The POLITICS of
CLIMATE CHANGE
SPRING, 2005
CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW
JULIE TREPECK AND LEAH TRACHTMAN
jtrepeck@kentlaw.edu
ltrachtman@kentlaw.edu
Today’s Discussion
I. Defining Politics
II. Introduction to the Climate Change
Issue
III. Taking a Political Approach to the Issue
IV. What has been done so far
V. What can we do? Where are we left?
What is POLITICS?
• The art or science of
government or
governing, especially
the governing of a
political entity, such
as a nation, and the
administration and
control of its internal
and external affairs
• The methods or
•
tactics involved in
managing a state or
government
The activities or
affairs engaged in by
a government,
politician, political
party, or a citizen of
that government
All these various definitions of
“politics” are applicable when
discussing the politics of climate
change, relating to both the
problems and issues various
nations are having with each
other, as well as within each
individual country
IMPORTANT THINGS TO KNOW
BEFORE WE CAN DISCUSS THE
POLITICS INVOLVED:
• There is a clear correlation between the global temperature and
•
•
•
•
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
When the CO2 suddenly rises then the temperature also suddenly
rises
But … the temperature lags behind the CO2 rise due to the large
capacity of the oceans
Therefore, even if we stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere now, the temperature would continue to rise for several
decades
Since the effects of change would not be seen for years to come,
people believe that the sense of urgency for this issue can be put on
hold
BUT… There is a sense of urgency!!!
THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY:
 The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate
Change (IPCC) predicts that by 2050 over
100,000,000 peoples’ homes across the
world will be under the sea
 And “the effect of greenhouse gases was
‘the most obvious explanation for [global]
warming . . . since 1950.’”
THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM
about 3.5 billion tons remains
in atmosphere
*each year about
6 billion tons of carbon
is emitted to the atmosphere
as CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels
around 0.5 billion tons may be taken up
by increased growth of
northern temperate forests
about 2 billion tons
enters the
ocean
• Therefore, if we wish to
stabilize the CO2
concentrations at the
current level, then we
need to stop emitting 3.5
billion tons which we
currently accumulate in
the atmosphere each
year, which means an
immediate 60% cut in
emissions
The Scale of the Problem (con’t.)
• There are 6 billion people in the world
• Currently, we each emit, on average 1 ton
per person per year
• Each person needs to reduce this emission
to 0.4 per year to reach a 60% cut
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
WHAT COULD HAPPEN
IF WE DON’T ACT
Frequent and severe droughts
Bushfires
More storms
Rising ocean levels
Ant invasions
Hotter weather
Dust storms
More frequent floods
Rising temperatures
Deteriorating water quality from evaporation
“Climate change [is] a deadly threat and the most serious
environmental issue facing the world.”
So….WHAT DO WE DO?
One answer:
Take a POLITICAL APPROACH
to this social and political issue
This is not a partisan issue and
does not lie along party lines, so
it is a different kind of political
stalemate than we see with
other political and social issues!
THE PARTIES TO THIS ISSUE
old vs. new
status quo vs. change
do nothing vs. acting decisively and now
OPPONENTS
• These people have a bad reaction
•
•
•
to any kind of environmental
regulation
Believe that any kind of national
or global response to this issue is
a lost cause
All kinds of people are in this
group, even our elected leaders
and representatives in our own
White House and Congresses
(state and national)
These are people who perceive
that their economic and political
interests would be threatened if
we were to address this issue in a
substantive way (ie. companies
and industry sectors who are
wrapped up in the status quo)
PROPONENTS
• Believe we need to take this issue
•
•
•
seriously and move forward
Alarmed about the science,
implications, and dangers of a
warming world
Believe there are real
opportunities for individuals,
companies, and the nation as
whole to develop, sell, and use
new technologies that will protect
the global climate
Bi-partisan elected leaders who
are committed to climate solutions
THE POLITICAL PROBLEMS
• The fear is that these 2 major parties, which are torn and arguing
•
•
•
•
•
between conflicting political imperatives, will still be fighting and
trying to resolve the conflict when the sky is burning
The stakes are enormously high, but we are talking about the kind
of world we want to live in one day and leave for future generations
The critical stumbling block is that the parties have not agreed to
any long-term target for atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations or any fundamental principle by which to allocate
future quotas between countries
Although agreements are signed, little time is spent focusing on
climate.
Those who are for change and doing something now to fix this
problem are few
People sent to conventions to develop new protocols and
agreements know little about climate and tend to lose sight of the
real issues behind legal and political stalemates
**By facing the political standstill we can avoid
environmental impacts that will be catastrophic **
SO……WHAT DO WE DO BEFORE
TIME RUNS OUT?
WE NEED TO MOBILIZE MORE
PEOPLE TO THE SIDE OF
CHANGE AND EDUCATE PEOPLE
ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN
IF WE DO NOT ACT NOW
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR
1992
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change
– Created at the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro
– Key aim: “To stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere at levels which would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference in the climate system.”
– However, the problem remained that there is much confusion
as to what these levels should exactly be
– Industrialized countries were encouraged to stabilize their
emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
1995
• Conference of the Parties 1 (COP1)
[began a long and ongoing
process where conferences were held and each one is where nations meet
to evaluate the accords and compliance with meeting emissions reduction
targets]
– Held in Berlin
– Agreed to the Berlin Mandate
• This required industrialized countries to commit to legally binding
•
targets to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions by a 3rd
conference
No commitments were made by developing countries
1996
• Conference of the Parties 2 (COP2)
– Held in Geneva
– Little significant agreements were made
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
July 1997
• Byrd-Hagel Resolution
– U.S. Senate passed a resolution that it would not agree to
anything (1) that would harm the U.S. economy, and (2) that did
not include meaningful commitments from developing countries
• Passed 95 to 0
• Operated under the assumption that a global problem requires a
•
•
global solution
Believed that greenhouse gas emissions of developing countries
were rapidly increasing and were expected to surpass emission of
the U.S. and other industrialized countries, as early as 2015
Believed that not including developing countries in agreements
would harm the U.S. economy, including significant job losses, trade
disadvantages, and increased energy and consumer costs
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
December 1997
• Conference of the Parties 3 (COP3)
– Held in Kyoto
– Kyoto Protocol was developed at this Conference
• An international and legally binding agreement to reduce
•
•
greenhouse gases emissions world wide
Excluded developing nations from any commitments
Clinton Administration, even after its Byrd-Hagel Resolution, went
ahead and negotiated and signed the Kyoto Protocol; however, it
was never submitted to the Senate for ratification
• Kyoto did not amount to much in terms of achieving significant
reductions in global emissions, but it sends the clearest signal yet
that much of the world, except the U.S., had moved toward the side
of the proponents for change and taking action to avoid the
disasters in our future due to climate change
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
November 1998
• Conference of the Parties 4 (COP4)
– Held in Buenos Aires
– Agreed on a plan of action to follow up on the Kyoto
Protocol, including processes for stimulating
technology transfer
1999
• Conference of the Parties 5 (COP5)
– Held in Bonn, Germany
– Further progression on implementing the Kyoto
Protocol and to make it more achievable and practical
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
2000
• Conference of the Parties 6 (COP6)
– Held at the Hague, Netherlands
– Intention was to wrap up the last 3 years of
negotiations on the implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol
– Talks here collapsed due to unreasonable demands
made by the U.S. and its unwillingness to compromise
– European countries held strong in their insistence that
the U.S. not get special treatment
– Once again, nothing was demanded of developing
countries
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
2001
• Conference of the Parties 7 (COP7)
– Held in Marrakesh, Morocco
– Focus of this meeting was to agree to the legal text
covering the outstanding technical aspects of the
political agreement reached in Bonn earlier this year,
which concerned how to legally implement the Kyoto
Protocol
– This Conference ended with an agreement on how to
enforce the Kyoto Protocol on tackling climate change
– The U.S. was not present at this conference
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
2002
• Conference of the Parties 8 (COP8)
– Held in New Delhi
– A common theme from this round of negotiations involved many
wealthier nations trying to push the idea of developing countries
having to commit to reduction targets as well
“As with previous climate change negotiations, political agendas
and interests have appeared to prevent much of substance
coming from this convention”
December 2003
• Conference of the Parties 9 (COP9)
– Held in Milan
– Here, an agreement was reached on definitions and
methodologies for forest management projects with these as a
focus of this meeting
– At this conference, solutions were found to some of the issues
which had been in discussion and on the table for a long time
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
2004
• Conference of the Parties 10 (COP10)
– Held in Buenos Aires
– This marked the 10th anniversary of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change coming into force
– Discussions here included a variety of climate related issues,
including:
•
•
•
•
Impacts of climate change and adaptation measures
Mitigation policies and their related impacts
Technology measures
Entry into forcing the provision of the Kyoto Protocol
– Attempted discussions for a plan for what would be done beyond
2012, which is when the Kyoto Protocol is set to be implemented
• In post-Kyoto discussions developing nations worried that they
would be forced to reduced emissions
WHAT’S BEEN DONE (con’t.)
2004
• Conference of the Parties 10 (COP10) (Cont’d)
– Here, yet another meeting ended where much was
said but very little was agreed upon
– Some of the most powerful nations pushed only for
their own interests and others are attempting to stifle
or weaken climate change actions
– Even the European Union who have pushed for action
more than most are finding that their emissions are
increasing rather than decreasing
THE PROBLEM?
THIS IS THE STATE OF AFFAIRS WE ARE LEFT WITH TODAY
More about the Kyoto Protocol as it
stands today:
• These guidelines are not merely a set of short
•
•
term emission targets for the industrialized
countries of the world
This is a global agreement that lays out an
exact framework for how to negotiate future
commitments to addressing the challenges of
climate change
This Protocol is intended to stretch over the
course of this entire century, or until the grave
problem of climate change is resolved
In short…
• Even with all of this being done, climate change still remains
unquestionably the most urgent environmental challenge in the
short term and the long term
• The convention process identified actions to address climate change
mitigation
• Kyoto Protocol was the only concrete multilateral instrument,
however, for combating the Greenhouse Effect
• While the Kyoto Protocol was a significant achievement, it is just the
first step in a long process to get the whole world involved in this
global-political problem before it is too late
Therefore, the only conclusion to draw from all of this that we need
further actions to be taken!
What should we do?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE NEED TO
GET THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT MORE INVOLVED
WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD AND
ACTIVE IN COMMITING TO
REDUCING EMISSIONS AND
ADAPTING TO CURRENT
CONDITIONS REGARDING THE
ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Is change on the horizon?
• THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK IN THE U.S. REGARDING CLIMATE
CHANGE POLICY HAS SLOWLY BEGUN TO CHANGE
• THE PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO
PARTICIPATE TO CONTROL CLIMATE CHANGE HAS GROWN
CONSIDERABLE SINCE PLANS INITIALLY BEGAN
• IRONICALLY, HOWEVER, PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. TO GET
INVOLVED IN THE INTERNATIONAL EFFORT TO CONTROL CLIMATE
CHANGE HAS BECOME MORE PREVALENT SINCE BUSH’S DECISION
TO OPPOSE THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
• But…WHILE WE CAN SIT HERE AND RECOGNIZE U.S. EFFORTS
AND PRAISE THEM FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE ALREADY, WHAT
THE U.S. LEADERSHIP NEEDS TO REALIZE IS THAT IT SIMPLY HAS
NOT DONE ENOUGH AND IT HAS NOT COME CLOSE TO THE
ACTIONS MADE BY OTHER NATIONS
Involving the U.S. in the Kyoto Protocol
• Ultimately, the U.S. must be involved in any international
•
attempt or solution to the problem of climate change;
however, this does not mean that the other countries
involved in the Protocol should not move forward with
their attempts and plans for change
While the Bush Administration appears to stay away
from the international effort to control climate change,
by the EU and other industrialized countries moving
forward this is the best way to enhance and demand
future participation from the U.S.
Q: What can international
politics do to get the U.S.
involved?
A: Continue to move forward
with the Kyoto Protocol
WHY?
Reason 1:
If the EU and other industrialized countries that
are already involved in the Protocol were to
abandon their plans it will just validate the U.S.
government’s argument that the rest of the
world is not committed to reducing emissions in
order to control climate change and the
disasters that will result. The leadership shown
by moving forward and continuing to implement
Kyoto will demonstrate to the U.S. that it is
lagging behind in a very important internationalpolitical effort
Reason 2:
Other countries can lead by example and
show the U.S. that emissions reductions
are economically possible and feasible, as
well as also being beneficial; this will
counter the U.S. argument that emissions
reductions involve unacceptably high costs
and could lead to an economic breakdown
Reason 3:
• In implementing Kyoto, the countries
involved will have to develop new
technology in order to reduce emissions;
this new technology will inevitably spill
over to the U.S. and the U.S. will see that
reducing emissions and making changes
are technically feasible and perhaps even
less costly than the U.S. anticipates
Reason 4:
• The technological developments involved in
•
implementing the Protocol could give relevant
areas of industry an advantage over countries
that are being less efficient
If the countries that are working to reduce
emissions were able to become more
economically efficient through their emission
reduction, the U.S. would be encouraged to
become involved and simultaneously weaken
their economic argument for non-involvement
Reason 5:
• With the implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol, an international emissions
trading market will develop, which will
thus create an entirely new area of
business opportunities
• But, to reap the benefits of these
opportunities, the U.S. must become a
party and join in the international effort
Q: What can YOU do on a
personal level to get the U.S.
more involved?
A: Take Action, use our political
processes, and realize that
EACH PERSON can make a real
difference in the fight against
climate change
What does this mean?
What should WE do?
• Tackle the problem on all different levels:
–
–
–
–
–
Nation by Nation (including unification of emissions standards)
State by State
City by City
Business by Business
Person by Person
While it is hard to mobilize the United States in the international realm, there
is much we can do within our own nation to force involvement by the
U.S.
Mobilization of Businesses
• Working hard to educate businesses of the advantages
•
•
•
•
of fighting climate change is one of the most important
and influential groups to target
The business lobby in USA is extremely powerful and it is
afraid of the economic ramifications of the Kyoto
Protocol
Global Climate Coalition = a group of large businesses
concerned at their bottom line if the Kyoto Protocol was
signed
There were huge propaganda events and advertisements
by Congress; BUT, since this is who Congress hears
from, this is who Congress backs and believes it must
follow
This only makes it harder for Washington to sign any
Agreements or treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol
Mobilization of Businesses (Con’t.)
• We need to encourage companies that membership in
•
•
the Global Climate Coalition can ruin their image among
its consumers as it works against what consumers want;
but we have to make it clear to businesses that what we
want is change to fix this critical problem
Businesses need to be encouraged to adapt their images
not just to petroleum companies, but to energy
companies as well, following the lead of major
corporations, such as Shell and BP
As consumers each of us can have a big impact on this
very influential group
Mobilization of Businesses (con’t.)
• PERHAPS CHANGE IS CLOSER THAN
WE THINK WITH THE BUSINESS
SECTOR, SO CONSUMER ACTION
BECOMES VERY IMPORTANT
– Ford, Dupont, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, General Motors have
pulled out of the Coalition
– We need to encourage companies that by staying in an being
involved with the Coalition will affect their images and cause
consumers to boycott their products
– Many companies have begun to promise to help reduce
emissions and take other steps to help tackle climate change
“Some of the exiting companies, such as BP Amoco, Shell, and Dupont, joined a progressive new group,
the Business Environmental Leadership Council, now an organization of some 21 corporations. This
new outfit, founded by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says, "We accept the views of
most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate
change for us to take actions to address its consequences."
Mobilization of Businesses (con’t.)
PARTNERSHIP FOR CLIMATE ACTION
- This is a new business coalition that has been
formed by many of the larger and influential
companies, along with the Capitals on
Environmental Defense
- This newer coalition has pledged to reduce
greenhouse emissions by its members to
levels meeting or exceeding Kyoto’s
requirements
- Major Companies involved: BP, Alcan, Dupont
- More companies, however, need to be
encouraged to join this group in order to
make consumers happy
What should we do? (con’t)
• Create different Focus Points:
– Target emissions quotas
– Creating a trading system for nations to trade emissions
amounts
– Look at Key Sectors where changes will be most efficient
• Transportation industry, including air travel
• Power industry
– Creating energy policies driven at climate change (ie. the British
have developed a 50-year blueprint for development of its
national energy policy)
– Adaptation [while we can minimize effects of climate change, we
also need to adapt in order to minimize future inevitable costs
due to our past behavior]
What should we do? (con’t)
• Educate the people of the U.S. on the
threats of climate change, which will, in
turn, get more people involved on the
right side of the debate
• Educate our legislators and
representatives on the threats of a nonactive approach in the fight to reduce
emissions and take action to control
climate change before it is too late
WHY we need to educate our
legislators and representatives:
• Acting on an individual level is they way one person’s
•
•
•
•
actions make a difference to social and political issues
Before anything becomes an important issue to our
legislators and representatives, they need to see, hear
and understand that the issue is important to
constituents
Putting pressure on and lobbying to our representatives
to make important changes is what politics is really all
about
Pressure from constituents is what forces our elected
officials to take action
Therefore, it is just as much up to us to push for change
as it is for our leaders to actually make the change
How to get involved in the political
fight against climate change:
• Join coalitions and groups already formed
• Sign Petitions that are online
• Lobby our elected officials
• Write your Senators
• Write your Representatives
• Pass out fliers to other people, who will in
turn also push our leaders to encourage
and support change
What else can you do?
• In 1993, Portland, Oregon became the first city in the U.S. to implement its
own CO2 reduction plan
– It joined a Partnership of Municipal Governments, which eventually also
included other U.S. cities, such as Denver and Minneapolis
– Portland’s goal was to cut CO2 emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by
2010
– Portland’s plan also included:
• Synchronizing traffic lights
• Planting 75,000 acres of trees to absorb CO2
• Incorporating low CO2 vehicles for the City
– While Portland’s emissions have actually risen, those increases are due
to a population boom in the City and has nothing to do with the Plan
that the City adopted; on a per capita basis, emissions are down
There are no reasons that other cities across our nation can take similar
measures and it is our job to make out leaders aware of these simple
steps that can be taken and that can work and be proven effective
Another Important Step Each of Us
Needs to Take:
• While the benefits of emissions reduction will not be seen for years,
an economic downswing and economic harm will be felt immediately
• While politicians realize that global warming is a long term problem,
there is very little political risk for them in the short term; by the
time we are in serious trouble they will be long out of office
• Therefore, it becomes important for us to take action now to make
this a serious part of the political agenda of each person running for
office in the next election
• According to a Time/CNN poll, while the majority of Americans are
concerned about climate change, they are more worried about
increased prices and the personal economic harm they may feel by
taking action against this problem
Therefore, while politicians are part
of the problem, each of us also
needs to be willing to make certain
sacrifices to show our politicians we
are willing to make the changes we
demand, in order to save ourselves
from the long-term disastrous
effects of climate change!
THE END