- The Guardian, Wednesday July 6 2005
As global attention fixes on today's G8 climate negotiations, George Bush will strike a lonely figure - out of step not only with the rest of the world but, increasingly, with his own country. US isolationism on climate change - its unwillingness to sign the Kyoto treaty, set its own emissions reduction targets or even accept the overwhelming evidence of a manmade warming world - is under severe strain.
The past few weeks have seen events that have brought the US close to a tipping point beyond which, say observers, mandatory steps to curb its gas-guzzling economy will become inevitable.
In May, General Electric, America's fifth largest company, announced that it would double research and development spending on clean technologies to $1.5bn by 2010, and increase its energy efficiency by 30% by 2012. Chief executive Jeffrey Immelt declared that climate change was not only a threat but a significant business opportunity, thus contradicting the White House argument that acting on climate change would sink the US economy.
On June 1, California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, steward of the world's fifth largest economy, fired a political broadside at the president when he declared a target to reduce the state's greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, and 1990 levels by 2020. These are to be met by a mix of mandatory regulations (for example, tough fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles), voluntary efforts by industry, and state-funded initiatives such as the provision of a million solar-powered homes by 2010.
Six days after Schwarzenegger's announcement, the US National Academy of Sciences joined the other G8 countries and China and India in declaring a "vital" need for all nations to identify immediate steps to reduce GHG emissions. USA Today, America's national newspaper, responded with a front-page declaration: "The debate is over: global warming is real."
Set against a backdrop of public anxiety over soaring gas prices and dependence on Middle East oil, these events combined to persuade the US Senate last week to defy the White House and endorse mandatory federal action to reduce climate-altering pollutants. While the Republican dominated Senate voted only for a resolution endorsing such action in the future - and rejected a specific climate proposal to cap US emissions at 2000 levels by 2010 - environmentalists hailed the move as groundbreaking.
"This is a monumental sea change in the politics of global warming," says John Adams, president of the Natural Resources Defence Council. "The White House has tried to block progress for four years, but the Senate is saying no, it's time to act."
Hans Verolme, climate change director at the WWF US, says a "tipping point is nearing", with US states and mayors, leading companies and now the Senate all taking unilateral action. "The White House is the outfielder in the climate debate now," he says. "It has become increasingly isolated and will be looking for ways to reduce this isolation. I think the president may drop his opposition to the language on the scientific certainty of climate change from the G8 communique."
Admitting that the science is real, however, will not automatically lead to more action from the White House, which argues that it is already pouring huge sums into research and technology to mitigate climate change.
Meanwhile, the domestic political spotlight will remain on Congress as the Senate negotiates with the House of Representatives to produce an energy bill for the president to sign into law. The Senate bill approved last week, while failing to endorse a specific ceiling on GHGs, is far more eco-friendly than the House version. The Senate bill mandates that 10% of electricity sold to consumers must come from renewable sources by 2020. It provides several billion dollars for tax breaks to make homes, commercial buildings and vehicles more energy efficient and to further develop hybrid technologies. The House bill provides only federal subsidies to boost domestic coal and oil production and includes plans to extract oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Whatever the outcome, Republican Senator Pete Domenici, who chairs the Senate's energy and natural resources committee, has pledged to hold hearings debating options for mandatory action to curb GHGs as early as next month. Environmentalists believe a Senate vote setting a mandatory cap on emissions at or beyond 2010 and establishing a federal carbon trading system to help polluting industries make the transition to cleaner technologies might now pass during a Bush administration. But would the White House support the legislation?
David Jhirad, vice-president of science and research at the World Resources Institute environmental thinktank, points out: "Everyone else can take unilateral action, but to do so without federal regulations is very limiting, especially for corporations, who don't want to operate under a patchwork quilt of regulations across different states."
