Conservative Principles Now

The Heritage Foundation’s Steven Groves and Ben Lieberman are live at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference reporting from a conservative perspective. Follow their reports on The Foundry and at the Copenhagen Consequences Web site.

Rather than the much anticipated (by environmental activists) or much feared (by those concerned about the economy and American sovereignty) binding new greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to replace the expiring provisions in the existing Kyoto Protocol, the final Copenhagen agreement is shaping up to be much less than that. Though this modest outcome had been anticipated for months, the reality of it is a disappointment (or relief) to those following this issue. It now looks like all that will come out of this conference is a political agreement that sets out broad goals but leaves all the difficult details to be worked out next year - and even that is running into last minute difficulties.

Though the Obama administration and others will try to spin this as a breakthrough, it is important to remember that for nearly two years, Copenhagen had been hyped as that critical future meeting where everything will be hammered out. Now the can is getting kicked down the road yet again.

It won’t get any easier in 2010. The problems that derailed a major agreement here in Copenhagen are not going away. Most stem from the sky high cost of reducing emissions from fossil fuel use and the impact they would have on energy prices, jobs, and the overall economies of any nation that undertakes them. That the global recession is lingering only makes this expensive pill even harder to swallow. Most significantly, China, India and other fast developing nations still want exemptions from binding emissions reductions. However, since their emissions growth will dominate in the decades ahead (China already out-emits the US and its growth is projected to be 9 times faster than ours), leaving them out would make any agreement futile.

President Obama’s speech was remarkably uneventful and broke no new ground. Simply put, he cannot promise more here in Copenhagen than he can deliver in Washington. Cap and trade legislation is stalled in the Senate and faces a difficult battle ahead. After all, 2010 is an election year, and the American public’s interest in expensive solutions to global warming - which was never high in the first place - is declining. A costly climate bill would be even less popular than legislation as it would raise sovereignty concerns as well. Even the administration’s new pledge to contribute to a $100 billion annual fund to assist developing nations in addressing global warming - such income transfers is the only real reason many poor nations have any interest in these negotiations - is also unlikely to make it through a Congress that will soon face an electorate angry over runaway spending and the poor domestic economy.

One of the elephants in the room here in Copenhagen has been Climategate - the release of emails and other documents evidencing gross misconduct amongst some of the key scientists involved in the main United Nations scientific report that was to be relied upon here. The fact that temperatures have been flat for over a decade only adds to the justifiably growing public skepticism whether global warming really is a crisis.

Negotiations will probably continue into Saturday, but all that appears to be in the cards is some face saving agreement to agree at a later date. So, they’ll try again in 2010. Perhaps the Heritage Foundation’s Copenhagen team should start planning for the next big global warming conference in Mexico City next November!

In the next few days President Obama will venture to Copenhagen, Denmark to attend the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which began last week. One of the discussed goals of this conference is the creation of a universal climate change treaty.

I am concerned that any job-killing, cap-and-tax style treaty could seriously harm American families, small businesses, and American sovereignty. Our economy is facing a skyrocketing national debt and 10 percent unemployment. The United States must reject any attempt by international bureaucrats to stifle economic growth with a massive energy tax or by huge transfers of wealth from the U.S. to other countries.

Right now in Congress, if the cap-and-tax bill were to be enacted into law, one analysis indicates it will reduce gross domestic product by nearly $400 billion annually. According to a study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce, cap-and-trade would cut net employment by 2.5 million jobs. Any such tax on an international scale would likewise devastate our economy. President Obama must keep this in mind during his upcoming trip.

Additionally, any such treaty could undermine American sovereignty. The United States should not be legally bound to submit domestic decisions about energy and emissions to international inspection, compliance, and enforcement. We already have too many unelected bureaucrats in our U.S. government, and adding an international layer- one that is not accountable to the American taxpayer - is completely unacceptable.

I am not alone in my concern nor is my concern unique to this Congress. In 1997, the 3rd Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change produced the Kyoto Protocol, which was an international agreement on greenhouse gases, and took effect in 2005 and is set to expire in 2012.

Interestingly enough, before the American delegation headed to Kyoto that year, the Senate adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution in a 95-0 vote that clearly spelled out that the U.S. should not enter into a treaty that either leaves out developing nations like China or poses harm to the American economy. The Kyoto Protocol violated both provisions, and neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations submitted to the Senate for the required ratification. Those countries that did ratify the protocol failed to produce any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gases.

As the Copenhagen conference is generally seen as a platform to create a Kyoto II, these same concerns exist today. My concern has prompted me to adopt the Byrd-Hagel language as a guide and add a provision to address sovereignty concerns. Other Representatives, Senators both, Republicans and Democrats, have taken action and submitted letters of concern to the president or spoken out to the media. I am hopeful this collective voice will not fall on deaf ears.

My resolution, H.Res. 945, expresses the sense of the House of Representatives regarding three nonnegotiable conditions the United States must adhere to while representatives are discussing any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These conditions include not signing a treaty if it results in significant harm to our economy, if it compromises American sovereignty, or if other countries are not held to the same standards.

As the conference enters its second week, I urge the President to make American workers and families his top priority. We cannot afford to keep killing jobs by misguided policy decisions. I hope the United States delegation will reject any ill-conceived scheme of international wealth transfer.