When the US Congress unveiled a proposed national climate law for America last spring, the international community was left surprised and disappointed by its lack of ambition. "Handouts and loopholes" was the headline of The Economist story that summed it up best. "America's climate-change bill is weaker and worse than expected," the magazine declared.
The bill came as a sobering reality cheque, a comedown from the elation felt in climate circles at President Barack Obama's election. The law aims to reduce US emissions a mere four percent below 1990 levels by 2020, far short of both what the science demands and the European Union's reduction commitment of 20 percent. But the oddest thing about the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act is that it sends its single most generous handout – more than USD 60 billion worth of free carbon credits – to the coal industry. Further, the fine print was even worse. It revealed that most of the proposed emissions cuts would likely come not from the actual reduction of industrial CO2 pollution in the US, but from a giant loophole that allowed for purchase of up to two billion tonnes of carbon 'offset' credits. Lawmakers had created a mechanism for allowing the US to outsource its emission reductions and proceed with business as usual at home.
The bill is one major reason why the prospects of an international climate agreement in Copenhagen are today looking dim. Without the leverage of good example and leadership, President Obama's team has little negotiating leverage, or the means to sweeten the global deal, in order to secure the cooperation of developing nations. Since June, the bill has been stalled twice in the US Senate, and the latest word is that it will be taken up in October. As a result, final passage before the December meetings in Copenhagen is highly unlikely. That may be a good thing, however, because the Senate is expected to weaken the bill even further. This is not the reality that President Obama sought to underscore before the UN General Assembly in September. At the climate summit convened by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 22 September, he said "I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history." This statement may have been true, but it was of insufficient significance, and the speech as a whole proved to more a collection of quotable platitudes than a roadmap for progress.
On the international stage, the US is the world's largest historical polluter, responsible for more global-warming emissions than any other country. As the world's largest economy, it is also in the best position to provide the most funding for an international effort to combat climate change, estimated to require almost USD 150 billion annually by 2020. Many developing nations have another reason for believing that US responsibility for carbon emissions does not stop at its own borders. Its consumer-driven economy stokes industrial emissions all over the world. Experts have calculated, for example, that one-third of domestic Chinese greenhouse-gas emissions are attributable to industrial production for the export market. The largest chunk of Chinese exports ends up in the US, accounting for 27 percent of China's export emissions. Are these emissions an overseas extension of the US's carbon footprint?