The IPCC came out with guns blazing on Sunday. The Synthesis Report [6.5 MB PDF] of the Fourth Assessment Report says in the strongest terms yet that human-induced global warming is real, and we need to act immediately.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. [...] Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).
The good news is that the IPCC believes that action needed to avert disastrous consequences is not only possible, but affordable, echoing the findings of the 2006 UK Stern Review. And, following a miraculous Damascus conversion this year, America has endorsed this report.
At least part of the reason given for America's refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Accord was because developing countries weren't required to cut their carbon emissions. Now, in the face of international and local pressure, Washington has joined the game - or so it seems. In fact, they're changing the rules to suit themselves, as is their habit, and if this were ice hockey I would give them a game misconduct.
America's Climate Security Act of 2007, introduced to Congress by Senators Lieberman and Warner, aims to establish a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions. So far, so good: acknowledgement of climate change and the need to do something about it. But while the next phase of the Kyoto Accord - or its successor - looks set to increase pressure on developing countries to set carbon targets, Congress isn't taking any chances that America might be disadvantaged by other countries not paying the price necessary to reduce emissions.
Such "rogue" countries might export products to the US that are cheaper than homegrown products (because they use cheaper, carbon-intense energy and manufacturing processes), thus undermining US industry. True to form, this Act takes the protectionist route: subsidising the American transition to a low-carbon future, and getting other countries to tow the line by requiring imports to be certified for their level of carbon intensity. This means that even if Kyoto doesn't require it, American legislation will force change in any country wanting to sell to the US. Sound familiar? It should, since the US (and the EU, for that matter) already does this in specific industries; but by applying the principle to carbon, they have a net that covers all trade with the US.
Perhaps I should be leaping for joy at America's proactive stance on emission reductions, but a couple of things bother me with this scenario. The first is that Congress, once again, is taking a unilateral approach on an issue of global significance on the assumption that they know best (despite joining the game after halftime). The second is that the requirement for products to be carbon certified will be messy, bureaucratic, not synchronised with other forms of carbon labelling, and difficult to comply with. This will place developing countries at a disadvantage.
Washington's concept of fair play is out to lunch. Legislators on Capitol Hill don't acknowledge, for instance, that the basis of their current wealth and power is decades of carbon-intense industry, and that they will continue to benefit from historically high levels of energy and resource consumption even as their economy is transformed into one that is less energy-intense. So expecting - nay, forcing - developing countries to play in the same carbon league is nonsensical.
What makes this scenario even more galling is that America will effectively increase its control over the terms of global trade at a time when the rest of the world is lessening its dependence on trade with America. According to an article on the US economy in the current edition of The Economist, "Since 2000 its share of world imports has dropped from 19% to 14%." The developing world is watching the current slowdown in the American economy with some trepidation, because we know there will be global ramifications; but in fact trade is becoming geographically more diversified, and financial advisors always say it's good to diversify portfolios. The Economist even suggests that the best hope for strong global growth, while America faces its economic crisis, lies with emerging economies.
My guess is that this Act before Congress will stifle the developing world's growing sense of freedom, and we may yet be shut out by Team USA.
[Update on 19 December 2007: In what looks very much like a tit-for-tat response to the Climate Security Act (and the unsportsmanlike conduct of US negotiators this month in Bali), Germany's Social Democrats have called for sanctions on imports of energy-intensive products from the US.]
Looks like an excuse for chaotic bureaucracy doesn't it. The Economist article is interesting because the murmur going around is that the US will matter less & less to global trade, that China is pretty much the driver now and the Euro is gaining in currency of choice.
I think the US could, if they become too insular and protectionist, start digging their own decline.
Posted by: Matt | 13 December 2007 at 09:22 AM