in negotiating the Kyoto agreements (see below, pp. 186â8). However, it was not possible to persuade Congress to ratify US participation. Carbon markets originated in the US, but neither the Clinton administration nor any subsequent one has managed to get anational scheme endorsed â or any other significant climate change legislation.
In 2002 George W. Bush set the goal of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of the country by 18 per cent over the period 2002â12. This policy amounted to a 4 per cent reduction in total emissions over a business-as-usual trend and was in line with the decarbonizing trend already present in the US economy. The Bush administration did introduce some tax incentives for renewables, nuclear power and CCS, as well as energy conservation; and in 2007 Bush signed an Act aimed at improving the fuel efficiency of cars. However, these measures were largely driven by energy security considerations, not by a concern with climate change.
Because of the unwillingness or inability of successive US presidents to enact significant climate change legislation, the most important domestic initiatives emanated from the Congress. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman championed a Climate Stewardship Act in 2003, which was defeated in the Senate. It was followed by the Lieberman-Warner Bill introduced in 2007. The initiative provoked a deep schism between the Democrats, who mostly supported the legislation, and the Republicans, who were solidly against. It was also defeated.
When he was elected in 2008, President Obama spoke forcefully of the need for far-reaching climate change legislation, both on a national and international level. He supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, after its authors, Henry Waxman and Edward Markey). The bill set out a cap and trade system (see below, pp. 198â202) and would have introduced subsidies for nuclear power, CCS and other technologies. It was criticized by many environmentalists for not being radical enough; and by the political right on the grounds that it would be expensive and would cost the US economy jobs.
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with a measure of cross-party support, but was abandoned in the Senate. In November 2010, in the congressional elections, the Democrats lost control of the House and with it any chance of getting climate change legislation enacted at a federal level for the time being.
In his State of the Union Address of January 2011, President Obama gave considerable space to clean energy. The US, he asserted, needs to invest in research and development in low-carbon technologies on a level not seen since the space race. He envisaged âclean energy breakthroughsâ, âthat will translate into clean energy jobsâ. 15 In so doing, he appealed for a renewal of bipartisan support, on the grounds that the drive for clean energy could renew the American sense of purpose. He also spoke of asking Congress to âeliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companiesâ. However, in his speech he did not once mention global warming, let alone a policy package that would help to contain it.
At present, the US, the country with the greatest responsibility to develop a far-reaching climate change policy, has done nothing at all on a national level. It is almost alone among industrial states in this respect. How can this be? There would seem to be three reasons. First, the separation of powers in the American constitution, which requires the President to negotiate with Congress on almost all matters of domestic policy. Second, the ability of well-funded lobbies to have an enormous influence upon individual members of Congress. Running for office normally means spending large amounts of money, which quite often places candidates in the hands of corporations or well-funded interest groups. The fossil fuel and other extractive
In 2002 George W. Bush set the goal of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of the country by 18 per cent over the period 2002â12. This policy amounted to a 4 per cent reduction in total emissions over a business-as-usual trend and was in line with the decarbonizing trend already present in the US economy. The Bush administration did introduce some tax incentives for renewables, nuclear power and CCS, as well as energy conservation; and in 2007 Bush signed an Act aimed at improving the fuel efficiency of cars. However, these measures were largely driven by energy security considerations, not by a concern with climate change.
Because of the unwillingness or inability of successive US presidents to enact significant climate change legislation, the most important domestic initiatives emanated from the Congress. John McCain and Joseph Lieberman championed a Climate Stewardship Act in 2003, which was defeated in the Senate. It was followed by the Lieberman-Warner Bill introduced in 2007. The initiative provoked a deep schism between the Democrats, who mostly supported the legislation, and the Republicans, who were solidly against. It was also defeated.
When he was elected in 2008, President Obama spoke forcefully of the need for far-reaching climate change legislation, both on a national and international level. He supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill, after its authors, Henry Waxman and Edward Markey). The bill set out a cap and trade system (see below, pp. 198â202) and would have introduced subsidies for nuclear power, CCS and other technologies. It was criticized by many environmentalists for not being radical enough; and by the political right on the grounds that it would be expensive and would cost the US economy jobs.
The bill was passed by the House of Representatives with a measure of cross-party support, but was abandoned in the Senate. In November 2010, in the congressional elections, the Democrats lost control of the House and with it any chance of getting climate change legislation enacted at a federal level for the time being.
In his State of the Union Address of January 2011, President Obama gave considerable space to clean energy. The US, he asserted, needs to invest in research and development in low-carbon technologies on a level not seen since the space race. He envisaged âclean energy breakthroughsâ, âthat will translate into clean energy jobsâ. 15 In so doing, he appealed for a renewal of bipartisan support, on the grounds that the drive for clean energy could renew the American sense of purpose. He also spoke of asking Congress to âeliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companiesâ. However, in his speech he did not once mention global warming, let alone a policy package that would help to contain it.
At present, the US, the country with the greatest responsibility to develop a far-reaching climate change policy, has done nothing at all on a national level. It is almost alone among industrial states in this respect. How can this be? There would seem to be three reasons. First, the separation of powers in the American constitution, which requires the President to negotiate with Congress on almost all matters of domestic policy. Second, the ability of well-funded lobbies to have an enormous influence upon individual members of Congress. Running for office normally means spending large amounts of money, which quite often places candidates in the hands of corporations or well-funded interest groups. The fossil fuel and other extractive
Similar Books
