It\’s Getting Hot In Here

Don’t get me wrong.  Most of the time, I love Washington Governor Christine Gregoire.  She’s one of the most environmentally progressive governors in the US, and has done great things to help jumpstart the clean energy economy in the Northwest.  I also think it’s great that she’s showing her level of commitment to the issue by attending the Copenhagen talk in person.  However a statement from Gregoire, made in Copenhagen during an interview with Grist, floored me a little.  According to Gregoire, “America is back in its rightful position” in the climate negotiations, ready to lead at last after years of lagging behind other countries.

Well, the US position has certainly improved since the days of George Bush – but that’s a pretty low standard for “leadership.”  Leadership would mean, um, coming to the table in Copenhagen with one of the most ambitious emissions-reduction targets of any major economy, then encouraging other countries to raise their targets to match ours.  Instead, the US went into the negotiations with the least impressive emissions-reduction target of any major polluter: a 4% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020.  That doesn’t even come close to touching the 40% reduction below 1990 emissions levels that scientists say we need to make to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic warming.  It’s also nowhere near the 20-30% reductions the European Union has already offered in Copenhagen.

As Bill McKibben says, it’s the numbers that are important, and the numbers now being offered by major polluters in Copenhagen would put us well into the range of catastrophic global warming.  The United States isn’t just going along with this – its targets are arguably the worst of any nation’s.  President Obama has one more day to redeem the US in the eyes of the international community.  But right now, it’s looking like a best-case scenario might see the US limp in, barely managing to keep from lagging too far behind the rest of the world.  Leadership?  Just because you say it often enough and set up a big tent in Copenhagen doesn’t make it so.

I’m writing this from a computer in Hillsboro, Oregon.  I’m not in Copenhagen, and claim no special knowledge about what will come out of the negotiations.  But for what it’s worth, I believe the outcome at Copenhagen may well be a turning point in the US environmental movement’s self-questioning on how we should respond to our new administration.  I know that I, like thousands of other, have for months been torn between praising Obama for the very real improvements he’s made since coming to office, and criticizing him for not doing enough.  Tomorrow in Copenhagen, Obama will show his true mettle.  If he’s able to boost the US emissions-reduction target considerably higher than the current 17% below 2005 levels (which translates to about 4% below 1990 emissions), and smooth the way for a legally binding treaty, he’ll show that he’s ready to earn the support environmental groups and grassroots organizers have lent him.

On the other hand, if Obama agrees to a deal that puts us on track to “hell on earth” – which is what currently proposed emissions targets will do – he may find environmental groups no longer so eager to praise him, or so willing to overlook a transgression here and there.  Obama has one last chance to make us proud; and if he fails, the relationship between environmental group in the US and our current administration could suddenly become a lot less friendly.