Go on Without US

Posted on 05. Dec, 2010 by astark in U.S.A.

At the UN negotiations, everyone’s focus is on getting a climate treaty. The intense, focused atmosphere of the talks in Tianjin had me convinced for a while that if the negotiators just crafted a treaty that was fair, comprehensive, ambitious in scope and legally binding, then all of our climate problems would be solved. Apart from the discussion about whether the provisions in such a treaty would be enough to halt climate change’s effects, there’s another obstacle that would stand in the way, at least in the U.S.: the Senate.

In the United States, the Senate must ratify any international treaty that the President signs in order for it to come into force (by a founding fathers quirk, the House of Representatives doesn’t enter into the equation at all). This requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote in the affirmative, or 67 out of 100. The Senate that will be seated this January, after the November elections, will consist of 47 Republicans and 53 Democrats, down from 59 Democrats before the election. As has been reported widely, many of the outgoing Democrats are being replaced by Republicans who don’t support any legislative measures on climate change. This sea-change reflects what many polls have labeled an increase in the American public’s skepticism about whether climate change exists and is the result of human activities. This is obviously going to make the ratification of a climate treaty significantly more difficult.

You may want to cling to the hope that the U.S. Senate wouldn’t hold up passage of an international treaty as a political gimmick. In fact, that’s what is happening right now with New START, a nuclear arms reduction treaty negotiated between the United States and Russia last year. Senate Republicans have negotiated with the White House over the past seven months, demanding what amounts to $85 billion in funding to revamp the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Yet recently, several Republicans have announced that they would prefer to wait to vote on the treaty after the lame duck session ends and the new Congress in seated in January, making the treaty’s passage significantly less likely. This shouldn’t be a political issue: the actual reductions in weapons would be modest, and the inspections regime that is also part of the treaty would merely be an extension of the one begun under the first President Bush’s administration. Several former security officials from both parties have come out in favor of the treaty, saying that it will increase U.S. national security. Yet this hasn’t stopped Republicans from trying to score cheap political points. Climate change, an issue that is significantly more contentious, would be that much more difficult to pass through a more divided Senate.

Of course, an international climate treaty shouldn’t be a partisan issue, because it would be a win-win for the American people, creating green jobs and saving the planet. Yet climate change has already become a highly contentious political issue, one that The New York Times has argued is actually code for other political beliefs. It doesn’t seem like these complicated political associations will be unraveled any time soon, at least not in time to ratify an international climate treaty in say 2011.

The U.S. Senate’s potential intransigence in the face of the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change only adds to what the international community is beginning to recognize as the United States’ efforts to stall on international action on climate change. And it’s just one more reason why the rest of the world must be prepared to act on climate change, with or without the United States on board.

Tags: Cancún, climate change, CO16, featured, UNFCCC, United States, USA