420 7th Street SE, Washington, DC 20003

Phone: (202) 986-2433 – Fax: (202) 546-3749

info@streitcouncil.org
www.streitcouncil.org

Why the World Needs U.S. Climate Action

Elena Nikolova

July 22, 2010

On July 22, 2010 the Center for American Progress hosted a panel of worldwide policy experts
to discuss why the United States should be at the forefront of climate change leadership. “Why
the World Needs U.S. Climate Action” was also sponsored by the Global Climate Network – an
umbrella organization of nine internationally-located policy think tanks working toward
progressive action on climate change.

Dr. Andrew Light, Senior Fellow at American Progress, moderated the panel and began the
discussion with a brief critique of the United States’ position and actions on climate change.
Light reminded the audience of candidate Obama’s promise in Berlin in 2008 to battle climate
change. Light also cited the Bali Agreement, in which developed nations promised to exchange
technology and financing to aid developing countries in dealing with the effects of climate
change. A global fund was formalized in Copenhagen, including provisions for “quick-start”
financing until 2012. The proposed United States Senate bill, however, does not have a
mechanism for long-term financing or a green market. The U.S., therefore, would not be a
competitor in a global green marketplace.

Dr. Jiahua Pan, Executive Director of the Research Centre for Sustainable Development at the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, focused on China’s determination to mitigate the effects of
climate change. He acknowledged that the country has the highest carbon intensity in the world,
but stressed China’s ambitious investments in developing clean energy and energy efficiency
technologies. Dr. Pan concluded that if the United States does better, then China would also be
motivated to compete and improve its performance and results. Dr. Arabinda Mishra, director of
the Climate Change Division at The Energy Resources Institute in India, expressed a similar
position. Dr. Mishra commented on India’s efforts in mitigation and adaptation, particularly
toward battling India’s development issues at the same time. Dr. Mishra stressed that there has
been a great amount of political capital spent in India and a lack of international climate action
will also affect domestic political will.

Ms. Marie Parramon, a Consultant with IMBEWU Sustainability Legal Specialists in South
Africa, shared a very different perspective on climate change. She identified Africa’s position as
particularly difficult since the impact of climate change will be greatest in Africa. In this context,
South Africa is taking strong action on mitigation out of self-interest, including instituting a
carbon tax. Ms. Parramon urged the United States and the international community to clarify its
position on the potential carbon market and sources of financing. If the United States does not
contribute significantly, then other countries will use this as an excuse to curtail their own
donations.

Mr. Andrew Pendleton, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research in
London, commented that the European Union left Copenhagen in the worst shape compared to
other participants since the EU had very high expectations that were not met. The effect was a
movement of selfishness that motivated the environment ministers of the UK, France, and
Germany to press for more results in Europe (namely, by reducing carbon emissions 30%, up
from the original commitment of 20%). Mr. Pendelton concluded that this selfishness would be
the main motivation for nations to take individual domestic action, absent a strong international
consensus.

Overall, it is evident that developed and developing nations are waiting for a clear signal of
support from the U.S. If the United States develops a clear stance on creating a carbon market
and makes some financial commitment, others like the EU, India, and China will follow with
their own promises of funding. But it seems that the amount of U.S. financial help would not
matter as much since so many other nations have also recognized the need to help developing
countries. In addition, a different definition of leadership is emerging. Rather than being
described as the initiator of action, the U.S. is expected to provide leadership in melding together
the already existing domestic climate change programs of developed/developing countries. The
urgency for the U.S. to lead in this cooperation is highlighted by the fact that if it does not do so,
it will not be considered a player in the international green carbon and technology market that
will inevitably appear. The U.S. will also not be a “leader” in the traditional sense, since it
significantly lags behind China, India, the European Union, and in some ways, South Africa.
Additionally, if the U.S. fails to establish its domestic market and link it with the EU’s Emissions
Trading System, forming a transatlantic carbon market before China, then the U.S. will have to
play by the established format of a non-democratic power.