The Foreign Service Journal, February 2008

were not benefiting from our inno- vative problem-solving abilities and our fierce determination to make things work. His view was that, had the U.S. signed on to Kyoto, we would have brought our unbeatable intellectual and institutional forces to bear on fulfilling our commitments and mak- ing sure others did likewise. He pointed out that our leadership had really made the critical difference in previous global emergencies including winning World War II, rebuild- ing Europe and prevailing in the Cold War. Something, in his view, was clearly better than nothing; and he thought that we had made the wrong decision, not only for the U.S., but for the whole world. Another area where we have failed to take the initia- tive is on conservation. Of course, we can point to pro- grams where the U.S. has made important strides on this, but most of them date back to the energy crises of the 1970s. Since then, there has been little impetus to do more because the price of fossil fuels has been low. Instead, U.S. consumers have given up their compact cars and replaced them with sports utility vehicles, light trucks and even Hummers. Almost no one spares air conditioning in summer or heat in winter. Off-peak energy use is just too much trouble, and not worth the inconvenience it causes. Use of carpools and public transport is miniscule, even when incentives are provid- ed. Until this past December, Congress failed to pass cor- porate average fuel economy legislation to raise gasoline efficiency requirements in new cars. True, no one wants to disadvantage the American car industry, which is going through a rough patch. Additionally, the govern- ment has done little to encourage U.S. automakers to offer gasoline-efficient cars, including hybrids. Finally, Ford and GM are playing catch-up, because the con- sumer demands it. Perhaps the return to expensive energy, including the prospect of more than $4/gallon gasoline, may make the difference that energy conserva- tion consciousness has not delivered. The Ugly Over the past two decades, U.S. energy policy has been industry-friendly, and many would argue that it has inflicted substantial costs on the environment. Policy direction is a decision that governments make, and we who represent the U.S. gov- ernment support administration policy, as do the Foreign Service officers working on environmental issues. However, when the U.S. government makes a policy deci- sion, it should be honest in the way it defends it. If we have decided that the environmental gains are not sufficient to justify the economic cost, we should say so. But often, Washington wants to have it both ways, and so adminis- tration figures justify their actions by contending that U.S. policy is environmentally friendly —whether it is or not. One example of this is the U.S. use of a “greenhouse gas intensity target,” a measure of how much our emis- sions are growing for every new dollar of gross domes- tic product. Arguing that we are decreasing the rate that these emissions are growing is very misleading. It leaves the impression with the non-expert that we are actually cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, which we are not. To those experts and scientists who understand the issue, it makes us look like we are trying to mislead them with statistics that have been jiggered to make us look good. All in all, such claims are either misunderstood or taken to be misleading. Neither is good for our credibility. Another example came in a recent policy speech, when the president pointed to lower emissions in 2005 and 2006 as proof of the success of U.S. policies. In fact, the lower numbers have more to do with a warm winter and a cool summer, as Department of Energy statistics confirm. More smoke and mirrors. In addition, countless press reports documenting the political editing of environmental reports make us look like we are trying to cook the books. Testimonials from scientists that they were encouraged to come to conclu- sions that are administration-friendly further reinforce the impression that we know we are wrong on the facts and are trying to cover it up. Few of us are in a position to judge the credibility of these allegations, but the mere perception of a gap between reality and rhetoric makes it harder for the U.S. to be taken seriously internationally — even F O C U S 34 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 8 It’s time for the United States to re-evaluate its position and look to the long term.