COMMENTARY

Summer 2009

by Mikael Román

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

These are fascinating times for anyone following climate change policies. Who would have imagined only a year ago that an Afro-American U.S. President would confront the worst global economic crisis since WWII with an agenda based on proactive climate-related policies? Yet this is what is happening under the Obama Administration. And the changes are coming so fast that it is almost impossible to follow developments, let alone grasp the implications for the UNFCCC negotiations.

Stuart Eizenstat’s article is a timely and important contribution that not only summarises current developments but also pinpoints some important factors for the EU to consider in the run up to Copenhagen. So let me say at once that I largely support Eizenstat’s analysis and, instead, would indeed take his argument a bit further.

I think there are three important observations that follow on from Stuart Eizenstat’s article. One concerns the re-framing of the climate change that is issue currently being pursued by the Obama Administration. Climate policies are no longer seen as just a ‘goal’ but as a ‘means’ for achieving other policy objectives. Accordingly, U.S. climate change policy is best understood as part of a broader set of strategies and goals that include national economic recovery and long-term economic development, energy security, and even America’s international leadership role. This has critical practical implications; it means that climate change mitigation may be a side-effect policies. It also implies multiple drivers for action in addition to established climate concerns.

My second observation concerns the domestic challenges facing President Obama. I agree with Eizenstat’s analysis and recommendations to the EU as Obama has very diverse domestic pressures to cope with if he is to steer his policies through Washington’s complex democratic process. Interestingly, the situation is largely analogous to Europe, where member countries also struggle to agree on joint climate policies despite their different energy profiles, industry configurations, greenhouse gas emissions and general socio-economic situations. What makes the Obama Administration’s effort so compelling, though, is the way it has the potential to break the worldwide political deadlock on global warming. By framing climate change as a strategic issue that will serve a variety of purposes, the U.S. may be able to link various interests that have hitherto operated independently or even have been in conflict. There may yet be a lot to learn from Obama’s endeavours.

This brings me to the EU and its preparedness for COP-15. The global scene has changed dramatically in the last couple of months, so now the question is whether the EU can adapt to the new situation. I myself have some serious concerns. The first challenge for the EU is to redefine its notion of itself as a leader in the Copenhagen process, because it is not. The EU is only one of several players. Another question is the extent to which the EU, with its elaborate apparatus of negotiations around a pre-defined agenda, has alienated itself from political reality. The discussions in Copenhagen are not going to unfold the way people expected only a year ago. This does not necessarily mean, though, that nothing will come out of the process. As the current U.S. experience shows, crises also provide opportunities for new political directions. But it will take political agility and entrepreneurship, and it's not clear whether the EU is up to the challenge.

Current developments in the U.S. are crucially important because they illustrate ‘the opportunities for politics’ that still exist in the climate change debate. This is a discussion that has been lacking throughout the last decade, when politics were instead seen as a major obstacle to progress. This was particularly unfortunate because politics is ‘the art of the possible’ and we need that more than ever.