IT’S HARD TO BE BIG IN A HOT WORLD

Climate Bill Success = Treaty Failure?
Andrew C. Revkin, August 7, 2009 (NY Times)

"A predictable impasse is growing over the climate bill that Democratic leaders are trying to push through the Senate. To build sufficient support, it appears that the bill would have to include mechanisms punishing other countries — implicitly large emerging economic powers led by China and India — if they don’t pursue emissions cuts, too… 10 Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Obama… saying they would not support a bill without the confidence that all countries emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases were acting to limit their impact on the shared atmosphere…

"'Climate change is a reality and the world cannot afford inaction...However, we must not engage in a self-defeating effort that displaces greenhouse gas emissions rather than reducing them and displaces U.S. jobs rather than bolstering them.'"

Game theory offers a way to think about the dilemma. (click thru for the paper)

"The impasse reflects a daunting pincers-like situation for Mr. Obama, who has pledged internationally to lead the world toward a new treaty limiting greenhouse gases and pledged to pass aggressive climate legislation at home. The problem is, to get the legislation passed will require compromises aimed at protecting the economies of manufacturing and coal states, and to get a climate treaty negotiated will require measures guaranteeing that rich countries move first to cut emissions.

"On the treaty front, the Senate will surely be seeking measurable, verifiable and substantial steps by the big developing countries. At the same time, China, India and other economic competitors are not likely to be in an agreeable mood at treaty talks in Copenhagen in December if faced with protectionist steps in the United States."

The paper applies game theory to the dilemma. (click thru for the paper)

"The pincers on the president are tightened by another reality devolving from the nature of American democracy. No treaty can take effect here without the president’s gaining the advice and consent of the Senate — a two-thirds vote of approval. It was that situation that essentially guaranteed that the last climate pact signed by the United States, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, would never be sent to the Senate for ratification by either President Bill Clinton or President George W. Bush.

"Is there a way to for Mr. Obama to move forward on both the domestic and international climate and energy fronts without one effort scuttling the other? … Benjamin LaBolt at the State Department sent this statement… 'During negotiations over the House bill, the President made clear that assistance should be provided to vulnerable families, communities, and businesses to help in the transition to a clean energy economy. He will take that same approach as he works with the Senate to pass comprehensive energy legislation that invests in clean energy incentives that will create millions of jobs. The President also believes that the most effective approach to maintaining a level playing field is to negotiate a new international climate change agreement that ensures that all the major polluters take significant actions to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.'"