US Shame in the International Arena

With just two days of talks left, the impasse in Durban grinds on, with no breakthrough on any of the major issues in sight. As the pace of the talks ratchets up, the sense of urgency is increasing here, and the frustration with the United States from the rest of the world is becoming more and more palpable.

International NGOs and country groups like BASIC are traditional US critics, so their criticisms sometimes fall on deaf ears. But today, the normally placid EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard launched a particularly scathing attack on the US position, which was all the more notable since she is the highest ranking EU minister here, representing this block of traditional US allies.

In a press briefing today, Hedegaard said “The US do not seem to want a legally binding deal. To me it’s a bit unclear what they want. It’s important to us that countries are legally bound when it comes to big problems…..when Gorbachev and Reagan reached agreement to end the cold war they did not pledge voluntarily to reduce their nuclear weapons.”

And later: “I think that it is a big difference if you’ve had a big increase in emissions since 1990 and if you have on the other hand reduced your emissions,” a subtle dig at President Obama’s commitment to reduce US emissions 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels. The EU target of 20% by 2020 is benchmarked off of 1990 numbers, theoretically making it more ambitious. The dig was ironic (although perhaps intentionally so), because US officials were heard last week comparing the US target favorably to the EU.

Meanwhile, Todd Stern continued to defend the same tired position on a legally binding treaty, explaining “we are not insisting on legally binding agreements at the moment.” Stern’s remarks about the 2 degrees target were even more worrisome. When I pushed a US official on this issue yesterday, said official admitted rather candidly that it is “not at all clear” whether current targets will be enough to keep the world below 2 degrees of warming. Today, Stern’s public comments reaffirmed that the US vision would probably lead to warming above 2 degrees: “we look at 2 degrees as an important and serious goal which ought to guide what we do, which ought to guide the action that we take in order to attain it…we don’t see it as akin to a national target.”

In short, the United States is looking more and more bungling, inept, and even isolated in this international arena. In the past, countries were quick to criticize the US, but often in diplomatic terms. But it seems like US obstinacy has become frustrating enough that even the most diplomatic, namely the EU, are becoming almost biting in their public stance.

This new candor could be a good thing, if it means that the international community has finally worked up the courage to isolate the United States, and get on with a treaty whether or not the US is “ready” to join. Connie Hedegaard summed up the shame that we should feel very adequately: “if they even will not say that they will commit in the future, I think they take on an almost unbearable responsibility, because that will have very, very severe consequences for all of us.”