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. Stop Playing the Blame Game on Climate Change
3. Adapting Along the Road to Copenhagen

On Friday President Obama will attend the Copenhagen climate change conference.  There will be much anticipation about what commitments the United States and the other participating countries will make.  While the big whigs discuss issues like “carbon caps” and “emission targets”, some folks back on the home front will probably feel relieved that they are doing their part – perhaps by driving less or turning to “green” technologies.

Mike Tidwell, however, tells these people in a column published last week to think again.   It’s time to “stop going green” he says.  No, he’s not a global warming denier.  He’s a climate activist fed up with piecemeal contributions made voluntarily by individuals.

Tidwell writes,

December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change…..surveys show that very few people are willing to make significant voluntary changes, and those of us who do create the false impression of mass progress as the media hypes our actions.

Tidwell is right that the sum of the voluntary actions taken by Americans probably make little difference in the overall progress of global warming.  The incentives in our society are set up to promote the exploitation of resources.  A ton of coal not burned has no financial value.  Most polluters pay little of the cost of the environmental damage they create.  All the best intentions by well-meaning people can do little to overcome the power of the marketplace.  Yes, Tidwell is right that broader systemic change is needed.  This recognition, however, should not lead one to dismiss individual efforts.

Tidwell sees the efforts of individuals as a zero sum game.  A concerned citizen, for example, might have time and energy to devote two hours a week to combating global warming.  In Tidwell’s world, that person can either choose to buy and install a few compact fluorescent bulbs in his household or he could write or call his elected representative and encourage him to support climate change legislation.  Since this well-meaning individual only has two hours to spare, time spent on one activity will mean that the other activity gets sidelined.  In such a world, I would agree that the person should send off that letter.  But, we all know that the world doesn’t actually work that way.

Frequently our individual actions shape our policy opinions – and sometimes our advocacy efforts towards elected representatives.  Let’s consider another hypothetical person.  One could imagine a scenario whereby a typical consumer hasn’t thought much about the environment when making lifestyle decisions.  The reality is that for most Americans these days it’s relatively low on the priority list.  In fact, a Pew study conducted this year found that 85 percent of Americans felt that the economy was a top priority and only 35 percent considered global warming to be.  In these tough economic times, there’s more work to be done to convince the American public of the severity of the threat.

But let’s say that this person decided to buy a CFC light bulb because this will save some money.  When buying the bulb this consumer also learns about the environmental benefit that the purchase produced and feels good about it.  In Tidwell’s world, that’s the end of the story.

Let’s consider what might happen later to this consumer.  After repeatedly buying such bulbs, the person begins to think of himself as someone who cares for the environment and he might even eventually end up speaking up at a town hall meeting or even writing a letter to his congressperson.  No, it won’t happen overnight and it certainly won’t happen for everyone.  But, small lifestyle changes in the near term can eventually lead to greater sacrifices in the long term.

We should continue to ask consumers to make these small lifestyle changes even if they don’t immediately impact global warming.  In the longer term policy, they just might.  It’s also important that the President and our other elected leaders continue to highlight the security concerns presented by global climate change and the potential job-making opportunities of reforms.  Yes, there will be short term costs, but these are outweighed by the long term benefits to the economy, our security, and the environment.

I’m also bothered by faddish environmentalism, but it’s not yet time to ditch the hybrid and throw out those flourescent bulbs.

Related posts:

1. Palin’s solution: ignore the problem
2. Stop Playing the Blame Game on Climate Change
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. Stop Playing the Blame Game on Climate Change
3. Adapting Along the Road to Copenhagen

On Wednesday, Barbara Boxer and John Kerry introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the long-awaited Senate version of the climate change bill that squeaked through the House in June. With the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen just nine weeks away, U.S. legislative action will be a key to successful global negotiations. Particularly, investment in international adaptation – the multilateral assistance to developing countries in order to withstand the impacts of climate change – is widely expected to be one of the central elements of the looming debate in Copenhagen. Whereas climate change mitigation policies aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation seeks to lessen the vulnerability and enhance the resilience of the most at-risk countries through disaster management and infrastructure capacity-building. Kerry has called international adaptation “part of the glue” holding together hopes of reaching a new global treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol. Still, investment in adaptation – at both the domestic and international levels – has been continuously overlooked.

The international security crises associated with climate change are dramatic and self-perpetuating. Drought, rising sea levels, and resource scarcity will lead to disease, mass migration, and political instability, ultimately causing fragile states to collapse into failed states. These cascading effects are intensified with the Earth’s population projected to reach nine billion by 2050. And in a cruel twist of irony, the most devastating effects will be felt in parts of the world that are least responsible for global climate change, specifically Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia.

In North Africa, subsistence farming will suffer a 20-40% reduction in crop yield due to prolonged drought and desertification. Drought will hit the Middle East hard as well, a region that is already home to 6% of the world’s population but just 2% of the Earth’s water supply. And with 60% of the Middle East’s bodies of water lying trans-boundary, the stage is set for conflict. As John Kerry said, “a demographic boom and a shrinking water supply will only tighten the squeeze on a region that doesn’t need another reason to disagree violently.”

In South Asia, the Indus river system, running from India through Kashmir and into Pakistan, may become seasonal as a result of the melting Siachen Glacier, thereby destroying the region’s agriculture and threatening the livelihood of 75% of Pakistan’s 160 million people.

Bangladesh is perhaps the most classic example of the devastation that climate change will cause. A sea level rise of one meter, as is expected in coming decades, will displace 20 million people in low-lying coastal areas of the South Asian country. Salt water intrusion will have further indirect impacts by crippling the rice crops. The Minister of Disaster Management, Dr. Muhammed Abdur Razzaque, has pleaded, to no avail, for $5 billion over the next five years from the international community to develop coastal defense mechanisms similar to those in the Netherlands, although that sum would still almost certainly amount to just a fraction of what Bangladesh needs.

All told, there will be about 200 million environmentally displaced people (EDPs) by 2050, mostly in areas of the world that are already among the most politically unstable. Needless to say, the importance – and cost – of adapting to these changes is enormous. Estimated funding needs range from $9-20 billion per year from 2010-2020 according to ClimateWorks’ Project Catalyst to as much as $40–170 billion annually, according to the most recent estimate by the UNFCCC. Preliminary results of the World Bank’s Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change (EACC) study – the “most in-depth analysis of the economics of adaptation to climate change to date” – estimates costs in the order of $75-100 billion per year from 2010-2050.

The U.S. would likely be called on to provide about 25% of the global total under an international agreement, based on existing international institutions and funding efforts. This figure is also roughly proportionate to the U.S. share of historical global emissions since the beginning of the industrial era (the U.S. has emitted about 90-95 billion metric tons of carbon since 1800). But Waxman-Markey allocates just 1% of the allowances from 2012 to 2021 under its cap-and-trade scheme toward international adaptation efforts. This translates to about $700-900 million per year. Even by the most modest funding projections, the numbers fall far short. This prompted an unusual coalition of environmental and faith-based NGOs to write a letter addressed to Senators Kerry and Lugar urging them to dedicate at least an additional 2% of allowances for international adaptation (which would raise the total investment to 3%). Yet the Boxer-Kerry bill is, so far, silent on precisely how much would be allocated to international adaptation.

If the U.S. delegation arrives in Copenhagen without a clear commitment to adaptation it would present a major setback for an international treaty. Copenhagen is not the end of the road for global climate change negotiations, but it is a crucial chance for real progress. With 50,000 delegates from 190 nations expected in Copenhagen, inability to make substantial strides would be a disastrous missed opportunity, especially when considering the Kyoto deal took eight years to finish and the Copenhagen negotiations are less than a year old. If a new international framework is not ratified by 2012, Kyoto will fall away without a successor agreement. If the Senate does not take strong action now, it would reduce U.S. leverage and send a poor message to the international community. Ambassador John Bruton, head of the European Commission Delegation to the United States, warned that inaction “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.” He added, “the United States emits 25 percent of all the greenhouse gases that the Conference is trying to reduce. Is the US Senate really expecting all the other countries to make a serious effort on climate change at the Copenhagen Conference in the absence of a clear commitment from the United States?”

Now is the time for decisive action on the domestic front. A successful global treaty will be built around a core of strong U.S. legislation that, in particular, addresses the unavoidable needs of international adaptation. And the pressure is on from the international community. The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but both China and India did. Yesterday, India’s environment minister called the Senate bill a “measly” effort. A recent poll from WorldPublicOpinion.org found that the U.S. public ranked dead last out of 19 countries when asked how high a priority should be placed on addressing climate change. The developing world needs a powerful and convincing signal of commitment from the United States. If the U.S. arrives in Copenhagen dragging its feet, it will forfeit the credibility needed to play a leadership role in the negotiations.

Above all, climate change must be treated not as a national security issue or as a regional security issue, but as a human security issue. Instability in any part of the world is a threat to the United States. The longer the U.S. and the world delays action on international adaptation, the deeper the hole we will find ourselves in when we inevitably start to climb out.

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Conference Kicks Off
2. Picking Up the Pieces in Copenhagen
3. Stop Playing the Blame Game on Climate Change

Every February and March, a black haze descends onto mainland Southeast Asia, lowering visibility and driving thousands of people with respiratory complaints into hospital emergency rooms. The cause of this haze has been known for years- the widespread use of slash-and-burn agriculture that results in large swathes of farmland going up in flames annually. What hasn’t been known until recently, however, is the global impact that hazes like this, made up of airborne soot, has had not only on air quality but on the earth’s rising temperature. Scientists now believe that soot, more formally known as black carbon, is responsible for almost twenty percent of the increase in the earth’s temperature over the past century, making it the largest contributing factor to climate change after carbon dioxide. Through legislation aimed at further reducing domestic black carbon emissions and promoting international projects and agreements aimed at emissions cuts, Congress can take immediate, definitive steps towards reducing black carbon’s effect on the rate of climate change.

The impact of black carbon on climate change is sobering. Produced not only by slash-and-burn agriculture but also rudimentary cook stoves and diesel engines, black carbon is found throughout the world. While the highest concentrations of emissions come from Asia- most notably India and China- the U.S. is also a major polluter, with per-capita emissions roughly equal to those of most Southeast Asian countries and responsibility for 6.1% of total global emissions. Incomplete combustion from fuel sources releases black carbon into the atmosphere, where it absorbs sunlight and creates heat. The particles then float out of the atmosphere and settle on the ground, often on ice or snow, where they cause additional damage. Indeed, the most serious problem that black carbon poses is its warming effect on glaciers and large ice masses. Almost half of Arctic melting to date has been caused by black carbon, which reduces snow and ice’s reflective properties and increases heat retention. In India, black carbon poses a serious threat to the Himalayan glaciers, an essential water source for much of Asia, and one whose demise would have devastating effects on population survival and productivity. In turn, Arctic and glacial melting themselves hold serious consequences for the earth’s climate, as a reduction in ice “can create positive feedbacks leading to even further warming.” The Arctic is already warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, making it the region most heavily affected by climate change. As permafrost in the Arctic thaws, the vast quantities of carbon and methane currently frozen will be released into the atmosphere, further accelerating climate change. Thus, black carbon is not only a heavyweight contributor to climate change but a critical catalyst for other processes that themselves contribute to climate change.

At first, the appearance of black carbon as a new foe in the fight against climate change appears to be yet another setback against progress. On closer examination, however, the opposite is true. The existence of black carbon is good news, not bad. Like carbon dioxide, black carbon is a significant contributor to global warming- experts estimate that the warming effect of black carbon is around 30-60% of carbon dioxide’s. However, unlike carbon dioxide, which can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, black carbon has a short life span, staying in the atmosphere for an average of two weeks. This means that measures taken to reduce black carbon emissions now would have an almost immediate effect on the rate of global warming. In their recent article in Foreign Affairs, Jessica Wallack and Veerabhadran Ramanathan calculated that “fully applying existing emissions-control technologies could cut black carbon emissions by about 50 percent [which] would be enough to offset the warming effects of one to two decades’ worth of carbon-dioxide emissions.” Simple, inexpensive technologies and strategies for effectively reducing black carbon- such as replacing traditional stoves in the developing world with more efficient ones, or retrofitting diesel engines with carbon filters-  already exist.

Furthermore, unlike strategies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, reducing black carbon can be done without impacting economic growth. As Wallack and Ramanathan point out, black carbon emissions “can be reduced without necessarily limiting the underlying activity that generated them [as] black carbon [precursors] are not essential byproducts of energy use.” This means that developing countries like China and India, which are fond of arguing that emissions cuts are a Western ploy to slow growth, could theoretically agree to programs targeting black carbon without the painful, drawn-out, and impotent international agreements that have characterized climate-change policy so far.

So, the question remains, why aren’t we addressing black carbon in our national climate-change debate?  It certainly isn’t because the government is ignorant of black carbon’s existence. Congress has known about both the threats posed by black carbon and benefits of reducing it for years. In October of 2007, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on black carbon and global warming which finished with six conclusions, the most important of which are:

-“Black carbon is the second leading cause of global warming”

-“Decreasing emissions will immediately slow global warming”

-“Decreasing emissions will immediately improve public health”

-“Opportunities to decrease emissions exist now”

Even so, Congress’s progress so far has been negligible, with one exception- the stimulus bill, which set aside an additional $300 million for reducing diesel emissions. Unfortunately, while reducing domestic diesel emissions is a good start, it is not a comprehensive solution for U.S. emissions and certainly not viable for international reductions. Excluding the stimulus bill, the only legislation that mentions black carbon does not call for immediate action but instead suggests further studies. In the house, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 devoted just a few pages to black carbon- Sections 333 and 851.  Section 333 stipulated only that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must submit a report to Congress on black carbon emissions in one year, while Section 851 required that in eighteen months the Administrator either propose regulations on black carbon emissions or determine that existing regulations are sufficient.

In the Senate, the only legislation on black carbon is S. 849, “A bill to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study on black carbon emissions.” But the bipartisan bill, is simply another example of Congress kicking the can further down the road. Even if S. 849 passes, it won’t exactly be a harbinger of progress, as the bill merely requires a report on black carbon a year after the bill is enacted.

The lack of legislative process on black carbon so far stands in contrast to public statements by members of Congress. “Taking bold steps to reduce black carbon emissions is a win-win situation because it will lessen the threat of global warming and improve global public health,” Senator Thomas R. Carper [D-DE], Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, said. Senator John Kerry [D-MA] went even further in a speech delivered at the national press club this July, saying that “unless we act dramatically—and act fast— science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.” Both Carper and Kerry, co-sponsors of S. 849, should be commended for taking a public stance on climate change. However, it is unclear why both senators- Kerry in particular- are not following their words with the dramatic action and bold legislative steps that they agree are so important, particularly when these steps are so uncontroversial.

What is clear is that by pushing back serious discussions on black carbon, Congress is ignoring the opportunity for politically and economically feasible action that would represent an important step forward for U.S. climate policy. With Boxer-Kerry (hopefully) making its way to the Senate soon, and Copenhagen 2009 in only three months, now is the time for Congress to live up to its declarations and take concrete action against black carbon.

Related posts:

1. Bipartisan breakthrough on climate change
2. Copenhagen Conference Kicks Off
3. Stop Playing the Blame Game on Climate Change

During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to India last week, Indian environmental minister Jairam Ramesh expressed India’s views on climate change policy: “There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emitters per capita, face to actually reduce emissions.” Other less-developed countries (LDCs) have similar, though perhaps less aggressive, attitudes. The problem is, developing countries now make up a significant portion of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (China emits the most carbon dioxide of any country, and India is fourth). While it’s true that LDCs still emit greenhouse gases at much lower per capita rates than developed nations, a successful policy to combat climate change will require their cooperation.

The arguments about whose responsibility it is to curb climate change are well-worn by this point, but they still threaten to thwart meaningful international collaboration. Developed nations point out that the LDCs will soon account for a large majority of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. LDCs shoot back that industrialized nations created the climate change problem and that it’s only fair that LDCs also get a chance to modernize their economies without environmental restrictions. Both sides have valid points. But the developing world’s unwillingness to address the problem will have devastating consequences that will harm LDCs far worse than the developed world.

As an example, take Ramesh’s claim that fears about receding Himalayan glaciers are a “preconceived notion … based on western media.” Not only is Ramesh’s allegation entirely untrue—an Indian research institute predicted last year that, at the current rate of melting, the glaciers may disappear entirely by 2035—but it is grossly irresponsible for India’s government to take that position. Unless the world does something soon, climate change and environmental damage caused by reckless development policies will cripple developing economies and create a massive humanitarian crisis.

Himalayan glaciers feed major rivers including the Ganges, Barahmaputra, Mekong, and Yangtze, which provide fresh water to billions of people in South and East Asia. When the glaciers are gone, those mighty rivers will shrink dramatically, and some may even become seasonal water sources. Already, droughts in India are causing wars over water, reduced precipitation has caused grain shortfalls in Pakistan, and 500 million Chinese lack access to clean water. If the glaciers melt, water shortages could affect over one billion people. LDCs claim that environmental regulation is prohibitively expensive, but a humanitarian disaster wrought by climate change will cost them far more.

Frustratingly, the parameters of an agreement have existed for years. Any successful international climate change policy will be based on a system of cash transfers from rich countries to fund LDC’s environmental programs. Indeed, developed nations admitted their historical responsibility for most greenhouse gas emissions in the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Developed countries must also acknowledge that, as the world’s richest nations by far, they have the capacity and responsibility to bear the brunt of solving a global problem. At the same time, LDCs need to recognize their own crucial role in reducing future emissions. More importantly, though, they must realize that climate change threatens their very existence. Developed nations should make it clear that they are willing to fund meaningful and effective environmental measures in LDCs. But unless the LDCs get on board, they will face an environmental catastrophe that will more than erase the economic gains they’ve made over the past few decades.

In December, representatives from over 170 countries will meet in Copenhagen to discuss the future of international climate agreements. These efforts have the potential to significantly advance environmental policy, but only if the world stops playing the blame game and recognizes climate change as a global problem that everyone must help to solve. Progress in preparation for Copenhagen has reached an impasse in the form of bickering over financing for the LDC’s efforts to cut emissions. But something has to give. Either the world will reach a compromise to share the burdens of climate change policy, or we risk a future of environmental disasters and state failure triggered by severe natural resource shortages.

Related posts:

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

The nation can’t seem to get enough of Sarah Palin.  Many social conservatives adore her just as many liberals seem to be giddy over her repeated missteps.  Whether one loves her or hates her, there’s no question that she draws much attention whenever she speaks.  So, like many others, I was quite interested to read her recent op-ed in the Washington Post criticizing the proposed cap and trade plan to deal with energy and global warming.

Perhaps as one of the defacto figureheads of the Republican party, this would provide an opportunity for her to present some new ideas on these vexing problems.  The reality is that there’s no free lunch when it comes to energy and the environment.  All solutions have costs and will involve some pain.  Unfortunately, rather than addressing these tradeoffs constructively, Palin chose instead to just ignore the problem.  This is not to say that she was all wrong.  She raised some important points.  It’s just that her proposed solutions are the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

Probably the most concerning aspect of Palin’s piece is its glaring omission of any serious thinking about how to deal with the environmental impact of our energy usage.  The cap and trade program addresses two interrelated issues:  energy and environment.  While Palin seems eager to speak about utilizing domestic sources of energy, she says virtually nothing about how to deal with emissions.  I was struck by Palin’s dismissal of the cap and trade program.  She wrote, “It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.”

Yes, there will likely be some short term financial costs to this effort.  However, I’m not sure how ignoring global warming can be considered good long term planning.  It seems to me that dramatically altering our environment such that coastal regions are flooded and the nation’s agricultural output is significantly altered could be considered “permanent damage.”

Palin is correct that there are going to be job losses and that energy will likely be more expensive.  She writes, “Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years.”

We must ensure that unemployed workers are retrained and put back to work.  It will take time and it will cost money just as  free trade has required that we restructure our workforce.  Many would argue that the benefits from free trade are worth the costs of retraining.  I would say the same for the benefits from a livable environment.

Palin writes, “The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.” Yes, she’s correct that some consumer prices will rise as companies adjust to the cap and trade program. However, some detractors have been arguing that consumers would need to pay thousands of dollars extra every year because of this program.  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently released its estimates which found that by 2020 the average American household would pay an extra $165 per year and that those in the lower income brackets would actually get $40 back.  In ensuing years, costs to consumers would actually go down as permits are sold and proceeds rebated back to consumers.

The criticism that Palin raises regarding other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China is certainly a valid one.  We should be concerned that a cap and trade program in the US could make energy and industrial production in other countries cheaper.  This could result in capital flight from the US to less restrictive countries.  The solution, however, is not to scrap the cap and trade system.  Rather, maximum effort should be made in the upcoming post-Kyoto climate negotiations taking place in Copenhagen in December to make sure that countries such as China buy into the process.

Many developing countries argue that they too should have the same right to exploit their resources just as the wealthy countries have already done.  This can not be a justification for their inaction because they, like the wealthy countries, have a stake in a livable climate.  The world cannot afford for them to make the same mistakes that we did.  However, we must lead by example and the proposed cap and trade program allows us to do that.

This need not be a partisan issue.  Those that agree that there is a serious problem to be addressed generally have recognized the need to work together on a bipartisan basis.  In fact, the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy that spent years trying to identify solutions that could be supported on a bipartisan basis, includes a cap and trade component in their recommendations for policy changes.  Where there can be little compromise is with those who simply deny that there is actually a critical problem to be solved.  Sarah Palin’s op-ed makes me wonder if she is in that crowd.

Related posts:

1. Bipartisan breakthrough on climate change
2. Not time to throw out those fluorescent light bulbs
3. Adapting Along the Road to Copenhagen

The likely probability, as I noted in my last post, of Sen. Obama becoming president is now reality.

And though I normally shy away from using words like “historic” because it is such a cliché I think this may be a time when it can validly be used. If, for no other reason than, as a recent Defense Science Board report noted, “It has been more than two generations since the presidency transitioned with American troops engaged in significant combat operations—a deployment begun in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.”

So now Americans get to indulge in one of their favorite perennial activities; telling him what he should do. Deal with the financial meltdown, close Guantanamo Bay prison, make Africa a greater priority, declare a moratorium on new “free-trade” deals, reaffirm U.S. commitment to international laws, treaties, the United Nations, and multilateral responses to violations of international peace, work for a comprehensive nonproliferation policy, institute a cap and trade policy for carbon emissions, et cetera.

Looking at all the things people want him to work on you would think we elected Superman as president instead of a mere mortal.

Yet let’s not be naive. Even though he has yet to assume office his victory is already starting to create change. For example, as the Washington Post reported , Iraqi officials, who see President-elect Obama’s views on the timing of a U.S. withdrawal as consonant with their own, appear to be leveraging his election to pressure the Bush administration to make last-minute concessions.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported last Friday that the U.S. notified Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki it has accepted many of the changes proposed last week by the Iraqi cabinet in a draft security agreement between the two countries.

Doubtlessly U.S. military officials will advise President-elect Obama to adjust his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by mid-2010. Remember that while promising a 16-month timetable for getting all U.S. fighting forces out, Obama repeatedly insisted on what he calls a “responsible” withdrawal.

And, in truth, if the United States wants to take back the majority of its equipment from all the bases, major and minor it has in Iraq, it will take more than 16 months.

Like all administrations, Obama needs to take stock of the world. Eight years of Bush foreign and national security policies, plus ongoing globalization, emergence of new powers makes the world a very different place.

Consider what Thomas Barnett, well known defense intellectual, and author of the bestsellers The Pentagon’s New Map and Blueprint for Action says in his forthcoming book Great Powers: America and the World After Bush due out in February. He writes:

The Bush-Cheney administration came into power seeking to realign the strategic relationships among great powers: whipping NATO into shape; putting rising China, India, and Russia in their place; and reasserting American leadership. The irony, of course, is that now infamous neo-cons achieved the exact opposite across the board. Russia’s pounding of Georgia in the summer of 2008 gave us a glimpse of that unwelcome future; exercising its own perceived right for unilateral military action following 9/11, America’s modeled behavior inevitably spawns the worst sort of imitation. The chickens have indeed come home to roost.

One problem for any new administration in this era is that the problems it deals with will not only be the ones that now exist but ones that are totally unexpected. As a recent monograph by the Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute notes:

The likeliest and most dangerous future shocks will be unconventional. They will not emerge from thunderbolt advances in an opponent’s military capabilities. Rather, they will manifest themselves in ways far outside established defense convention. Most will be nonmilitary in origin and character, and not, by definition, defense-specific events conducive to the conventional employment of the DoD enterprise.

So here is my two cents as to what an Obama administration should do.

First, be cautious. You have a plate piled high with policy issues to deal with. Some you have to deal with immediately, i.e., financial crisis. Others such as global warming and climate change and antiterrorism efforts are long term. Iraq and Afghanistan fall in between. And always remember that more are coming down the road.

Second, be confident. There are more people in the world who want to support America than attack it. There is actual and potential good will towards the country and you, both domestically and abroad, which you can tap.

Finally, as they said in West Side Story play it cool. One of your most attractive qualities is that you don’t utter many banalities. You know the problems we face are complex. If they were simple they would have been solved long ago. They require reasoned, critical, deliberative thinking and you’ve shown that you have that quality. I think you’re the right man at the right time. Now go forth and start solving problems.

Related posts:

1. Palin’s solution: ignore the problem
2. Goodbye to 2009: The year in review
3. Obama Takes a Long View of Missile Defense

I would like to thank Mr. Eckel for the very cordial debate as well as the PSA for offering me this opportunity. Mr. Eckel was a challenging opponent, and I salute him for his effort. Rather than providing a lengthy discussion rewriting what has already been said, I will make an attempt to find some common ground between our two arguments while outlining where we differ.

It appears that Mr. Eckel agrees with affording America some military superiority around the world. However, how the military is used, and the economic limits of its superiority is where we differ. While I support working with our allies to preserve security around the world, we differ with how much faith should be placed in foreign governments. While Mr. Eckel and I both support free market capitalism as the best path to prosperity for poor nations, Mr. Eckel still concerns himself with tired leftist dogmas of overpopulation, global warming, and resource depletion. Of course in order to solve these mythical problems, the solution is always more and more government control.

Overall, as I have already explained in my previous responses, America’s military must be the strongest in the world. We cannot rely on our neighbors for protection; we only need to rely on ourselves. Moreover, peace comes not through appeasement or government management, but through strength and liberty. Consequently, America has become the strongest and most prosperous nation the world has ever seen in under two hundred years by following that simple creed.

Devil’s Advocate is a Conservative / Libertarian editorialist for Copious Dissent – Your Daily Dose of Liberty. He currently lives in Chicago, IL.

Related posts:

1. Does Strategy Drive Defense Budgets?
2. Afghanistan: I don’t believe in miracles
3. On Honoring the First Amendment

Although Mr. Eckel makes an attempt to clarify his position, his rebuttal leaves more questions unanswered. He first argues that he is not advocating for, nor defending, klepto-socialism or centralized planning. Conversely, he asserts that he is advocating for “the development of global institutions that take into account not just traditional measures of economic health like per-capita GDP, public debt, balance of trade etc, but also the manner in which that health can be sustained.” But, to demonstrate the importance of taking into account nontraditional measures of economic health, he cites China as an example of economic growth leading to environmental damage. China is a peculiar choice to represent this thesis.

China, although it has uplifted millions of people out of poverty as a result of free market and capitalist reforms, has created environmental damage not because of the positive changes it has made, but because of the communist authoritarianism it has not yet abandoned. While China is beginning to create a system of De Jure private property rights, its government nevertheless plans much of the infrastructure displacing millions of people from their homes without adequate compensation. Almost all of the environmental devastation, like the former USSR, results from this centralized planning.

I share Mr. Eckel’s goal of living in a clean environment, but the fact of the matter is that only wealthy countries have been able to clean up their environmental messes. On the other hand, poor countries, or those in recession, cannot afford the luxury of cleaning their environments while feeding their populations. This is a tradeoff where the latter is always preferred.

The one solution that has worked to prevent environmental devastation is the creation of wealth and the protection of De Jure private property rights. Wealth allows a country to voluntarily invest in more expensive clean resources. Property rights place those with the greatest incentive of maintaining their lands in charge of creating a cleaner environment. Compassionate third-party observers are poor stewards of other people’s property.

Mr. Eckel next asserts that “historically, military power closely tracks relative economic strength.” Therefore, he states, “[I]t is unrealistic to expect the United States to continue to occupy the near-omnipotent global position that it held during the early 1990s.” Then, without explanation, he declares by fiat that “rising powers like China, India, Japan, Brazil, and even the E.U. simply won’t permit it.”

To summarize Mr. Eckel’s argument: America cannot maintain its economic supremacy, nor will other countries allow it to do so; therefore, we will not be able to afford our military. Astonishingly, he cites no evidence why America’s economy will not continue to grow into the infinite future. He also does not explain how any other country will have the will or the means to stop our economic supremacy, the backbone of our strong military.

Mr. Eckel, may have left a clue, however, to what he really meant in the following paragraphs. He simply emphasized his concern with American military spending, and advocated its reduction. This is a choice that has no bearing on what other countries will do or whether our economy will continue to grow. He then makes an intellectually dishonest argument that, “We spend more than half a trillion dollars a year on defense, and yet had no real military options when Russia recently invaded Georgia.” I highly doubt Mr. Eckel would have advocated using military force under any circumstances with the recent conflict between Georgia and Russia.

In conclusion, Mr. Eckel fails to demonstrate why America’s military should no longer be the greatest protector of liberty in the world. Instead he places faith in other countries to cooperate and ultimately reach peaceful reconciliation. I have not seen enough historical evidence to place my faith in such fantasy. The only way to reach world peace is through strength.

Devil’s Advocate is a Conservative / Libertarian editorialist for Copious Dissent – Your Daily Dose of Liberty. He currently lives in Chicago, IL.

Related posts:

1. Stop Playing the Blame Game on Climate Change
2. Hazy Reasoning on Black Carbon
3. Is Burma Obama’s Real Test?