign oil imports, nor will it have a meaningful impact on the price and availability of oil. In short, it is not a solution, or even a partial solution, to America’s energy problems.

Essentially, then, Obama has agreed to a questionable energy policy with potentially devastating impacts as a political sacrifice for votes he didn’t end up getting. Not a great deal. So what to do? In all likelihood, the future of offshore drilling is likely to remain a matter of political concessions aimed at hammering out energy legislation. But that doesn’t mean Obama shouldn’t at least take the opportunity given to him- as perverse as it sounds- by the Deepwater Horizon spill to ask American citizens to seriously examine the future of America’s energy security and our nation’s dependence on oil. Were Obama to step up and admit he made a miscalculation on the safety of offshore drilling, he could make an important move toward pushing Americans to invest in and adopt clean energy as an alternative to short-lived and dangerous oil drilling. While the Deepwater Horizon spill may be just one accident, it should be enough to remind us that sustainable energy, not offshore drilling, is where we should be focusing our efforts.

Related posts:

1. Drilling Our Way to a Climate Change Solution?
2. Bipartisan gift to the planet
3. The Prospects for the Oil Spill and Deficit Commissions

Bipartisanship is tough in an election year.  Each candidate up for election is seeking ways to differentiate him/herself from the opposition.  Particularly in primary battles, compromise is often punished.  A few examples come to mind recently of election years politics getting in the way of bipartisan compromises.  Candidates from both parties have let the politics of the moment derail sensible policy.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is one Democrat who comes to mind.  After financial regulatory reform, there are two important major legislative priorities that have a chance to getting bipartisan support in this Congress – immigration reform and climate change/energy security.  The one Republican who has been willing to stick his neck out on both of these initiatives is Lindsey Graham (R-SC).  Graham has worked with Senator Schumer (D-NY) on immigration reform and Senator Kerry (D-MA) on climate change.  They had both come up with sensible compromises that had a chance of getting bipartisan support.  It wasn’t going to be easy in an election year on either of these issues, but it was a start.  The challenge for the Democrats was to maintain Graham’s support on both issues and hope to pick up some more Republicans who were willing to put aside partisan differences.  Then came Harry Reid.

Graham had made it clear that he wanted to first prioritize climate change/energy security legislation this year.  He had been working on it for some time with Senator Kerry and legislation had been drafted.  Senator Reid, however, facing a tough election-year battle in his home state of Nevada realized that one way to energize the Latino vote that might help push him over the finish line was to come out strong on immigration reform, even if it meant alienating the one Republican ally needed for both initiatives, Lindsey Graham.  I believe that it could have been possible to move forward on both initiatives.  But it was going to take some sensitivity on the timing by Reid.  It seems that he put his own electoral survival ahead of bipartisan compromise.  Some Democrats have argued that politically speaking, it’s better to energize the base in this election year, even if the end result is that no legislation gets passed.  That sort of political maneuvering is exactly what makes the American people fed up with Washington politics.

After Reid publicly said that he would put immigration ahead of climate change/energy reform in the legislative queue, Lindsey Graham pulled out of the climate change/energy reform legislation that was set to be released on April 26th.  Rather than working quietly behind the scenes to ensure Senator Graham’s continued support, Reid decided to put election-year politics first.  On one hand, I can’t say I blame him.  You have to be in office to move legislation forward.  However, the way this was handled did great damage to a fragile compromise that has the potential to make important progress on climate change and energy security.

Senator McCain (R-AZ) also put election year politics ahead of sensible policy.  In 2005, Senator McCain teamed up with the late Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) to introduce legislation that would push forward comprehensive immigration reform.  Both Senators took bold stands and made compromises that alienated key segments of their respective parties.  It identified the compromises that will be necessary for a true bipartisan bill – increased border enforcement, a temporary worker program that facilitates more legal immigration, and a path to citizenship for those illegal immigrants already in the country, provided they pay the necessary fines, back taxes, and go to the back of the line.  Unfortunately, there weren’t sufficient votes to pass it.  Now, facing a primary challenge from the right, John McCain has referred to the recently enacted state law in Arizona that promotes racial profiling as a “good tool”.  This is the same law that law enforcement authorities in Arizona are criticizing because it turns them into immigration officers and usurps time that would otherwise be spent combating crime.  Talk about a 180 degree turn around from McCain.

Yes, both parties are guilty of putting politics ahead of sensible compromise.  But, even in an election year, it can be done.  Doris Meissner writes here that actually all previous significant immigration bills of the past few decades have occurred in election years, sometimes after fractious debates.  On immigration, we know the outlines of what the solution will be.  Climate change/energy security is even further ahead with a bill ready to be released.  Now we just need a few leaders from both sides of the aisle to move the ball forward in a sensible way that doesn’t alienate those on the other side.

Related posts:

1. Bipartisan breakthrough on climate change
2. Bipartisan gift to the planet
3. Bipartisanship still alive despite the health care debate

Today is the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day and there’s a bipartisan gift to the planet in the works.  As Steven Pearlstein wrote in this op-ed, hopes for a bipartisan climate/energy bill getting passed have been resurrected from the dead in the past several weeks.  With a 60 vote hurdle in the Senate and fossil fuel energy producers located in both red and blue states, this has to be a bipartisan effort.  Although the bill has not been released, the sponsors of the bill – Senators Kerry (D-MA), Graham (R-SC), and Lieberman (I-CT) – have been making the necessary compromises to build a broad coalition of support.

Pearlstein describes here the rough outlines of what the bill will likely entail:

Although the Senate bill retains the cap-and-trade structure of the House bill, it would apply, at least initially, only to electric power producers, with other manufacturers coming under the regime after 2016. The oil and gas industry would be handled under a separate regime that requires refiners to buy emissions permits for all the carbon contained in the gasoline or other fuels they sell — in effect, a fee or tax on carbon. The amount of the fee would be determined by the price at which carbon emissions allowances are bought or sold by utilities on open exchanges. And while the fee would almost certainly be passed on to consumers in the form of higher fuel prices, most of it would be rebated through payroll and other tax credits. By paying more for energy and less for taxes, the idea is that Americans will use less energy and wind up with roughly the same amount of money to spend on everything else.

For some on the left, the compromises made to achieve bipartisan support will be too much.  Yes, it will be a weaker than many environmentalists would hope.  The cap and trade mechanism will not apply to the oil and gas industry.  However, the alternative proposed could be an important step forward and a real improvement over the status quo.  According to Pearlstein, it does provide for what will ultimately be a tax on carbon, which is an approach that I think is preferable to cap and trade.  I know that many on the right will cry foul at the idea of any new tax.  The important component of this tax or fee (whatever you want to call it) is that it will be refunded to consumers in the form of payroll tax reductions.  That’s good news for business because, as many on the right argue, employment taxes discourage work.  It’s also good news for lower income Americans because payroll taxes are regressive, putting a greater burden on them.

If designed appropriately, this approach could encourage employment and reduce carbon consumption.  Yes, there will be winners and losers, but the goal should be that the average American at the end of the day comes out whole.  Government does not gain a windfall.  It just alters the incentive structure that already exists.  Right now the current system simply encourages more consumption of foreign oil, and no one thinks that is a good thing.

There will likely also be compromises made that will increase nuclear power and offshore drilling.  On one hand, offshore drilling may be one component of a short term remedy to our energy needs and reduces our dependence on foreign oil producers who use our money to undermine American interests.  On the other hand, investments in offshore drilling simply delay the transition to non fossil fuels that we must ultimately make.  It also continues to exacerbate our climate change problems.  Nevertheless, this is a compromise that I think could provide an acceptable tradeoff.

One of the keys to this effort is whether or not there is at least some industry buy-in.  It seems that this bill might be able to do that.  It won’t get all of the environmentalists on board nor all of industry, but that’s what a compromise looks like.  Purists on the environmental side will question any bill that has the approval of industry and business may also question any bill that has the seal of approval of environmentalists.  It’s time for both sides to get beyond the old paradigms and see if there can be some compromises that we could all live with.

Lindsay Graham captured it well in this quote:

A moderate Democrat or a Republican won’t be able to get on board I don’t think unless you have some business interests speaking out who have never spoken out before. Environmentalists are going to have to be comfortable enough to support the process. Not all of them, but some of them. We’re trying to create a safety net to get to 60 votes.

According to a New York Times analysis there are about 27 fence sitter – Democrats and Republicans – right now who haven’t made up their mind on climate change legislation.  19 of them need to be convinced to support this legislation.  The time is right to put the vitriolic health care debate behind us and come together for the common good.  Politicians on both side of the aisle are going to have to make some uncomfortable compromises.  On the 40^th anniversary of Earth Day and I can think of no better birthday present than a true bipartisan effort to put aside differences for the good of the planet.

Related posts:

1. Bipartisan breakthrough on climate change
2. Dubious Decisions on Drilling: Why Obama Should Reconsider Offshore Drilling in the Wake of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
3. Drilling Our Way to a Climate Change Solution?

On Wednesday, President Obama announced a proposal to lift the long-standing ban on offshore oil and natural gas drilling off much of the south Atlantic and north Alaskan coasts, as well as parts of the Gulf of Mexico. The announcement has drawn the ire of critics across the political spectrum. Some on the left are outraged by Obama’s “betrayal” of his environmentalist base, and some on the right have called the extent of new offshore access insufficient. In reality, the policy he outlined will do very little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and it will have no effect on oil prices in the foreseeable future. And Obama knows it. From the administration’s perspective, this announcement is about one thing: building support in the Senate for comprehensive climate change and energy legislation.

Studies have shown that offshore drilling will have very little impact on domestic oil prices. In fact, not a drop of new oil from this proposal would be seen for at least seven years, and the modest uptick in production and negligible price dip would not even be felt for two decades. Offshore drilling’s impact on real prices pales in comparison to that which could result from sound financial regulatory reform to curb speculation in commodity futures exchanges, or from putting a stop to the supply manipulation routinely practiced by OPEC in response to the artificially rising demand.

Nevertheless, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham – who is expected to introduce a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Joe Lieberman within the next month – has insisted that offshore drilling be part of the energy equation of the future. Obama’s announcement on Wednesday follows similar concessions in recent months to conservative nuclear and coal interests. The administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request included $36 billion for the nuclear loan guarantee program and the stimulus bill included $3.8 billion for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) research and development.

With an otherwise small chance of success for a Senate bill resembling the House version that passed last summer, these were concessions that Obama knew he simply had to make. Comprehensive climate change and energy legislation can not pass on a strictly party-line basis. The most recent analysis of the prospects for legislation in the Senate by Environment and Energy Daily lists 41 “yes” or “likely yes” voters – with Graham being the sole Republican – and 30 “fence sitters”, consisting of 19 Democrats and 11 Republicans. But last August, a group of 10 moderate Democrats from mostly Midwest coal-dependent states said in a letter to Obama that they would not support a bill that limits greenhouse gas emissions unless American industries are protected from competition by countries that do not adopt similar standards. And just last week, a separate group of 10 coastal Democrats wrote a letter to Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham to insist that they would not support a bill that “greatly expands” offshore drilling. With so many competing interests within the Democratic Party, Republican support will be not just important, but necessary.

Comprehensive climate change and energy legislation will be a heavy lift, and the end result will be far from perfect. But if Obama’s wink-and-nod to the oil lobby frames the debate in his favor and bridges the political divide on comprehensive legislation, then this is a price that proponents of a strong and lasting climate change solution should be more than willing to pay.

With this latest concession, Obama has shown a willingness to slight a major portion of his political base for the sake of bipartisan support for comprehensive climate change and energy policy. In an op-ed co-authored by Kerry and Graham in The New York Times, the two Senators acknowledged that “this process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship.” Now it’s time for those who support a broad ‘all-of-the-above’ package of energy solutions to come to the table and help shape legislation that will put a price on carbon and lead America toward a clean, secure, and independent energy future.

Related posts:

1. Dubious Decisions on Drilling: Why Obama Should Reconsider Offshore Drilling in the Wake of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
2. Bipartisan gift to the planet
3. Is election year bipartisanship possible?

Russia has many interesting New Year traditions, but the most famous one, at least in the Western media, is its annual bickering over energy prices with neighboring states. It was Minsk’s turn to join Moscow in upholding the tradition this year.

No sooner had Belarus finished toasting the New Year than Russia halted oil supplies to Belarusian refineries through the Druzhba, or Friendship, pipeline. Although the Kremlin quickly restored the oil flow to pacify its European customers, the dispute over pricing is far from settled. Russia and Belarus are still arguing over terms of a new agreement on export tariffs to replace the deal that expired on Dec. 31.

Having subsidized Belarus for years on end, Russia is now asking it to pay full import duties for the oil resold abroad. While Russia agreed to Belarus’ continuing to buy crude for domestic market duty-free, the Belarusian government argues that the customs union between the two states obviates the need for duty on all oil imports from Russia, including the 14.4 million tons of oil that Belarus refines and re-exports.

The oil dispute has already driven oil prices to a 15-month high and elicited strong criticism from the Europe Union, which imports thirty percent of its oil from Russia, half of it traveling through Belarus. Were the oil supplies disrupted, Germany and Poland would be hit hardest because Russian oil comprises 15 and 75 percent of their total oil consumption, respectively.

In a Jan. 16 letter to The Washington Post, Dmitry Peskov, deputy chief of staff and press secretary to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said “the so-called ‘dispute’ between Russia and Belarus is in reality an ongoing negotiation between supplier and customer.” Peskov likened Russia’s actions to what “any entity would do in a changing business climate.” But are things really as simple as Peskov claims?

To an extent, the assertive behavior of the Russian pipeline monopoly is not that different from the profit chasing of its Western counterparts. Elimination of subsidies to post-Soviet states by raising the price for natural gas and oil twenty years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union seems to be a good business decision. In fact, had the prices of Russia’s energy in the region depended on the market in the first place, Russia’s dealings with its former satellites would have been much more balanced and predictable.

But although Russia’s behavior can be partially explained by legitimate commercial interests, it also draws on the Kremlin’s desire to manipulate domestic politics in the post-Soviet states by controlling their energy infrastructures. To accomplish this goal, Russia has sought controlling stakes in the region’s key energy assets to secure both access to lucrative European markets and control over the internal markets of its smaller neighbors. In an earlier energy price dispute, with Moscow agreed to continue subsidies only after it bought a share in the Belarusian gas pipeline network.

Driven by the phantom pains from the loss of the empire, Russia would sometimes go as far as to cut off energy supplies to the facilities purchased by Western businesses and to construct additional pipelines to bypass infrastructure controlled by foreign companies.

The Russian-Belarusian dispute indicates the lack of diverse and original instruments in the Kremlin’s foreign policy toolbox. It is also a sign of the changing nature of the relationship between Russia and the states that it has unblushingly called its “zone of privileged interest” unwittingly prodding them to double efforts to escape the Russian orbit. Even Belarus, Moscow’s closest ally that has concluded a “union state” as well as the customs union with Russia, has been trying to chart a more or less independent foreign policy course.

Although Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka still remains persona non grata in most of Europe, in the past few years he has been flirting with the West. He released political prisoners, pardoned an American lawyer, refused to recognize the breakaway Georgian republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and even agreed to participate in the EU’s Eastern Partnership. Lukashenka, whose authoritarian regime had thrived thanks to Russia’s energy subsidies, is continuing on the path of defiance bickering with the Kremlin over the oil prices today.

While Russia is unlikely to acquiesce to all Belarus’ demands, one can be certain that some sort of compromise is near. One can be even more certain that the Kremlin’s “crude” New Year’s tradition will be followed year after year, as long as Russia’s subsidies last. This means that the EU has a few more uncertain winters ahead. On the bright side, however, the EU will receive a compensation of sorts as more post-Soviet states crave its friendship. After all, the EU’s attractiveness in the post-Soviet region seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of Russian subsidies.

The Russian-Belarusian oil row is not as far from Washington as it seems. Russia’s desire to retain influence in the Near Abroad is to a great extent driven by fears of US influence in those countries. The Russian-Belarusian oil dispute does not put key U.S. interests at stake, but it does affect Washington’s relations with both the EU and the former Soviet republics. Therefore, it would be wise for Washington to follow the recent developments in the former Soviet region, encourage Europe to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, and engage states that seek to leave Russia’s orbit without adding more fuel to the flame of their financial disagreements with Moscow.

Related posts:

1. The Cost of Dropping the Ball in Kyrgyzstan
2. Russia: whose strategic partner?
3. The game of nuclear rearmament/disarmament a-la Kremlin

By almost any standard, the outcome of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last week fell well short of its increasingly humble expectations. Copenhagen was considered pivotal because the “Bali Roadmap” laid out in 2007 circled this meeting on the calendar as the conclusion of the negotiating period which was to create a legally-binding post-Kyoto agreement. But by the beginning of the conference, the goal had been reduced to just establishing a politically-binding framework that would set the world on a course toward reaching a comprehensive international agreement in 2010.

Modest yet politically significant emissions reduction pledges by the US, China, and others prior to the conference contributed to a mood of cautious optimism at the outset of the two-week summit. But on just the second day, the massive rift between developed and developing countries was exposed with the leak of the so-called “Danish text” – drawn up by delegates from Denmark, Australia, the UK, and the US – which would allegedly place most of the power in the hands of developed countries at the expense of developing countries. The text was dismissed by the executive secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, as just an “informal” draft. But China quickly fired back with its own draft text, flipping the blame and the burden onto wealthy countries. A day later, delegates from the US and China traded barbs as the US State Department Envoy Todd Stern told reporters that “there’s no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass,” to which Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei responded that Stern either “lacks common sense” or is “extremely irresponsible”.

The controversy stirred up in the first few days served as a precursor for the deep division between rich and poor countries that would plague the remainder of the negotiations. The next week was remarkably unproductive. Countless controversial draft texts fluttered around the Bella Center amid a walkout by African countries and thousands of angry rioters – impatient with the lack of progress – taking to the streets. With the looming arrival of over a hundred heads of state, the symbolic dichotomy of rich vs. poor countries had grown ever clearer and was threatening to derail the negotiations.

On the second to last day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a substantial overture, committing the US to help build a $100 billion annual fund by 2020, contingent upon an international verification system to monitor emissions cuts. But China insisted that it would not submit to any international monitoring, calling such a system “intrusive” and an infringement on its sovereignty. With the world leaders due to arrive the next day, the US and China had reached an impasse. On the eve of the summit’s conclusion, the high-level representatives worked round-the-clock until 5 am to produce a draft text for the heads of state. Three hours later, Air Force One touched down in Copenhagen and President Obama was presented with the two and a half page draft agreement. At the Friday morning plenary, Obama reiterated the need for an international verification system, declaring that “without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.” Evidently, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao took offense, boycotting a pair of crucial negotiation sessions, instead sending his Vice Foreign Minister. A frustrated Obama reportedly said that “it would be nice to negotiate with somebody who can make political decisions.”

Obama finally managed to meet with Wen and, as time expired, the US, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa struck a mild deal to snatch the conference from the grip of complete catastrophe. Obama called the Copenhagen Accord a “meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough” but admitted its glaring deficiencies, citing the inability to overcome a “fundamental deadlock in perspectives.” The agreement is woefully inadequate, having stripped nearly all of the substance from the early morning draft. The Copenhagen Accord includes a three-year, $30 billion “jump-start” financing system for developing countries and an aspirational $100 billion per year Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to take effect in 2020. But it does not include explicit goals for near or long term emissions reduction targets, nor does it include a commitment to a sound international verification system. Most disappointingly, the Copenhagen Accord dropped the previously agreed upon timeline for sealing a legally-binding international treaty by the late 2010 COP16 meeting in Mexico City.

The US arrived in Copenhagen considered by most to be the main obstructionist to a global deal, but there is little doubt that the Chinese took home that ignominious prize. The tireless attempts by each side to cast the other as the villain may have doomed the negotiations long before the Obama-Wen showdown on the final day. Still, there is plenty of blame to go around, not the least of which should be placed on the US Senate for failing to pass legislation prior to Copenhagen. There were also flaws in the structure of the conference itself, as it was poorly organized and even more poorly executed. In the end, Copenhagen will likely be remembered as one small step in the right direction. But there remains a very long road ahead toward breaking the stalemate between the world’s rich and poor. Next stop: Mexico City.

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Conference Kicks Off
2. Adapting Along the Road to Copenhagen
3. Hazy Reasoning on Black Carbon

In September, PSA released a statement signed by 33 prominent Republicans and Democrats urging Congress and the Administration to “develop a clear, comprehensive, realistic and broadly bipartisan plan to address our role in the climate change crisis.” The signatories warned that “if we fail to take action now, we will have little hope of influencing other countries to reduce their own harmful contributions to climate change, or of forging a coordinated international response.” The Senate has already failed to deliver legislation prior to the conference, but it is not too late for the U.S. to take the lead in the negotiations, especially since it will be impossible for a global consensus to emerge from Copenhagen without strong U.S. support.

President Obama will join many other heads of state in Copenhagen on the conference’s final day with an offer to cut U.S. emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. China and India have also proposed reduction targets of 40-45% and 20-25%, respectively, in the “carbon intensity” of the economy – or carbon emissions per unit of GDP – by 2020, which will not actually result in any tangible reduction in emissions as long as these countries’ GDPs continue to rise. None of these commitments satisfy the 25-40% emissions cuts sought by the UN and deemed necessary by leading climate scientists.

PSA’s statement also urged that “we must also help less developed countries adapt to the realities and consequences of a drastically changed climate. Doing so now will help avoid humanitarian disasters and political instability in the future that could ultimately threaten the security of the U.S. and our allies.”

In the days leading up to the conference, the U.S proposed a global fund, operating under the World Bank, which would devote billions of dollars to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of climate change. While the level of funding remains an extremely contentious issue, the structure of such a fund is a critical first step, and the initiative taken by the U.S. is a positive sign.

Significant progress in Copenhagen can lay the foundation for action in the Senate and for a legally-binding global agreement in the next year. The next two weeks in Copenhagen present an enormous opportunity for the U.S. and the world to move toward these goals in confronting global climate change. The world must act now, and the U.S. must lead.

Related posts:

1. Picking Up the Pieces in Copenhagen
2. Adapting Along the Road to Copenhagen
3. Bipartisan breakthrough on climate change