Hokkaido Critical Opportunity for Climate Debate
WASHINGTON - Most climate change opinion leaders on both sides of the Atlantic have modest expectations for the July G-8 summit in Hokkaidō, Japan. On the central political question – how quickly Europe, the United States, and other G-8 partners should reduce emissions over the next decade – the transatlantic allies appear an ocean apart. Outside the United States, most G-8 policymakers seem content to run out the clock on the Bush administration with the goal of finding common ground with a new, more climate-friendly U.S. president in 2009. Downplaying the Hokkaidō G-8 summit could be a serious mistake. While G-8 nations are unlikely to reach an agreement this year on ambitious quantitative medium-term emission reduction targets, much could be done now to lock-in sound “architectural elements” or legal frameworks for numerical commitments that could be negotiated next year or soon after.
There are three reasons why making progress now is critical.
- First, a sound G-8 statement on the preferred design of the post-2012 climate system would make reaching a good international climate agreement easier. By signaling what G-8 nations are prepared to do to mitigate their emissions over the next decade or so and what they expect from other major emitters, G-8 leaders could give the international community a clear picture of where global climate negotiations should head.
- Second, bypassing the Bush administration would unnecessarily increase the risk that the United States will not join the next climate agreement. Most liberals in Congress will support any environmentally credible and economically affordable climate agreement that emerges from global diplomatic talks. In contrast, conservatives in Congress will be suspicious of any new climate agreement that imposed substantial costs on the U.S. economy (likely), particularly if China has somewhat different obligations than the United States (also likely). Any G-8 consensus endorsed by President Bush this year, however, would help soften possible conservative opposition, perhaps even winning over members of Congress who opposed the Kyoto Protocol.
- Third, pushing off all major decisions until next year would jeopardize the internationally agreed upon goal of concluding a climate agreement in 2009. The post-2012 climate negotiations are politically and technically complex. Trying to resolve all major issues in calendar year 2009 would strain the international process.
So, what could be accomplished at the G-8 this July? Quite a lot. My recently published German Marshall Fund policy brief explains where progress should be possible. In short, the United States could accept Europe’s call for all developed nations to assume legally binding emission targets if Europe joins with the United States in pressing China, India and other major developing country emitters to also take on new legally binding climate commitments (but not necessarily national emission targets). I welcome your reactions on this idea.