The Politicization of Climate Change

Earlier this week, I attended an open conference at EOI on U.S. Climate Change Policies. Our guest speaker of the day is currently attached to the United States Embassy in Madrid. With his background and expertise on environment and climate change, Mr. Ari Nathan gave us a one-and-a-half-hour talk on the evolution of climate talks in the international arena and the latest scenario of climate change politics that has taken place in the U.S. between Democrats and Republicans.

The overall theme of the talk was centered on the reasons why the U.S. has not been able to truly establish climate change policies. The answer, he says, is China. The story goes that the U.S., as the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the world, has refused to commit to international agreements on emissions reduction as long as there are no equal levels of commitment from emerging economies such as China. Under the Kyoto Protocol, economic powerhouses China and India (which have signed and ratified the treaty) are not obligated to reduce GHG emissions as they are considered developing nations. Although then President Bill Clinton had signed the treaty in 1997, the Senate voted against ratifying it, citing that it could bring damage to the U.S economy.

Mr. Nathan also explained that another barrier in forming climate change policies in the U.S. is due to the fact that approximately two-thirds of Republicans think that climate change does not exist, while Democrats argue otherwise. Hence, the topic of climate change has become a partisan issue that is resulting in the polarization of climate change debates and perceptions. The general view is that if a political representative is a Republican, he/she would be expected to think of climate change as a myth; on the other hand, if one is a Democrat, he/she would be expected to see climate change as an issue affecting the world that needs to be addressed. This scenario, of course, directly influences public opinion as people begin choosing sides and associating themselves strongly with the stance of their preferred party, oftentimes without sufficient knowledge or understanding of the complex science behind climate change and the diverse findings of scientific research in this field of study.

Our speaker stated that the abovementioned factors are a few reasons why, in the last two years, the U.S President's State of the Union has shied away from mentioning climate change or global warming. Instead, President Barack Obama has opted to speak more on job opportunities in the green economy, building sources of clean energy, promoting innovation, and increasing energy efficiency in order to compete against Europe and China.

 

The speaker also talked briefly about how recent international climate negotiations are making efforts to engage developing nations and especially emerging economies through an "energy-efficiency" approach on the issue - the idea that climate change agreements need not necessarily mean that a country would be forced to stop developing or slow down its economy to lower emissions, but that it could be advantageous to the country's economy and to the development of the region. The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action has succeeded in getting the U.S., India, and China on board to agreeing on reducing GHG emissions. However, India & China's stance to allow for a more loose treaty clashed with the EU's insistance on introducing a legal instrument that would force all countries to comply with emissions reduction. At the end, the negotiations resulted in a compromise on an “agreed outcome with legal force”, which is considered to be a vague and uncertain phrase in the Durban Platform.

Overall, the talk with our expert speaker was engaging but it felt brief because the juicy parts of the debate, which could have had potential to spark stimulating discussions arrived towards the end of the presentation - just as Mr. Nathan was beginning to get into the politicization of climate change in the U.S. 

The takeaway from the conference is that while the U.S. may not seem to have implemented proper climate change policies, it has expressed commitment in reducing its emissions. The Obama administration is claiming to take actions to fully support the strategy of moving towards a green economy that has potential to generate employment and contribute to growth and development. 

As for the upcoming Presidential elections, it is obvious that the debate on climate change is still expressed as a partisan issue, which is why Mitt Romney's flip-flopping stance on the topic holds political risks that analysts say may result in loss of trust amongst voters.  

Click below to watch an excerpt from President Obama's 2012 State of the Union: