Climate change, presidential power, and leadership: 'we can't wait'.

• Author: Wold, Chris
• Position: IV. Options for the President's Future Climate Change Agenda through Conclusion, with footnotes, p. 322-359 - Symposium: Presidential Power and Foreign Affairs

4. OPTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S FUTURE CLIMATE CHANGE AGENDA

   The president's initiatives, undertaken pursuant to the Clean Air Act and other statutes, are a significant step forward for the United States. Considering previous policies of the Bush and Clinton Administrations alike, these steps indicate a real policy to address climate change across a broad spectrum of economic activities and actors.

   These initiatives of the President are all good. The problem, however, is that they are not good enough. Nobody anticipates that these measures alone will allow the United States to reach its pledges to reduce its emissions by 17% by 2020 or 83% by 2050. (These pledges are enshrined in the Copenhagen Accord (101) and iterated in the Cancun Agreements (102) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (103)) For example, the EPA and the NHTSA estimate that the two new standards for light duty vehicles will reduce GHG emissions by approximately 35% by 2035. (104) While these rules may help us get to the 2020 goal of reducing emissions by 17%--at least from this one economic sector--they will not help the United States reach an 83% reduction without significantly higher emissions standards or a structural change in the way we power automobiles. Similarly, the two agencies estimate the new standards for medium-and heavy-duty vehicles will reduce C[O.sub.2] emissions by approximately 270 million metric tons over the life of vehicles sold during the 2014 through 2018 model years (105) --a small fraction of emissions from this rapidly growing sector. (106) Similarly, the GHG reductions resulting from the NSPS standards for coal-fired power plants are even less encouraging: research indicates that the new standards, even if improved, would reduce total U.S. C[O.sub.2] emission by roughly 2 to 5%. (107) Under current policies, no sector will come close to achieving 83% reductions by 2050. (108)

   So where does this leave us? While Congressional action is clearly desirable, and in some circumstances necessary, the executive can do much more to put us closer to the U.S. pledge of a 17% reduction by 2020 based on 2005 GHG emissions levels and 83% by 2050. First, the Obama Administration has relied on a purely domestic strategy. It must take a much more positive leadership role in international negotiations--the kind of leadership that is needed to sharply reduce GHG emissions. Second, efforts to reduce C[O.sub.2] emissions must be strengthened, particularly with respect to existing fossil fuel fired power plants. Third, while C[O.sub.2] is at the heart of any long-term strategy to abate climate change, the mitigation of short-lived climate forcers such as black carbon, methane, and tropospheric ozone could bring substantial short-term climate benefits. Fourth, none of the approaches adopted so far force radical changes in technology--the kind of changes needed to transform the United States to a low-carbon economy. Through climate change technology prizes and other fiscal policies, the president can foster the growth of alternative energy supplies that can end our reliance on fossil fuels.

   1. International Leadership

      The president has several opportunities to flex his treaty-making authority to strengthen the climate change efforts across a range of international agreements. These include the climate change regime itself, as well as the International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Trade Organization.

      1. UNFCCC Climate Negotiations

         The negotiations within the climate change regime are complex, and are currently addressing a wide variety of economic activities and socio-economic considerations. Yet, it is clear that the United States is a major stumbling block to achieving meaningful mitigation commitments. To be sure, the United States is not alone. Canada, Japan, and Russia, among developed countries, and large-emitting developing countries like China, India, and South Korea, have shown little interest in making meaningful commitments. Long-time observers of the climate process, however, lay most of the blame at the feet of the United States, not because the United States is the biggest historic emitter of GHGs or because it is the world's largest economy, but rather because it has done more to slow progress on a package of international commitments than other countries. (109)

         The stated reasons for the U.S. positions are well known. In 1997, the Senate made clear that it would not give its consent to ratification unless developing countries also made commitments to reduce GHG emissions. (110) These concerns arise from fears that U.S. businesses would be at a competitive disadvantage if they must pay the cost of C[O.sub.2] abatement while their competitors in developing countries do not. (111)

         Much time has passed since 1997. Research indicates that fears of a competitiveness effect are overstated, except for those industries with the highest energy use, or that studies finding a competitiveness effect failed to take into account the cost of climate change adaptation, (112) But more to the point, this is a crisis of leadership, both in the White House and in the Senate. The United States remains the largest historic emitter of GHGs by far: 28.52% of C[O.sub.2] from energy, whereas eighty seven developing countries have historic emissions of 0.90% of the world's total. (113) China does have relatively high historic emissions of 9.36%, but India, another country frequently mentioned as an industrial competitor, has historic emissions of just 2.52%. (114)

         In addition, the United States has one of the highest per capita emissions rates: 17.3 tons in per capita emissions in 2011, (115) although this is a steep recession-caused decline from 22.9 tons per person in 2005. (116) China, in comparison, has per capita emissions less than half that at 7.2 tons per capita. (117) India has emissions of just 1.6 tons per capita. (118)

         In other words, the emissions of India in particular, but also China to a lesser extent, must increase dramatically before they reach U.S. levels. To honor the commitment to "take the lead" to abate climate change, (119) the United States must show real leadership--leadership it has so far been unwilling to demonstrate. The U.S. executive branch has been all too willing to hide behind the Senate's stated refusal to provide its advice to ratification. In the same way that President Obama showed leadership to get a version of a national health care system adopted--something presidents since Franklin Delano Roosevelt have failed to achieve--President Obama can and should lead the United States at the international climate change negotiations.

      2. International Aviation

         Under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), any airline, regardless of country of origin, must reduce its emissions from flights departing and arriving from cities within the EU by 3% of 2006 levels by 2013 and 5% by 2020. (120) Airlines may achieve these targets by purchasing credits for pollution. This is a fairly modest plan. First, a recent study concluded that the U.S. airline industry could collectively receive a windfall gain of $2.6 billion from the ETS requirements. (121) Second, despite improvements in jet engines that have made new engines 70% more fuel efficient than those produced 40 years ago, and 20% more fuel efficient than 10 years ago, C[O.sub.2] emissions from airplanes nearly doubled between 1990 and 2006, and they are expected to grow by 2% to 3% per year unless further action is taken. (122)

         Despite this modest plan and potential profit to the industry, the United States and other countries have asked the European Union to suspend or delay its plans to include U.S. and other non-EU airlines in the European Trading Scheme. (123) Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has decried "the EU's go-it-alone approach" as "impeding international progress on a multilateral agreement for international aviation." (124) The irony of the statement is stunning, given the United States' "go-it-alone" approach to the entire issue of climate change. Moreover, President Obama has not ruled out using international dispute settlement to resolve the issue, (125) and, in a remarkable departure from respect for the rule of law, President Obama signed legislation "exempting" U.S. airlines from compliance with the EU ETS. (126) This is not climate leadership.

         Instead, the United States suggests that the EU should negotiate through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), an international organization that has failed to proscribe any emissions reductions. ICAO, which was established under the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, (127) has the authority to regulate, among other things, emissions from international aviation. ICAO's governing Council has not imposed mandatory obligations on ICAO parties to mitigate C[O.sub.2] emissions from aircraft. It has, however, approved an annual improvement in fuel efficiency of 2% between 2013 and 2020 and an aspirational global fuel efficiency improvement rate of 2% per year from 2021 to 2050. (128) If these goals are met, cumulative fuel efficiency from aviation would improve approximately 60% from 2005 levels. (129) Still, ICAO does not appear to be an institution that will establish any requirements unless pushed. Leadership from the EU with corresponding leadership from President Obama could provide the impetus ICAO needs to finally take GHG mitigation seriously.

         President Obama should send a clear, positive message: The United States will not litigate this issue before an international tribunal as the airline industry wishes, and he will veto any legislation that seeks to exempt U.S. airlines from compliance with the EU ETS. He should also negotiate standards similar to those of the EU ETS within ICAO.

      3. International Trade

         The rules of international trade, particularly those administered by the World Trade Organization, provide many opportunities for...