While the European Union has for over a decade led the world in pursuing ambitious measures to address climate change, everybody agrees the time is nigh for the world’s largest emitter per capita, the United States, to step up to the plate. Responding to a growing clamour for his physical presence in Copenhagen, US President Barack Obama has confirmed he will attend, on 9 December. So what is to be expected from Washington, nearly a year since the end of the ‘dark years’ of former President George Bush, when the US turned its back on the Kyoto Protocol?

Congress, aided by a solid Democrat majority and prodded by the Obama White House, continues to try to pass climate legislation. Things are moving. The House of Representatives passed a bill, in June 2009, while the Senate is attempting to do the same, the Senate Environment Committee having pushed through a bill, on 5 November. Obama and the Democratic leadership would like to have a ‘cap and trade’ law enacted by spring 2010. All this is remarkable considering how little Congress did previously, with the Senate even having effectively voted 95-0 against Kyoto in 1997.

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?

But this is too little – and possibly even too late – for environmental lobbies and some EU negotiators. First up, the US emission reduction targets have been criticised as too weak, especially the mid-term ones. The House bill would cut emissions by 4% below 1990 levels by 2020, much lower than the 20-30% cut the EU is promising. Even the most ambitious bill floating around the Senate only mandates a 6% reduction. It is worth noting that Washington uses 2005, not 1990, as the baseline year because it is more favourable. Also, the US bills’ long-term reduction targets are broadly similar to the EU’s, requiring about an 80% reduction by 2050.

In offering his international partners at Copenhagen a 17% emissions cut by 2020 on 2005 levels (-4% on 1990), Obama has deliberately mirrored what Congress is considering. He does not wish to repeat what US President Bill Clinton did in 1998, namely sign off on an international treaty he knows will not be ratified by the US Senate, where 67 out of 100 votes are required. EU leaders had grown exasperated at being held hostage to the political whims of Capitol Hill. In recent weeks, however, they seem more accepting of the political reality. They know the Senate is unlikely to pass a bill by the end of 2009, which will make it harder to get a comprehensive agreement at Copenhagen. But they are not despondent because they can see the ball is moving in the right direction and are thus willing to cut Washington some slack. Moreover, Obama’s recent decision to personally go to Copenhagen is good news for them since it encourages other world leaders to attend too and most likely increases the chances of an agreement as no one wants to go home admitting failure.

Worth bearing in mind is that even the proposals the US currently has on the table, which the EU feels are too weak, may ultimately not be implemented. The Democrats have 60 out of 100 senators but that does not necessarily mean they will get all 60 senators voting for their bill. Democrat senators from energy-producing states, who will feel the pinch of a ‘cap and trade’ hardest, are wobbly. Some Republicans, like Senators John McCain (Arizona) and Olympia Snowe (Maine), support a ‘cap and trade’ and might vote for it if the provisions promoting nuclear energy are beefed up. Most Republicans will not support it since they argue it will cost the US too much. A widely-propagated fear is that ‘cap and trade’ will cause the US to cede its status as the world’s economic superpower to China, as it will undertake stricter commitments than Beijing. US public opinion seems malleable, with Americans wanting something done, but suspicious of anything that will cost jobs or sink them deeper in debt.

Drilling down to detail, some lawmakers are wary of authorising offsets – ie subsidising clean energy projects overseas – as this would mean, under the Senate bill, a transfer of US$1.4 trillion in wealth. Others say all emission allowances should be auctioned because giving them out for free – like the EU initially did – enables companies to make a profit from ‘cap and trade’ without doing anything to actually cut emissions. Some Republicans say a flat carbon tax is fairer than a market-based ‘cap and trade’. On so-called carbon leakage, the House bill lets the US impose tariffs on goods from countries whose emission reduction targets are not “at least as stringent” as those of the US, but these tariffs would not take effect until 2020.

GRASSROOTS ACTIONS

While all eyes are on Capitol Hill, there are other ways the US can, and in fact already is, moving forward. The US administration, specifically the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), can implement a ‘cap and trade’ without legislation as the US Supreme Court ruled, in April 2007, it has this legal power. However, the Obama administration would much rather have political blessing from Congress before proceeding. The EPA has, meanwhile, mandated a 40% increase in the fuel efficiency of cars by 2016. At state level, governments have for years been implementing climate legislation. California has been a leader, setting up its own ‘cap and trade’ and helping found the Western Climate Initiative, a coalition of seven US states and four Canadian provinces. On the East Coast, ten US states have done something similar by setting up the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). State-wide and regional schemes could ultimately be linked to a US-wide ‘cap and trade’, or indeed an EU or international system.