Climate: Environment or foreign policy issue?

I must confess that I first got hooked to the climate change issue when I was still shadowing Foreign Affairs. I was particularly struck by its political dimension and had publicly supported the British decision to try and raise it at UN Security Council level. I recall that I had gone one step further by suggesting that this issue should also be raised at UN General Assembly level since most of the countries - mainly LDCs - worst affected by it were not represented on the Security Council but were instead General Assembly members.

From the way the American presidential race has been shaping up it is now very evident that the climate change issue will definitely feature prominently during the campaign in spite of certain misgivings many might have that the present administration is perceived as being somewhat lukewarm on the matter.

This has nevertheless not held back leading international think-tanks on the other side of the Atlantic from setting up independent task forces to map out how to confront climate change as part of a future strategy for US foreign policy.

In spite of all this there is still little consensus on how the US and the world should confront the challenge.

The summary conclusion of one of these reports - by the Council on Foreign Relations - is that though domestic policy options to reduce greenhouse gas, emissions are numerous and the potential exists to produce a strategy that is fully consistent with economic prosperity and economic security - as the report in question makes clear, domestic policy is not enough. Particularly since a new US foreign policy to tackle climate change is also essential. The Task Force found that ambitious, comprehensive and equitable US domestic policy is a prerequisite to effective international leadership. It then argues that US foreign policy must focus on the largest economies and emitters, both advanced and rapidly developing.

The Task Force advocates a strategy for advancing international co-operation, proposing that the US seek a global UN climate agreement while also promoting other arrangements that may be less formal, limited both in scope and participation, but still highly ambitious.

As a core part of that, it proposes a new Partnership for Climate Co-operation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.

It emphasises the need to align the interests of developing countries, whether in economic development, energy security or public health, with steps that will help mitigate climate change.

It shows that the tools available to the US in this effort extend well beyond the traditional environmental sphere to such areas as technology, security and trade.

It also discusses what can and should be done by the US if international progress proves elusive while urging wealthy countries to help more vulnerable ones adapt to the impacts of unavoidable climate change.

In its executive summary the report makes it clear that "unchecked climate change is poised to have wide-ranging and potentially disastrous effects over time on human welfare, sensitive ecosystems and international security".

One of the major recommendations is that US strategy for confronting climate change must begin at home by working its way through a system that would let the market find opportunities to reduce emissions and remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere at the lowest possible cost. It can and should be designed in a way that avoids shocks to the economy and that does not impose undue burden on any particular part of society.

The following is perhaps the most interesting, and yes, controversial segment of the report; wherein it recommends that:

If as is most likely to be the case, cap and trade systems will not be sufficient to deliver deep cuts in emissions at an acceptable cost, the US should take complementary steps to help market forces function more effectively and to seize the many opportunities to align the goal of slowing climate change with other important policy objectives.

Those other steps include adopting policies that would improve energy security by reducing oil use in ways that also lower emissions; using traditional regulation in places where markets fail to function effectively; expanding federal support for R&D and commercial scale demonstration of low-carbon technologies and supporting the construction of new infrastructure, such as a more robust electric grid, that will support low-carbon energy.

The Task Force also recommends that the US should seek to reduce biofuels tariffs since many imported biofuels are currently more climate-friendly than many domestically produced ones.

All this with the understanding that the US must do so only in a context where changes to tariffs do not ultimately encourage increased emissions.

One might disagree about the details but there are two important messages to learn from this exercise:

• That all those who think of climate change as a purely environmental issue are adopting a one dimensional, insular approach;

• That as the US is expected to take increasingly aggressive action at home; it should be in a stronger position to ask more of others.

My personal opinion is that the US must continue to work with developing countries to understand their vulnerabilities to climate change, which will help encourage those countries to address the climate challenge head-on.

Mr Brincat is a Labour member of Parliament.

leo.brincat@gov.mt