Climate Policy of the Obama Administration
| Kutsutilaisuus | |
|
Oheismateriaalia
Bruce J. Oreck:
Climate Policy under the Obama Administration (PDF, 7.03 Mb)
Tapani Vaahtoranta, Bruce Oreck
Bruce Oreck, Tapani Vaahtoranta
Vasemmalta: toimitusjohtaja Jarmo Nupponen (Öljy- ja Kaasualan Keskusliitto), suurlähettiläs Bruce Oreck, johtaja Pertti Salminen (Energiateollisuus ry.)
Bruce Oreck, Tapani VaahtorantaTo 24.9.2009 klo 14:00-15:30 Auditorium of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs The United States will play a major role in the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference in December. It has the biggest historical responsibility for global greenhouse gas emissions and as the leading industrial nation the United States is expected to take measures to curb emissions. China and India are unlikely to start mitigating their emissions without a decisive action by the US. Summary of the Seminar
The seminar was opened by the Director of the
International Politics of Natural Resources and the Environment Programme, Dr. Tapani
Vaahtoranta, who offered welcoming remarks to the speaker and seminar
participants. Newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador to Finland Bruce
J. Oreck took the floor to give a presentation on the current and future
prospects of the US
climate policy. Ambassador Oreck initially offered a historical account of
climate-related phenomena in the United States, together with
projections of what was ahead if no action is taken on climate change. The
ambassador set out the clear message that the current administration takes the
issue of climate change seriously and that the danger cannot be denied, representing
a total shift in position from that of the previous administration. Ambassador Oreck moved on to present the audience with
a detailed account of the achievements of the Obama administration on the issue
climate change in the 8 months since its inauguration. Policies enacted include
new standards for car efficiency, providing 80 billion dollars for clean energy investment
and the passing of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
(ACES) through the House of Representatives. Amb. Oreck then moved away from
national level issues to highlight the efforts and accomplishments on the state
and local level. Mr Oreck was keen to stress the complex nature of the American
political system, signifying that Congress typically lags behind policies
exacted at the state level. With the speaker’s home state of Colorado
taken as case in point, Ambassador Oreck presented examples of the progressive
policies being executed below the federal level, such as the requirement for
20% of energy needs to be met by renewables; a carbon tax introduced by the
city of Boulder,
and bold emission reductions commitments by other cities. More broadly, it was
stated that California
was, despite the policy of incumbent governor’s party, implementing green
legislation, whilst 960 mayors across the nation had signed up to the commitments
under the Kyoto Protocol. The dominant message of Ambassador Oreck’s presentation was that the
challenges posed by the threat climate change can only be effectively tackled
if economics and climate policy are combined. Mr Oreck accentuated that the
necessary shifts in policy and behaviour were only achievable if suitable
economic incentives were present and sustainable. Related to this point, it was
also expressed that the benefits of improving energy efficiency were such that
“going green” was the single best investment a US company could make. At the
same time, the Ambassador was of the opinion that whilst government-funded
initiatives were a good start, they needed to be sustainable rather than reliant
on state subsidies and grants, as some schemes in Europe appeared to be. The
opinion was also imparted that the challenges of climate change also present
the opportunity for the next wave of innovation. The presentation also conveyed
the potential of both renewable, carbon-neutral technologies to provide for
national and global energy needs and, at the same time, for the aforementioned
wave of innovation. In conclusion, Ambassador Oreck asserted that America
was under-going transformational change regarding energy and climate policy,
despite the slowness of Congress, and that the US often does things despite
Congress. Mr Oreck assured the audience that with a committed President Obama
at the top and dynamic business below, it was obvious “how the game was going
to end”. In the Q&A session the audience was
interested in the Waxman-Markey bill, the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December, issues pertaining to technology,
and also China.
Questioned as to why there was such political resistance to addressing climate
change, the Ambassador answered that whereas the political process in Finland was based on reaching consensus, the US system was
more akin to a fist-fight; sources of resistance arise as some politicians
don’t accept the science, whilst others believe they can win votes through opposition. The ambassador was asked what impact
technology could have on mitigating climate change on a global scale, with the
reply being that the answer lay in combining expertise, capital and access to
markets. Mr Oreck made the point that Finland had often been a leader in
this area and that there was thus scope for future cooperation. A related
question put to the ambassador queried as to whether he believed China could take the lead from America in green
technology and innovation, to which the reply was an assertive ‘no’, based on
the current dynamics of the international division of labour. When asked if
the US President had something ‘up his sleeve’ for Copenhagen, Mr Oreck
reminded the audience that there were approximately 2,000 points of negotiation
heading into the COP15 meeting and the administration had only been involved in
the UNFCCC process for eight months, with the
previous 8 years wasted outside the
process. It was also reiterated that Copenhagen
was merely a point along the path towards to tackling climate change.
Ambassador Oreck went on to stress that it was important that Copenhagen
doesn’t become the point of debate in the US
rather than climate change itself, as had happened with Kyoto in the 1990s. Regarding the status of
the Waxman-Markey/ACES act, the timing of dealing with and potentially passing
the act was very much dependent on the resolution of the current domestic
debate on healthcare in the US,
which serves as a complication and distraction, from the perspective of climate
policy. |
|
