skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Clean Power plan
Safe Chemicals

Frances Beinecke’s Blog

Countdown to Copenhagen: Why the U.S. Must Act at Home

Frances Beinecke

Posted April 1, 2009

, , , , , , ,
Share | | |

Countdown to CopenhagenYesterday marked the long-awaited release of the Waxman-Markey "discussion draft" of a clean energy and climate bill. I welcomed this development. After all, I have worked for more than a decade to prepare for the moment we find ourselves in: at last the president of America and the U.S. Congress are seriously grappling with how to curb global warming.

It is gratifying to see, but I can't help but wonder: will they come to a resolution fast enough?

The clock is ticking. In December, the international community will meet in Copenhagen to forge a new climate agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol (click here to see how many days, minutes, seconds until the conference). Already this week, preliminary meetings began in Bonn (see my colleague Jake Schmidt's reports from Bonn here).

All parties agree that if the United States has not already taken significant steps at home to reduce its global warming pollution before Copenhagen begins, the international effort to stop climate change will be deeply undermined.

I am concerned that time is running out. There is a lot of climate activity in Washington now, but is it moving fast enough? Is it headed in the right direction? The draft legislative language released by Reps. Waxman and Markey was a promising start, but can it get passed in time?

Between now and the negotiations in Copenhagen, I am going to write regular posts about new climate action--at the White House, at the EPA, in Congress, and on the International Stage--and assess whether America is moving at the right pace.

Today I want to describe a meeting I recently attended that underscored for me just how much is riding on the United States taking fast action.

The meeting was with Minister Xie Zhenhua, the lead climate negotiator for China. Just like Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's trip to China to discuss global warming, the minister's presence in Washington was a welcome sign. He came to talk with the Obama administration, members of Congress, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. I spoke with him at a meeting of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.

It was obvious from what Minister Xie told us that China is deeply engaged with climate policy. The minister outlined for us what China was willing to do, but stressed that it would need money for technology transfer and adaptation.

But Minister Xie also made it very clear that the United States has to act first. He said the United States has to come to Copenhagen with a real commitment to lower our emissions at home in order for China to be willing to join an international framework.

Most of us in the room agreed. After all, even though China recently surpassed the United States in global warming emissions, we still have the highest per capita emissions on the planet.

America can and must take leadership on this issue, and international delegates like Minister Xie and visiting Washington to figure out if we actually will.

Most of them are getting mixed messages. In his round of meetings, Minister Xie heard great things from the White House and great things from Henry Waxman, but he also heard a lot of resistance from some members of Congress.

It's not going to be easy getting a climate bill through Congress by December. Yet we must avoid what happened in Kyoto, which is when the U.S. negotiators signed the treaty, but Congress failed to ratify it.

The coming months will be critical to avoiding that kind of diplomatic debacle. We still have time to pass a U.S. climate law before Copenhagen--a move that will not only place us at the forefront of international climate leadership, but also create millions of jobs here at home. We just have to use the time we have wisely.

Share | | |


John KurtzApr 1 2009 05:43 PM

Jacques Cousteau told us that just in the span of lifetime he had seen the fish of the world's water "almost disappear." Of course the rate of depletion since his life ended has only increased geometrically. Back in Jacques time it was recognized that 1-overfishing and 2-pollution were the culprits of ocean destruction. Now we add to that knowledge of known factors harming the ocean: 3-global warming caused by CO2 emissions. IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE NOW DIMINISHING MORALE OF OUR MILITARY TROOPS you could create a military branch that protects the oceans. Rotate all US military through that OCEAN PROTECTION branch of the military. It will be like a very deserved vacation for those troops. Enforce the laws that now exist to prevent overfishing in our deep seas. Enforce the laws against dumping in our deep seas. Go after the japanese ships that vacuum the sea bottom. Enforce the laws most importantly all along our own border where our own businesses on USA soils are are expectorating toxins into our own oceans. And take a long serious look at the practices of our own US navy. Is it really in the interest of our national security to use super-pulse radar if we are disrupting and destroying large mammal populations of the world? What national security are we protecting? Well certainly the SHORT TERM national security. That is an easy argument to be made. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE LONG-TERM NATIONAL SECURITY OF OUR COUNTRY? SOMETHING LIKE 60% OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION DEPENDS ON THE OCEANS FOR ITS PROTEIN SOURCE. If you recognize the connection between global food source stability and our own US national security...shouldn't we take strong initiatives to protect the world's oceans the same way we take initiatives to protect the worlds oil supply?

John Kurtz

Comments are closed for this post.


Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit

Feeds: Frances Beinecke’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In