A Good Deal, Already in Danger

As news outlets from CNN to the New Yorker have pointed out, the successes of President Obama’s trip to Asia last week were a welcome reprieve for a chief executive smarting from a disastrous midterm cycle. In coming to an agreement on carbon emissions with China, the president secured a diplomatic accomplishment that could transcend the current news cycle and mark a turning point in the fight against global climate change. Given the current political composition of Congress, these lofty possibilities may not be realistic. But with the growing threat of climate change, political commitment to reducing carbon emissions is long overdue.

The significance of the climate accord reached last week is that it finally included China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, in a global climate change agreement. Early accords—notably 1997’s Kyoto Protocol—fell apart because of China’s exemption, which provided countries like the United States with a ready-made excuse to remain on the sidelines. Under President Obama, the U.S. has improved its position on carbon reduction, but China’s absence from global agreements has been conspicuous. With this new deal, the countries whose cooperation is most needed to slow climate change have made a commitment, before the world, to carry out serious shifts in how they produce energy.

The agreement, of course, is not perfect. As John Cassidy noted in the New Yorker, many major environmental groups offered significant support, but at least two added that the agreement is not sufficient to prevent many of the consequences of climate change, which are likely irreversible given current trends. As a UN report from this month made clear, these effects will be severe. Moreover, China has only committed to reach peak emissions at “around 2030,” a target for which it must be held accountable.

Still, the rich world cannot expect poor countries to adopt stringent emissions standards while carbon-emitting sources of energy remain the cheapest available. As the New York Times put it, before this accord, “China has long argued that it should not have to commit to cutting carbon pollution, since its energy consumption helped fuel the rise of its rural poor population to the middle class.” India is now making a similar case. In short, the developing world will not simply stop developing, nor should it. Only as cleaner technologies become more available more affordably will poor countries be able to rely on green development to lift their populations out of poverty.

For such development to become a reality, more decisive leadership from China and especially the United States is needed. Unfortunately, this month’s elections saw American voters elect a Congress ill-suited to keep pace with the goals outlined Beijing. According to PolitiFact, only about three percent of Republican representatives and senators have openly acknowledged the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Worse, the new Republican majority in the Senate will likely make Senator Jim Inhofe, a noted climate change denier, chair of the Environmental and Public Works Committee. Barring an improbable shift, significant legislation to limit the United States’ carbon emissions will have to wait two or more years.

This unfavorable political context is troubling. Last week’s agreement will only work if signs of serious commitment follow, and such commitment will require a serious shift in the political feasibility of climate change legislation in the United States. Failing that, President Obama’s trip to Asia may simply be remembered as a missed opportunity.