Will the greatest historical polluter finally lead the way?

This week, what looks like great news emerged from Paris. Daniel Price, President Bush's Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs, announced that the U.S. is prepared to commit to "binding international obligations" to reduce greenhouse gases. Finally, right? After years of shirking responsibility on climate change and steadfastly refusing to join the international agreement that includes every other developed country on Earth, the U.S. will finally commit to binding emissions reductions.

At least, that's what I thought at first. The headlines floating around, like "US to set 'binding' climate goals" and "US ready for 'binding' reductions of greenhouse gases: official" imply that Price announced a major change in White House policy that will finally allow international negotiations to move forward in a meaningful way. However, reading between the lines of Price's speech, you can see the sad truth that there has been no change in policy whatsoever.

Here is the text of the speech:

The US is prepared to enter into binding international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases as part of a global agreement in which all major economies similarly undertake binding international obligations… An effective framework requires the participation of all major economies, developed and developing alike. -- BBC (emphasis added)

In other words, the administration is perfectly willing to commit to binding greenhouse gas reductions, so long as China and India (among others) do the same. This is no change. Rather, it is the same reason that Bush refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in the first place, the reason why the negotiations in Bali last December almost crumbled entirely, and the reason why the Bush administration has been holding its own set of meetings on climate change with a guest list restricted to the biggest polluters.

Price can confidently state that the U.S. is willing to commit, so long as China and India do, because he could also say with near certainty that it won't happen. Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group, put it this way:

The White House knows that taking a binding target of comparable size [to that taken by the US or EU] is neither a negotiating option nor a physical possibility for the Chinese government. -- BBC

Although China and India have become two of the highest emitting countries as they have developed, their per capita emissions remain far, far below those of the US and other developed countries. Committing to significant binding reductions would interfere with their primary objective: bringing the vast majority of their populations out of poverty. Stephan Singer, a climate change expert from the World Wildlife Fund, asked, "Why should [China and India] do something when the United States has done nothing for the last eight years?" (AFP)

Although China and India should certainly be taking action on climate change, requiring stringent binding emissions reductions from them as a prerequisite is effectively the same as refusing to act. The US has known this for years, but has stubbornly maintained its position. And, unfortunately, this latest statement, though appealing, simply reinforces a longstanding position.

So don't be fooled by this week's rhetoric. Between the lines, there is nothing but hot air.

Want to comment? Visit the Celsias Lounge and find or start a topic!