Mission Impossible?

© Dieter Schütz

The rest of the world hoped that Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States of America would mark the beginning of a new era in international climate protection. But in July this year the long-awaited climate protection act of the USA finally failed. Will US climate policy turn into Mission Impossible?

Initially everything seemed to be very easy: Obama’s predecessor in office, George W. Bush, was the "bad guy" in terms of climate policy and Barack Obama already dubbed the "climate president". After all, his election campaign centred on a new US climate protection act. The world held its breath because with the new President everything was expected to be different and the climate sins committed in the USA finally a thing of the past. Because not only since opting out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 the country has been viewed as the greatest damper on international climate negotiations.

After about one and a half years of presidency, however, disillusionment is gaining ground again in the global climate debate. In July this year the long-awaited climate protection act did not pass the vote in the American senate. And the world held its breath once more.

Dramatic Setback

"For climate protection this is a dramatic setback," says Regine Günther, Head of Climate and Energy Policy at the WWF Germany. The US is thought to be one of the principal causes of climate change. After China it is the world’s second greatest producer of greenhouse gas and ranks fifth in per-capita CO2 emissions - right after the oil-producing countries on the Persian Gulf. "And the US American senate seems incapable of finally passing the necessary energy and climate protection acts. This is more than irresponsible. The failure of the US senate is all the more incomprehensible in view of the oil disaster in the Mexican Gulf," Günther continues. International experts made statements to a similar effect.

This act was originally designed to oblige power utilities and industrial enterprises to increase the share of renewable energies and to use energy more efficiently. Moreover, emissions of harmful substances would have been taxed and measures made internationally comparable.

The Copenhagen Climate Summit in December 2009 already proved a harsh disappointment for many stakeholders and observers. The original aim of bindingly deciding on the core elements for a new climate agreement was not achieved. The Conference was hoped to produce a legal agreement that follows on from the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Even though in the end all supporting states managed to agree on the aim of limiting global temperature rise to less than two degrees, Copenhagen is considered a failure.

Hoping for Cancún

For the next climate conference at the Mexican city of Cancún the international community does not have the same high hopes as it did for Copenhagen. Nevertheless, the Conference in December of this year is another important milestone on the way to South Africa 2011. Obama is expected to declare even before that date to have reached the emission reductions committed to in Copenhagen of three percent versus 1990 by 2010. In Cancún the core elements are to be finalised. Before that time the delegates will meet again in China in October.

One challenge lies in not letting other countries be put off in their committing further to climate change - despite the weak US commitment. Even though the postponement of the US climate act is a tough setback a global climate agreement must not depend on one single country - not even if that country is the USA. Experts fear that the USA can now no longer require such states as China, India or Brazil to be climate compliant. The WWF demands that the EU raise its climate protection target to 30%. Meanwhile, China announced that it was busy introducing an emissions trading system to be implemented between 2011 and 2015.

Mission Possible

However, there is still one chance: EPA – the US Environmental Protection Agency. Last December it rated six greenhouse gases as detrimental to health and has the authority to regulate their emissions. Against this background Obama could simply prescribe climate protection even without the parliament/senate’s approval. The regulation would probably take years but environmental protection organisations such as Greenpeace hope that Obama can finally manage to opt for "Plan B". Obama even faces being compared to George W. Bush and a worse reproach in terms of climate policy is hardly imaginable for him. The world again waits in suspense to see whether Obama will wage war on his opponents to trace the only path left to reach the climate goal - probably making the whole matter a "Mission Possible" at the end of the day.