Obama to Attend Copenhagen Climate Summit to Set U.S. Emissions Targets

U.S. President Barack Obama has decided to attend the U.N.-sponsored international climate summit in Copenhagen next month (December 7-18), and he won’t be going empty-handed.

When he arrives at the Copenhagen climate summit on December 9–the day before he’s due in Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize–Obama will commit the United States to a series of specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions over the next 40 years.

The White House announced on Wednesday that Obama will tell the conference delegates from 192 nations that the United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The other targets include a 30 percent reduction by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050.

But there are a few problems with Obama’s plan:

• First, it’s a promise he can’t keep unless he can persuade Congress to pass legislation that would make those targets enforceable and require U.S. businesses, utilities and consumers to make the changes necessary to reduce emissions in accordance with his proposed schedule.
• Second, Obama’s targets use 2005 greenhouse gas levels as the baseline whereas most other countries measure their emission reductions against 1990 levels.
• Third, Obama’s targets are too conservative, according to many scientists and environmentalists who believe more aggressive cuts are needed to slow global warming.

Let’s take a look at each of these points in turn:

Congressional Action: The House passed a climate bill in June with a target that matches Obama’s initial goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 by 2020. Meanwhile, the Senate has been dancing around a bill that would cut emissions 20 percent by 2020, although it’s almost certain the bill would be weakened by compromise before it comes to a vote, and there’s no guarantee the Senate will even pass a climate bill.

Senate rules make it almost impossible to pass legislation that is at all controversial without a 60-vote majority, because it takes 60 votes to override a filibuster. For the White House and Senate leadership to get 60 votes on a climate bill, they either have to hold every Democrat to the party line or persuade a few Republicans to cross over. Neither scenario seems likely right now. There are too many Democrats who represent states with big energy producers, and Senate Republicans are battling climate change legislation at every turn–even going so far as to boycott committee meetings when the bill was being marked up and sent to the full Senate for consideration.

2005 Baseline: In one way it actually makes sense for Obama to use 2005 greenhouse gas levels as his baseline instead of 1990 levels, because Congress is already using 2005 levels in both House and Senate legislation. So if it’s political spin, it’s coming from Congress rather than the White House. On the other hand, it puts the United States out of step with most other countries when it comes to talking about their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Conservative Targets:Obama’s targets for cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are actually more conservative than they first appear. If you translate his target of reducing U.S. emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 into a goal measured against 1990 levels, it only amounts to a 5.5 percent cut. That’s less than the goal President Clinton endorsed at the Kyoto talks in 1997, and far below the 25 percent to 40 percent reductions the European Union is asking industrialized nations to achieve. It also comes in below commitments already made by other nations.

Despite these challenges–and the recent announcement that the Copenhagen summit will produce only a political framework, and not a binding treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol–many world leaders and environmentalists see Obama’s willingness to attend the U.N. climate summit and to name specific targets as a welcome and long-overdue sign of American leadership on the issue of global climate change.