Recently I had the pleasure of guiding a prestigious
delegation of American senators who visited Svalbard to learn about climate
change in the Arctic. Most Norwegians were surprised that such distinguished
guests would visit one of the most remote outposts in the world, but it
illustrates that climate policy is still a highly relevant political issue in
the United States, even though President George W. Bush and the Senate have
rejected the Kyoto Protocol.
In terms of priority, climate cannot measure up to the war
against terror or the economy, but on Svalbard the senators confirmed that
climate issues are being taken seriously and that there is increasing domestic
pressure to change the course of American climate policy. According to Senator
John McCain, it is only a question of time before the United States gets back on
course and assumes leadership in the international climate cooperation. Without
US participation in the climate regime, there is little hope of attaining global
emissions reductions that can make a difference.
Even though Hillary Clinton received the most media
attention on Svalbard, Senator McCain is the most interesting in a climate
context. Clinton, and most of her Democratic colleagues, favor a more
progressive climate policy. The key to change at the federal level lies with the
Republican Party. The influential Republican McCain and Democrat Joseph
Lieberman submitted a bill that would lead to a radical change in American
climate policy. At the first junction (October 2003), it was defeated by a vote
of 43 in favor to 55 against. McCain is working actively to “convert” more of
his fellow Republicans, and he claims to have a good chance of gaining a small
majority in the next vote this fall. The bill, known as the Climate Stewardship
Act, could be an important step toward bringing the United States back into the
international climate regime when the first Kyoto period runs out in 2012.
As a step toward convincing his Republican
colleagues, McCain arranged a senatorial hearing on climate change in March,
where one of those called to testify was Bob Corell. Corell is the chair of the
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), a four-year project under the auspices
of the Arctic Council that consists of 250 researchers and is now approaching
completion. During the hearing, McCain became aware of how well suited the
Arctic region is to illustrating climate changes that are taking place already,
and how they might manifest in other places throughout the world in the future.
The Norwegian authorities of the Arctic Council also registered this and invited
McCain to Svalbard. McCain surpassed all expectations when he accepted the
invitation and also brought four of his senatorial colleagues, including two who
voted against his proposed bill. It was clear that McCain hoped that the
Svalbard excursion would help change their minds at the next vote.
The visit was very successful. The natural
environment at Svalbard has a remarkable ability to strip its visitors of
formalities and create an open, pleasant, and positive atmosphere. The lively
discussions touched on everything from climate change to other major political
concerns.
Many appear to think that Bush has no climate
policy. This is incorrect. Although Bush has up to now edited out all
formulations in his official documents that suggest a link between the ongoing
climate changes and emissions of greenhouse gases, this summer – in a
Congressional report on climate change – Bush has approved formulations that
acknowledge that such links exist. Indirectly, these links have been
acknowledged for some time because the official climate policy has as its stated
goal to limit the emissions of harmful greenhouse gases. At best, the climate
policy from the Bush Administration will slightly slow down the increase of
emissions.
The key element of the McCain-Lieberman bill is the
introduction of a cap-and-trade system – one that would limit emissions and
allow emissions trading for 85 percent of the emissions – which is actually very
similar to the structure of the Kyoto Protocol that the EU and Norway will
follow from 2005. The Climate Stewardship Act is, however, far less ambitious
than the Kyoto Protocol. Since we already know that the commitments in the Kyoto
Protocol will not have a particularly significant effect on slowing
human-induced global warming because the emissions reductions are too small,
then it is fitting to question the value of the McCain-Lieberman bill.
Regardless of its impact on climate, however, the Act would send a strong signal
as a first step toward a true climate policy. It could also form the basis of
constructive input from the Americans in the international climate regime
because the United States would have a more active relationship to what they
wish to achieve in the climate negotiations.
Kyoto is dead in American politics, and this was
confirmed by the Senators at Svalbard, so now attention is turned to what will
happen after 2012. The most important effect of the bill will be the message it
sends to the American people: “This is a problem that must be taken seriously.
We are working actively to reduce emissions, and emitting harmful greenhouse
gases will cost money in the future.”