Day 3: Report from Reed Smith Delegates in Copenhagen at the United Nations Climate Change Conference
This post is written by Jennifer Smokelin.
As I think back on last evening’s buzz and today’s speeches, including remarks by USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at the Conference of the Parties (COP), the loud speaker system at the nearby United States’ pavilion blares an old Marvin Gaye song: “it takes two, baby. Me and you, just takes two.” And one wonders whether the US delegation has resorted to delivering a subliminal musical message to industrialized countries (Annex I parties) and developing countries (Annex II parties) when it comes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions.
Last evening and into today, much of the buzz at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen focused on a “Danish Text” for a political agreement on climate change. It’s been criticized as favoring industrialized countries by seeking to preserve their economic dominance. Another text believed to be drafted by China favored, not surprisingly, developing countries. The Chinese text, for example, made no mention of specific commitments by developing countries. Also weighing in today was Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate negotiator. He emphasized that any international climate change agreement must include commitments from developing, especially fast-growing, countries such as China. This takes us back to what we mentioned in our Day 1 posting, namely, that the four issues capturing the most attention in Copenhagen center on industrialized targets, commitments to and by developing countries, financing and the legal shape of the agreement. So to address climate change in a meaningful way, just sing along: “To make a dream come true, it just takes two.”
While it takes two in Copenhagen, it also takes two in Washington, DC. After Laurie Fulton, U.S. Ambassador to Denmark introduced USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Ms. Jackson’s first comment was to note that “each of us” has responsibilities regarding GHG reduction to “make up for lost time”. She then touted USEPA accomplishments in addressing responsibilities to this point – the Administration’s Clean Energy incentives including $80 billion in renewable energy, the largest such investment in renewable energy in history, Energy STAR, Clean Cars program, GHG reporting requirements, and newly published Endangerment Finding.
At the mention of the last, the room erupted into spontaneous applause. But Administrator Jackson was careful to clarify the significance of the Endangerment Finding. She stated that 2009 marks the year that the United States “seriously addresses” climate change, and stressed that USEPA only intends to continue as it always has under the Clean Air Act to address GHG - that is, to take “reasonable efforts” and “meaningful commonsense steps” to address GHG under the Act. She stressed that the Administration still expects to “work closely with Congress to pass Clean Energy reform” because only through Congressional action can the US get economy-wide legislation that sends a clear signal regarding the United States’ commitment to GHG and accomplish the buy-in that is necessary for national legislation through “give and take”. What does this mean? Again, it takes two.
It also means that the Endangerment Finding opens the door to USEPA regulation of GHGs under existing regulation through the Clean Air Act and, although a blunt tool, technically no congressional action would be necessary to move forward with GHG regulation in this country. So when President Obama shows up here for negotiations next week, it is not necessary for him to only agree to GHG limits that Congress would agree to. But on the international level, Congress still holds the upper hand, because Senate approval (by a two-thirds vote) is required to ratify any international treaty.
So unless Administrator Jackson wants a repeat of what happened in Kyoto (delegation agrees to certain limits, only to have that agreement repudiated by Congress), the President must be careful from a political standpoint how he uses the Endangerment Finding. And based on Ms. Jackson's statement, the Administration is carefully signaling that regulation of GHGs in this country is “both/and” not “either/or” when the question is whether Congress or USEPA will regulate GHGs. Ms. Jackson also took pains to calm what might be jittery corporate nerves (corporation worry about the “lack of transparency” if USEPA solely has authority over regulation of GHG) by stating at least twice that any move by USEPA to regulate GHG under the Clean Air Act would be through “reasonable” and “common sense” approaches that has served as the hallmark of regulation under the Clean Air Act since its inception in 1970.
So the Endangerment Finding should not be veiled as a red flag to be waived in the face of Congress with a warning that USEPA will act in the face of continued congressional inaction. Nor should it be viewed as a carte blanche pass for negotiation of the US delegation at the COP. Rather, according Administrator Jackson, it is merely a “clear signal” (to other countries and industry) that the United States “is on the road to putting price on carbon”. The Administrator also took a moment to refute the recent attack on climate science (i.e., Climategate) saying that climate change is a household word and that the data and the science behind it has been extensively “peer reviewed”. This statement anticipates the likely court challenge to the Endangerment Finding that will make the argument that there is no “scientific basis” for such a finding.
