President Barack Obama’s first G-8 Summit has concluded, and he’s beaming.
Obama pushed his pet issue, climate change, to the top of the leaders’ agenda, and the leaders of the U.K., Canada, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and Russia signed off on an agreement to limit the increase of the earth’s temperature by just two degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). They also agreed to reduce their countries’ emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
So the ink is hardly dry on an agreement that the Times of London is hailing as a “breakthrough,” and the G-8 leaders are ecstatic. Of course, reality tells a different story. The agreement is neither realistic nor enforceable. The figures the G-8 agreement gave are based on baselines that the G-8 nations have yet to decide. Finally, developing nations appear unlikely to agree to a dramatic reduction in their emissions, making the G-8 agreement moot.
Let’s be thankful for the reality.
To start, how does Obama expect his fellow leaders to enforce this agreement? Will Russia, a country growing dependent on oil production, care to limit its emissions as it is still a developing nation? Canada’s economic boom is fueled (literally) by the large oil shale deposits in Alberta. This oil is plentiful, but it is thought to be “dirtier” than crude oil. Will the Canadians be happy to limit their economic potential? Should Canada break from the G-8 agreement, how does the United States propose dealing with the Canadians? Strong economic sanctions? Really?
The agreement to limit the rise in average temperature is, of course, laughable. If Obama had voted on a resolution in the Illinois State Senate that the temperature throughout Illinois should remain within five degrees of 70 degrees Fahrenheit all year, it would have the same effect. It sounds good, but how much control do we mortals really have? Studies from real scientists from Arizona State University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggest that the earth’s increase in temperature over the past century is likely due to myriad factors, including natural climate cycles.
The reduction of emissions by 80 percent by 2050 sounds good on paper, but the G-8 proposes a reduction of 80 percent from what? Some nations, like Germany, want it to be from 1990 levels. Obama proposed it be from current levels. Should the German view prevail, the United States would have to reduce emissions by nearly 85 percent from current levels in 41 years, based on a U.S. Government report.
But even more damning to the agreement is that the G-8 leaders were hoping to get developing nations, led by China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa to agree to halve their emissions by 50 percent by 2050.
The reaction from these five nations has been chilly. As China, India and Brazil have begun to hit their stride in becoming economic powers, why would they agree to stunt their growth to appease G-8 leaders whose countries are rapidly shifting their manufacturing to these developing nations?
Should China and India be encumbered by harsher environmental regulations, look for new manufacturing to shift elsewhere, to nations that have not agreed to such draconian limits. For a nation like Mexico, a commitment to halve emissions by 2050 could cripple any chance at economic recovery as it will have difficulty building its infrastructure to support a growing economy.
So Obama’s climate change initiative might be more “hope” than “change.” And we should be thankful for that. For Obama, let’s hope this will prove to be instructional. Right now, the U.S. Senate is proposing its own changes to the Waxman-Markey “Cap and Trade” bill that passed the House by seven votes. Some Senate Democrats are not sold on the radical measures of the bill, including Sen. Robert Byrd, whose West Virginia constituents hold a number of coal jobs.
The bill proposes curbs on the emissions uses of all Americans, but it will affect the lifestyles of the poor the most as energy costs will increase, making it more expensive to furnish basic needs like heat, food and shelter.
Waxman-Markey is proving to be as radioactive politically as any Obama health care scheme that finds the House and Senate floors. In Illinois, 10th district Rep. Mark Kirk, has announced that he’s going to run for U.S. Senate. Kirk’s “yea” vote on Cap and Trade will become a stumbling block for him in the primary as local Republicans have already protested his vote.
Politicians in developing countries — even dictatorships — are loath to limit their constituents’ energy use. Why would American politicians sacrifice their careers by voting for a bill that limits economic growth during a time that the President believes a $787 billion stimulus bill is not enough to end this recession?
We can hope the U.S. Senate kills Waxman-Markey. We can hope India, China, Brazil and Mexico stand up against silly limits on emissions.
It would be nice if President Obama could have their common sense.
T. J. Brown's Bio
T.J. Brown is a small business executive by day and a freelance writer by night. He earned a Bachelor's of Arts in Journalism at Indiana University and an MBA from Loyola University Chicago. He lives in Northbrook, Ill. and can be reached at comments@tjbrown.com.
Posted
07-10-2009 12:05 AM
Link to this post: