The Foreign Service Journal, February 2008

FSJ: How does the rest of the world view the United States on the issue of climate change? NP: We have very little credibility. We have done more than any nation to cause anthropogenic climate change, and our per capita emissions are higher than just about any other country’s. Yet we have refused to reduce our output of gases (which continues to rise), opposed domestic emission limits, rejected new international obligations and spurned the global consensus on how best to move forward. Frankly, it’s embarrassing. We don’t just have an image problem; we need to change our policies. No one argues against clean energy R&D and inter- national technology partnerships. However, the adminis- tration’s policies have at least two serious shortcomings. First, the funding for these international technology pro- grams is so modest that they will accomplish little. Second, even at higher funding levels, programs of that type alone will not be sufficient. Unless companies face strong financial incentives to act, emissions will continue to rise for decades. I am not aware of any country that genuinely believes current U.S. policy will reduce emis- sions quickly enough to avert an unacceptable risk of cli- mate catastrophe. That’s why other nations boo and hiss when the United States speaks in these negotiations. FSJ: Are carbon cap-and-trade plans effective? NP: They can be very effective. These programs cap emissions at a particular level through mandatory regula- tion and then issue tradeable emission permits (up to the cap level) to regulated entities. Because companies that reduce emissions cheaply will sell their permits to those that cannot, cap-and-trade programs are cost-effective. Washington used cap-and-trade to deal successfully with acid rain in the 1990s. Of course, a tax on carbon emis- sions might also work, but there is little political support for this. FSJ: What do you think about the charges that the Bush administration has overplayed uncertainty about the existence of climate change? NP: There’s overwhelming evidence that several of the president’s political appointees and aides conducted a sus- tained effort to suppress or fuzz up government-spon- sored climate science. Mostly, this was done from within the White House. At the same time, however, the anti- science campaign was partial and ineffective. President Bush has never formally challenged the consensus view that humans are contributing to climate change. And, more recently, he has accepted the very strong findings of the scientific community. The real disagreement is not about the science but the policy response. FSJ: What do you make of the recent climate talks in Bali, Indonesia? NP: The objective of the Bali conference was to negotiate a “roadmap” for future global cooperation. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 and new arrange- ments are urgently needed. Bali did formally open new negotiations, and it set 2009 as the deadline for an agree- ment. Developed countries agreed to make “deep cuts” in their emissions. In return (unlike in Kyoto), develop- ing nations agreed they, too, must act. All of this is pos- itive. At the same time, it’s not clear where the Bali roadmap is going, in part because the United States blocked a con- sensus on the proposition that global emissions must be reduced by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 and developed coun- tries should adopt legally binding emission targets. These issues will be resolved later. I expect little progress in the next year as other nations await a new American adminis- tration, but the starting point is already better than Kyoto. FSJ: What should the next administration do on cli- mate change? NP: The cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action. The former chief economist at the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, reported to last year’s Group of Eight summit that spending 1 percent of global GDP per year to reduce emissions would avert a 5- to 15-percent drop in global income over the next decades. The next presi- dent must work with Congress to enact comprehensive domestic cap-and-trade regulations and fund a vigorous government-supported research and development effort to spur innovation in clean energy technologies. He or she must also develop a genuinely bipartisan diplomatic strategy for reducing emissions globally and for helping vulnerable nations adapt. This must include new financial mechanisms to help cover the $30 billion per year needed to move China, India and other rapidly industrializing nations from dirty to clean growth. Those nations must contribute substantially to closing that gap, of course, but they also need and deserve help from countries like the U.S. that did much to cause the prob- lem and have the financial capacity to assist. F O C U S 38 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