Getting the rhetoric right on a US carbon tax: Four lessons to be learned from the cap-and-trade fiasco

It was revealed yesterday that a bi-partisan group of US policymakers have been meeting regularly since 2011 to discuss the way-forward on climate change. One of the items on the agenda: a carbon tax. While the details remain uncertain (the discussions are embargoed under ‘Chatham House Rules’), the fact that there is a public admission that this is being discussed represents a significant step as the US seeks alternatives to the ill-fated cap-and-trade legislation that got killed by the Senate in 2010. One thing that is clear, though, is that this time legislators must get the rhetoric right (a fact that is recognised by the group themselves with the carbon tax discussion coming under the agenda heading ‘Framing and selling a carbon pollution tax’). The rhetoric on the cap-and-trade legislation within Congress was, to be frank, a mess. Here, then, are four lessons that supporters of a carbon tax must learn from the cap-and-trade experience if they are to stand any chance of seeing it become a reality at any point in the near future.

1. Decide whether the legislation is an ‘international’ or ‘domestic’ policy

This seems like an odd place to start – taxes can only be levied within the remit of a nation, no? – but the same was true of the cap-and-trade legislation. Yet it still got bogged-down in the quagmire of international relations (to be polite) and international prejudices (to be less so). In the cap-and-trade debates, Members of Congress kept pointing to the need to act on climate change because of the US’ place as the largest historical emitter in the world, because doing so was for the ‘good of the planet’, and promising that a domestic market could eventually become a global market. At the same time as doing this, they insisted that the legislation was ‘not another Kyoto’ (the hugely unpopular international treaty). All this did was open up the legislation to the attacks of those who so resoundingly rejected the Kyoto Treaty back in 1997. Why should the US act if China and India aren’t going to? They said. How could the US expect to compete with these new burdens placed on their economy which others would not have to suffer? They protested. If this is an international issue, why isn’t the US trying to solve it with an international solution? They (not unfairly) pointed out. All in all, talking about the cap-and-trade legislation through reference to the international need for action on climate change simply confused the issue, and allowed a host of attacks based not on criticisms of the cap-and-trade policy per se, but on the type of policy approach that Congress was adopting. Any carbon tax legislation must, then, emphasise the domestic benefits of this domestic policy. There is no need (rhetorically) to link it to the international arena, so legislators shouldn’t.

2. Decide whether a carbon tax is an environmental, energy, or economic policy issue

The cap-and-trade legislation was promoted on a tripartite basis: it was good for the environment as it capped harmful emissions, would help the US transition to a greener energy mix by implicitly promoting the development of less carbon-intensive technology, and would boost the economy through opening up a new market in emissions trading. While there certainly are inherent linkages between all three of these policy areas when it comes to climate change, and the cap-and-trade legislation did indeed address each to the benefit of the others, rhetorically this strategy was doomed. The logic was that if they could sell the legislation in three ways, chances were that everyone would buy at least one. This logic was flawed. By linking the cap-and-trade legislation to each of these policy issues its supporters opened themselves up to attacks on three-fronts, each of which would have been hard enough to rebut on its own.

If the carbon tax is defined as an energy issue, then it will come under attack from the powerful energy lobbies (and their proxies in Congress). They will claim – as they did with the cap-and-trade legislation – that voluntary measures would be better suited to encouraging carbon-intensive industries to re-focus their investment on greener technologies and modes of production. Likewise, Members of Congress from states whose economies depend on carbon-intensive industries (such as coal-mining) will want guarantees and major concessions to be included in the legislation before they even consider supporting it. This is not an insurmountable obstacle, but it will be enough to overcome on its own, without the added complications of making it an environmental and economic issue as well.

If the carbon tax is communicated as an environmental issue, on the other hand, then the environmental effectiveness of the legislation (no matter its details) will be attacked. Just as opponents did with the cap-and-trade legislation, there will be claims that it is a costly, ineffective, and ultimately unnecessary burden to bear. Congressional supporters of the legislation will have to develop a robust defence of how the tax reflects environmental gains. Furthermore, they will have to develop clear and persuasive arguments as to why these environmental gains need to be made in the immediate; claiming that it is a long-term investment in the current economic climate simply won’t cut it (particularly if it is over hundreds of years). Both Congress and the public are impatient, they must see the potential for gains (of any sort) to be delivered quickly by the carbon tax. Otherwise, it is doomed from the start.

If the carbon tax is deemed an economic policy – which it almost certainly will be – it will be savaged by a Republican party whose USP for the coming election (and in all likelihood for many elections to come) is their determination to never introduce new taxes. Opponents to the cap-and-trade legislation were quick to label it a tax, and the Republicans won’t levy taxes on far less popular sources of revenue (such as banks, or the top 1% of earners), let alone their energy corporation bedfellows. It is possibly worth trying to label the carbon ‘tax’ as anything but, although the potential for this is already slipping away as public discussion perpetuates the use of the label.  They could call it an ‘emissions levy’, a ‘pollution penalty’, ‘a corporate down-payment for the future health of the nation’, or perhaps try to hide it in pseudo-technical terms (‘a fiscal mechanism for sustainable development based upon annual contributions from corporate stakeholders’, perhaps). Nonetheless, whatever they may try, it will probably become (or continue to be) known as a tax (‘carbon’ or ‘climate’) as opponents and reporters alike seek a concise branding for the policy. In spite of sophisticated arguments as to where each tax dollar goes to reduce the deficit (thus increasing the burden on the falling incomes of an ever-strained public), its label alone could be a carbon tax’s downfall.

3. Steer clear of arguments referencing the ethics behind action on climate change

When promoting the cap-and-trade legislation, there was much political posturing (particularly in the House, where a bill did pass) that Congress was acting ever-so honourably for the ‘future of our children and grandchildren’. The implication was that Congress was shouldering some short-term cost for the long-term health of the great nation. The problem is, right now, in the current economic climate, no one cares about their unborn and imagined relatives. Why should they, if paying the bills and feeding those mouths that are already present at the table is burden enough? Claims that a carbon tax (or any other policy, for that matter) are for the benefit of a vague future ‘other’ are only going to fall on deaf ears and suggest the further  detachment of the millionaire Members of Congress from the everyday concerns of the ordinary Joe Public. Furthermore, the US is currently so ideologically divided that to assume that any one Member of Congress’ ethics translates into some public cause for action is to misunderstand the increasing political polarisation underway at every level of the American polity. One liberal’s obligation is likely to be another Conservative’s unnecessary burden; whether it’s for the benefit of future generations or not. A carbon tax, then, is not an ethical or moral action - it is a good policy, period.

4. Emphasise the policy; avoid the science

The cap-and-trade legislation became, once again, a platform on which to put the science of climate change publicly on trial. In their determination to establish a robust defence of the legislation on all fronts, the supporters of cap-and-trade engaged – in painstaking detail – in a description of the scientific foundations of the legislation, graph by graph, figure by figure. Of course, the opposition did the same (with Senator James Inhofe particularly enjoying the opportunity) and found it wanting. Instead, any proposals for carbon tax legislation must do the opposite; ignore the science, stress the policy. The designers must abstract the policy from its scientific roots and stress the reasons for enacting it in purely policy terms; terms that the policymakers within Congress are actually qualified to evaluate rather than the poorly conducted pseudo-scientific review that took place in 2010. That is not to say that the policy should not be based on the best, soundest, most rigorous scientific (and economic) evaluation there is to date - of course it should. But when it comes to legislative debates on a carbon tax - and the rhetorically-driven stage that is the floor of both chambers of Congress - check the science at the door.

Passing any comprehensive climate change legislation in the US Congress has, to date, proved to be an impossible task. This does not mean it will always be so. The policy has to be based on the best evidence, the political context must be forgiving, and there must be a political figurehead willing to stake their future career on an issue that is neither particularly salient nor promises any short-term electoral gains. This context is difficult to engineer and unlikely to occur left to chance. Above all, though, supporters of a carbon tax must get the message right. On this front, as much as any other, they failed with the cap-and-trade legislation. If they learn the lessons of that fiasco maybe – just maybe – the US Congress may finally step up to the plate and enact legislation which makes real, tangible, and significant inroads on the path to reducing the emissions of the world's greatest emitter. We wait, once again, with bated breath.

Weird stuff Republican Congressmen say about climate change

I've spent many many hours in the past few years going through Congressional debates on climate change. One of the most striking things about these discursive set pieces is that, again and again, Republican Members of Congress show an admiral willingness to openly denigrate their political adversaries in a number of creative ways. Below, then, is a quick snapshot of some of my favourite demonstrations of this verbal creativity in which 'climate change' comes to symbolise much more than an environmental dispute, but an issue that serves to reveal the deepest, darkest underbelly of those who wish to act to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions...

Accusing environmental groups of hating capitalism, the free market, and America

Senator Inhofe, 108th Congress:

"I urge my colleagues to... reject approaches designed not to solve an environmental problem but to satisfy the ever-growing demand of environmental groups for money and for power and other extremists who simply do not like capitalism, free markets, and freedom. Climate alarmists see an opportunity here to tax the American people...such a course of action fits a particularly ideological agenda but is entirely unwarranted. It is my fervent hope Congress will reject prophets of doom who peddle propaganda masquerading as science in the name of saving the planet."

Senator Voinovich, 108th Congress:

"Our friends in the environmental community and their allies in Congress have hardened their positions on climate change to the point that voting for carbon caps—despite the tremendous negative impact such caps have on jobs, the poor, and our economy— has become a litmus test. In a word, this position is unreasonable. It is unreasonable that nothing other than capping carbon is acceptable. It is unreasonable that nothing other than forcing utilities to rely solely on natural gas to generate electricity and devastating our economy is acceptable. And, finally, it is unreasonable that nothing other than sending American jobs overseas and driving up energy costs for the poor and elderly on fixed income is acceptable."

"Extremists" who hate "capitalism, free markets, and freedom"? Brilliant! That's a one-two-three knockout right there! "Alarmists" simply looking to tax the hell out of everyone in the name of their "ideological agenda"? Hell yeah! Taxing people unfairly is like a bone to a dog to these people.  "Prophets of doom who peddle propaganda masquerading as science"? The rhythmic belt of this phrase is just astonishing! This would be a great Artist name/Album title combo: 'The Prophets of Doom, releasing their first studio album Propaganda Masquerading as Science in May 2012, available from all good record stores...' It makes Senator Voinovich's assertions that the "environmental community" only want to hurt the "poor and elderly" while "devastating the economy" seem tame in comparison. 

Accusing those who believe in a ‘consensus’ on climate change of politicising science

Senator Inhofe, 108th Congress:

"I believe it would be unconscionable to heed the alarmists’ cries for economic disarmament without subjecting these claims of doom to the scrutiny they deserve. Predictably, those who peddle fear do not want discussions of science. Hiding behind claims of ‘‘the science is settled,’’ they conjure ever more creative ways to market the myth. This is exactly what is wrong with how alarmists discuss this issue. Rather than joining me and those like me in a commitment to using the best, nonpoliticized science— whatever it finds—politically motivated groups… pander to our worst fears to drive their political agenda."

Representative Young, 107th Congress:

"We take a great deal upon ourselves saying it is our fault because of this global warming when, in reality, if we look at the past history of this earth, it was warm at one time, it was very, very cold at one time; and that was before mankind had anything to do with it. So before we jump off the cliff, let us understand one thing: we may not be as important as the gentleman thinks we are."

From the 'alarmist cries' from the 'peddlers of fear' attempting 'economic disarmament' to the nice, easy, objective 'nonpoliticized science' of himself, Senator Inhofe sure knows how to convince people he's the neutral one. I love how he uses the first two sentences to convince people that his opponents are evil, before calling for a more 'reasonable' approach. It's just semantic genuis. As for Representative Young, I love the different tact. Instead of bludgeoning his audience with claims of his superiority, he turns it on its head and accuses his opponents of being arrogant enough to believe their actions can effect something as big, great, and grand as 'the earth'. Humans are simply 'not that important' so lets wash our hands of this obscene idea of human causality.  

Comparing climate change regulation to Nazi ideology

Senator Inhofe, 108th Congress:

"At a press conference on global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, Russian Presidential Economic Advisor Andrei Illarionov made some comments about ideology that are nothing short of remarkable. Let me share with you what he says is driving the global warming debate. Illarionov stated: There have been examples in our fairly recent history of how a considerable portion of Europe was flooded with the brown Nazi ideology, the red Commie ideology that caused severe casualties and consequences for Europe and the entire world. Now there is a big likelihood that a considerable part of Europe has been flooded with another type, another color of ideology—[and he is speaking of global warming here—again, another type, another color of ideology]—but with very similar implications for European societies and human societies the world over. He also said that imposition of the Kyoto Protocol ‘‘would deal a powerful blow on the whole humanity similar to the one humanity experienced when Nazism and communism flourished.’’ And that was the chief economic advisor to Russian President Putin. The world has certainly turned on its head that [sic] we Americans must look to Russians for speaking out strongly against irrational authoritarian ideologies."

Now, this is one of the weirder comparisons Senator Inhofe has made. Climate change regulation as a thinly-veiled Nazi ideology? I know the words aren't originally his, but to have the cahunas to stand on the floor and essentially accuse the Minority Party of aligning themselves with Hitler...?! And then to point out that America has gone so far to pot that the Soviets are now protecting them from such a threat...?! Flabbergasting (and I don't use that term lightly).

Accusing those who want greenhouse gas regulation of hating freedom

Senator Craig, 108th Congress:

"When I decided to enter politics, I was guided by a deep belief in personal freedom—the maximum amount possible for the citizens of our Nation that is consistent with an orderly society. By freedom I mean the opportunity to achieve one’s true potential, whether as an individual, a community, or a business. Freedom spawns discovery and innovation and in turn discovery and innovation solve problems and create opportunities. Regulation is the antithesis of freedom. It certainly retards, if not completely extinguishes our natural desire to discover and be innovative, and yet, we, as a Nation, seem more and more inclined to willingly accept the form of a regulatory state."

Representative Rohrbacher, 110th Congress:

"The big lie their generation has been fed is that the environment is going the wrong way and that they have to give up their freedom, that we have to give up our national sovereignty, and that they have to give up their expectations of certain things in their life because the future is bleak because everything about the environment—the air, the water, the land—are all getting worse when, in fact, there has been tremendous progress made."

'Regulation is the antithesis of freedom', 'extinguishing' the desire to 'discover and be innovative'? It's a silly point so beautifully put in such a bizarre context that it is well deserving of it's place on this list. How can the 'Nation' sit back and let this 'regulatory state' encroach upon them? How can democratically-elected representatives sit and watch as 'true potential' is crushed? All because some people believe too much CO2 is bad for you... This delicate point is very much counterpoised by the melodrama that Representative Rohrbacher brings to the table. 'IT'S ALL GOING WRONG!', he accuses environmentalists of shouting, 'WE'RE ALL SCREWED UNLESS YOU STOP PLAYING PLAYSTATION AND ACCEPT THAT THE CHINESE ARE COMING!', he says we're being told. But, not to worry, he eventually assures us, 'tremendous' (if vague) 'progress' is being made.

Accusing environmentalists of fabricating the case for anthropogenic climate change

Representative Rohrbacher, 110th Congress:

"So what we need to do is to close our eyes, close our eyes and pretend that there are fewer polar bears. That’s the way to do it. That’s the way we should make policy, according to the scaremongers. But the case is not closed. The gnomes of climate theory are now coming up with self-serving explanations and verbal maneuvers. The first attempt to cover their tracks has been slow but ever so clever. The words ‘‘climate change’’ have now replaced the words ‘‘global warming.’’...But if they use the words ‘‘climate change,’’ how are we going to counteract their policy recommendations when now whatever happens to the climate, they can justify it based on climate change? Sorry, fellows. Do you really think the world and the United States is filled with morons? I mean, bait-and-switch is an old game, and we’ve seen it in car salesmen; and car salesmen, I might add, are paragons of virtue compared to this global warming crowd... Let us not let the alarmists take this country down the wrong path. Let’s let the children of this country and planet have the freedom and prosperity we enjoyed, and not give it away to hucksters who would frighten us into giving up our birthright in the name of saving the planet. Sounds noble, but it’s just a trick, a hoax. The greatest hoax of all."

There's simply so much going on here that is exciting! 'Close your eyes and pretend'? OK! 'Don't make policy according to scaremongers'? I don't remember that being in the Democrats' manifesto, but sure, lets not do that! Don't believe the 'Gnomes of climate theory' - or just never believe a Gnome...? Is the 'United States filled with morons'? Well, no, but then I didn't realise many of them had a habit of making policy based on scaremongering Gnomes... Environmentalists as 'car salesmen' - seems a clunky metaphor given the subject matter (cars-emissions-no...?), but let's go with it. They're 'hucksters', yeah! (What the heck is a 'husckster'?) I mean saving the planet you rely on for life may sound 'noble' (is that not maybe because it is...?), but who wants to be noble! Screw them! Oh, and it's a HOAX?! Well, why didn't you say so before! Lets go storm the nearest second-hand car retailer, or should that be gardencentre? Wait, i'm confused, who do we hate? Gnomes, car-salesmen, hucksters, or environmentalists? Where's Inhofe when you need him...

Accusing environmentalists of targeting children as a recruitment activity

Senator Inhofe, 110th Congress:

"...it is important to take note of our pop culture propaganda campaign aimed at children, the most vulnerable of all of us. In addition to Gore’s entry last year into Hollywood fictional disaster films, other celebrity figures have attempted to jump into the game. Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio decided to toss objective scientific truth out the window in his new scarefest ‘‘The 11th Hour.’’ … DiCaprio said on May 20 of this year: I want the public to be very scared by what they see. I want them to see a very bleak future… Children are now the No. 1 target of the global warming fear campaign. DiCaprio announced his goal was to recruit young, eco-activists to the cause. ‘‘We need to get kids young,’’ he said, in a September 20 interview with USA Weekend… Unfortunately, children are hearing the scientifically unfounded doomsday message loudly and clearly. But the message kids are receiving is not a scientific one, it is a political message designed to create fear, nervousness, and ultimately recruit them to liberal activism."

Al Gore as a 'celebrity' who now makes 'Hollywood fictional disaster films'? Last I checked he was an ex-Vice President and long-serving Senator, but as career-switches go it's not completely infeasible, I guess. And Leo DiCaprio is getting in on the act now too? What the one who was in that film about the really dangerous icebergs? He wants us to save more of them?! That's insane! And he's targetting CHILDREN?! He wants our kids to be scared of an impending doom that will never (probably, possibly, maybe) come?! What a horrible chap. Particularly if he's trying to 'recruit them to liberal acitvism'. Now polar bears, icebergs, and eco-activism I can just about take, but 'liberal activism'... now that's just going too far!


All in all a fantastic effort all round, I hope you'll agree.

A brief legislative history of climate change in the United States Congress, 102nd through 110th Congresses

A brief foray into the State of the Union addresses given by the last four incumbents of the White House – all delivered in person to the complete set of members of both Chambers of Congress (and via the media to the watching public in the US and around the world) - offers a glimpse into the evolving relationship between the President, the legislature, and the issue of climate change. While President George H.W. Bush was perhaps not the ‘environmental president’ that he campaigned to be leading up to his election in 1989 (Andrews 2006), that he signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (which was subsequently ratified by the Senate) added some substance to his assertions that the United States government “owe the generations of the future... the certainty that here at home, and especially in our dealings with other nations, environmental issues have the status they deserve”[1]. President Clinton’s rhetoric continued in a same vain. Months before he eventually signed the Kyoto Protocol, he pleaded with Congress in his sixth State of the Union address in January 1998 that “our overriding environmental challenge tonight is the worldwide problem of climate change, global warming, the gathering crisis that requires worldwide action... We have it in our power to act right here, right now”[2]. With the inauguration of President George W. Bush Jnr., though, the pleading stopped. He was ‘unequivoval’ in his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, and left the Senate in no doubt that a ratification vote would not be necessary[3]. In his only explicit references to climate change in his State of the Union addresses - in 2007 and 2008 – he made reference to ‘technological breakthroughs’ at the expense of international cooperation, comprehensive legislation, or stringent regulation. In his inaugural State of the Union address, President Obama promised to act to “save our planet from the ravages of climate change”[4]. But he was faced by an institution which had never passed minor – let alone comprehensive – legislation in the name of mitigating for climate change. It is as if whatever was said, and whichever President delivered it, the noise would rise to the top of the Capitol dome to linger and diffuse; Congress, unmoved. The following is a brief legislative history of that (in)action.

The 102^nd Congress: The dawn of international cooperation on climate change, and Congress supports it

In June 1992, 172 governments, with 108 Heads of State present, gathered to in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for a UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also dubbed the ‘Earth Summit’. President George H.W. Bush arrived in Rio as a “global environmental spoilsport” (Wines 1992)[5] and left without shaking that reputation. Throughout the negotiations, the United States promoted their vision of a world order led by Washington, in which the UN process was expected to bow to President Bush’s demands. Ultimately, however, while concessions were made, the United States did leave with a number of new commitments. They signed the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, agreed to Agenda 21 (which outlines a comprehensive plan for dealing with human impacts on the environment), and signed a new climate change treaty; the UNFCCC.

In preparation for the summit, two resolutions were passed by Congress, expressing their preferences for the outcomes in Rio. While a large range of environmental issues were up for debate in Rio – from sustainable development, to forestry regulations, to alternative energy research agendas – both these resolutions contained explicit references to climate change. H. Con. Res. 292: Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to United States participation in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which passed in the House on March 17^th 1992, stated that the President and his negotiating team had an explicit mandate to “negotiate international agreements that effectively reduce the threat of climate change and biological diversity loss”. A couple of weeks later, an equivalent resolution was passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate. In S. Con. Res. 89: A concurrent resolution to express the sense of the Congress concerning the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the sentiment of the House resolution was echoed, endorsing the President to “support an international convention to reduce the threat of global climatic change”. However, S. Con. Res 89 placed some important caveats on this. In particular, in Section (b), it declares that, “the President should not support any action or undertake any commitment pursuant to section (a) which he believes would have an adverse effect on the competitiveness of American industry or that would result in a net long-term loss of American jobs”. After the various wrangling by the US’ Chief Negotiator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator William K. Reilly, concessions from the ‘rest of the world’, and complaints from the White House, the UNFCCC was ratified by the Senate on the 2^nd April 1992 without amendment, debate, or any complaint at all.

The 103^rd and 104^th Congresses: Research, not regulation

After this flurry of climate change related activity in the 102^nd Congress, the 103^rd and 104^th Congresses were very quiet by comparison. In the House, H.R. 970: Emergency Climate Stabilization and Earth Regeneration Act of 1992, was held up in numerous committees in the 103^rd, while two bills relating to environmental research were reported by Committee but never voted on. In the Senate, a bill was introduced to improve the workings of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (S. 2432), but never made it out of committee.


The 105^th Congress: The Senate stamps its authority on climate change

In 1997, the roles of villain and hero were somewhat reversed from those that the President and Congress played in 1992. President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore led an environmental executive in stark contrast to the administration of President George H.W. Bush. During his time in the US Senate, the Vice President had worked to increase awareness and understanding of climate change and global warming, and the 3^rd Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP3) in Kyoto represented an opportunity for him to continue this work beyond the walls of the Capitol. Nonetheless, the US delegation knew that returning with any treaty that did not include equivalent legally binding commitments on developing nations and economic competitors, such as China, would make ratification nigh-on impossible.

The negotiators knew this because Congress had made its position clear in another set of resolutions. While some were supportive in tone - H. Con. Res. 106 mandated the US delegation to pursue legally binding emissions limits and H. Con.  Res. 157 called for the US to show leadership of a positive nature (in contrast to that shown in Rio) – the only resolution to be adopted, S. Res. 98: A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (also known as the Byrd-Hagel resolution), outlined two clear principles that must be part of any treaty for the Senate to consider ratification. The resolutions states that:

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would—

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States

The resolution was introduced on the 12^th of June 1997, and passed in the Senate on a 95-0 vote on the 25^th July that year. As such, a full four months before negotiations were due to start at COP3 in Kyoto, the United States delegation knew what it needed to attain were any treaty to be ratified.

The 106^th, 107^th, 108^th, and 109^th Congresses: No will, no bills

President Clinton entered his final year of office convinced that his administration could still put the US on the path “to reverse the course of climate change and leave a safer, cleaner planet”[6]. However, the 106^th Congress failed to deliver the building blocks for this goal. In 1999, climate change bills had been introduced in both chambers: S. 882: Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999 in the Senate, and H.R. 3384: Energy and Climate Policy Act of 1999 in the House. Both were sent to committee but were never discussed or reported on. As President George W. Bush took office in January 2001 and quickly retracted support for the Kyoto Protocol or any form of legally-binding mandatory emissions targets (preferring the environmentally inferior measure of emissions intensities), the Members of the 107^th Congress took their seats again left two climate change bills to die, this time both in the Senate: S. 1294: Climate Change Risk Management Act of 2001 which was again sponsored by Senator Murkowski, and S. 1716: Global Climate Change Act of 2001 sponsored by the man who was to be President George W. Bush’s next electoral opponent, Senator John Kerry. The 108^th Congress saw the first round of Climate Stewardship Acts fail (S. 139 in the Senate and H.R. 4067 in the House). These acts would become a fixture on the Congressional Calendar for the following three Congresses.

Tensions between Congressional Democrats and what was perceived to be an obstructive and climate sceptic White House were also evident in this period. Two resolutions were introduced in the 109^th Congress which sought to shine a spotlight on President George W. Bush’s neglect (at best) and denial (at worst) of the issue: S. Res. 312 was introduced into the Senate on November 15^th 2005, and reported by the Senate Committee on International Relations on May 23^rd 2006, which called for an increase in the US’ engagement in international negotiations on climate change, while H. Res. 515 called on the President to hand over documents relating to the anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the US to the House of Representatives. While S. Res. 312 emphasised the need for US participation on the issue of climate change at the international level, it also made clear that the Senate would only accept a treaty fulfilling the same criteria (if not more stringent criteria) as were outlined in S. Res. 98 almost a decade earlier. Neither resolution was adopted in either Chamber, as S. Res. 312 timed-out and H. Res. 515 was never reported by committee.

The 110^th Congress: A Democratic Senate comes close

The 110^th Congress started off with climate change infiltrating the Congressional consciousness through various tributes to Al Gore, congratulating him on his share of a Nobel Prize for raising awareness on the issue (H. Res. 197, H. Res. 735, H. Res. 739 in the House, and S. Res. 349 in the Senate). The Senate Resolution, which was the only one adopted, thanked Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their “longstanding efforts to promote understanding of the threats posed by global warming”. In the meantime, Senators were busy trying to persuade each other that these threats required legislative action.

The second session of the 110^th Congress saw the Senate come as close as it ever had (or has since) to passing a climate change bill. The S. 2191: Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007 was introduced into the Senate on the October 18^th 2007. It was a cap-and-trade bill which aimed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by between 60% and 65% below present levels by 2050. The bill had some support from business as it planned to allocate, rather than auction, the initial permits. The bill was reported favourably by the Environment and Public Works Committee on December the 5^th with amendments in the form of a substitute bill. That substitute bill, S. 3036: Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, was introduced on 20^th May 2008 and reported out of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works the very next day. From June 2^nd to June 6^th the bill was debated as Democrats sought to repel the threat of a Republican filibuster. Ultimately, they could not garner the votes to avoid this, and on June 7^th, the bill was returned to the schedule, killing it for at least that Congressional session.

This was to be the final climate change related action of a Democratic Senate legislating against the will of a now lame-duck President George W. Bush. The following year President Obama entered the White House promises a phase-shift into the US’ approach to climate change. However, numerous battles abounded in the his first term, particularly once the House of Representatives swung back to the control of the Republicans and the Democrats majority in the Senate was severely cut after the November mid-terms of 2009. Implementing a sweeping legislative agenda – which included both significant healthcare reform and comprehensive climate change legislation – became an insurmountable task. And while the spectre of the COP15 in Copenhagen was instrumental in getting a House bill (H.R. 2454) passed in the 111^th Congress. H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 contained the same emissions reductions aims as S.3036 that had failed in the Senate in the previous Congress. But the Senate’s form continued as its equivalent bill, S. 1733: Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, once again faltered in spite of the Democrats forcible legislative efforts.  


NOTE: This is meant as an introduction to some of the key legislative events related to climate change that occurred from 1992 to 2008. If there's anything you think i've missed, please say so in a comment below and i'll look into adding it. 

---

[1] President George H.W. Bush, State of the Union, Jan 31 1990 - http://legacy.c-span.org/Transcripts/SOTU-1990.aspx

[2] President Cliton, SOU address Jan 1998 - http://legacy.c-span.org/Transcripts/SOTU-1998.aspx

[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1248278.stm

[4] President Obama, SOU address 2009 - http://legacy.c-span.org/Transcripts/SOTU-2009-0224.aspx

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/11/world/earth-summitbush-rio-president-has-uncomfortable-new-role-taking-hard-line-earth.html?scp=4&sq=Rio+Earth+Summit&st=nyt

[6] President Clinton SOTU Jan 27^th 2000 - http://legacy.c-span.org/Transcripts/SOTU-2000.aspx

'Climate change' not high on President Obama's agenda towards the end of his first term

The analysis below suggests that as President Obama nears the end of his second term in office, 'climate change' continues to slide down his agenda. A quantitative content analysis¹ of his Speeches and Remarks from 2009 through 2011 (so far) shows that he is mentioning the phrase 'climate change' increasingly infrequently. Furthermore, when he does mention it, he often does so in speeches with a foreign policy focus, suggesting that he may have lost hope of any real success on the issue in the United States itself.

The dataset:

The data is taken from the White House Press Office’s record of ‘Speeches and Remarks’ available on WhiteHouse.gov. In total, the search returned 90 cases where ‘climate change’ had been mentioned in President Obama’s Speeches or Remarks from 2009 through 2011.

Mentions of ‘climate change’ by year:

In 2011, climate change has so far been mentioned in 20 of President Obama’s official speeches or remarks. This is down from 2010 where the number was 45, but looks set to be slightly higher than the 2009 total of 25 speeches and remarks in which ‘climate change’ was mentioned (see figure 1).

Figure 1: President Obama's 'Speeches and Remarks' containing references to 'climate change', by year

Mentions of climate change by ‘issue tag’²:

The White House Press Office assigns an ‘issue tag’ to each of the President’s Speeches and Remarks. These issue tags are not discreet: i.e. a single Speech or Remark can be tagged as relating to both ‘Energy and the Environment’ and ‘Economy’. Furthermore, not all Speeches and Remarks are tagged. Of the 90 Speeches and Remarks in the sample, there were 88 tags across 21 issue categories. The most common issue in which ‘climate change’ was mentioned was ‘Foreign Policy’ (accounting for about 30% of the total issue tags). The next two most common issue tags were ‘Economy’ and ‘Energy and the Environment’ (both accounting for about 17% of the issue tags overall). Figure 2 shows a complete breakdown of the issue tags assigned for Speeches and Remarks containing references to ‘climate change’. The ‘Other’ Category contains those issue tags that were assigned less than 3 times overall.

Figure 2: Issue tags for Speeches and Remarks containing mentions of 'climate change'

Analysis:

2010 was the year for climate change for President Obama

2010 not only had more mentions of ‘climate change’ in President Obama’s Speeches and Remarks overall, but ‘climate change’ was mentioned in reference to a far larger number of issues. While in 2011, ‘climate change’ has only been mentioned in speeches relating to 7 different issues, in 2010 it was mentioned in relation to 20 different issues. In other words, while ‘climate change’ has been largely restricted to statements relating to foreign policy, the environment, and the economy in 2011 – in 2010 President Obama was keen to make it part of many other stories; from ‘Healthcare’ to ‘Education’, and ‘Homeland Security’ to ‘Immigration’.

The amount of Speeches and Remarks that ‘climate change’ has been mentioned in 2011 so far suggest that it will feature more often throughout the year than in 2009, where the President’s attention was required in other policy areas such as healthcare, but not as often as in 2010. The mentions of ‘climate change’ were relatively low in 2009  in spite of electoral pledges in 2008 on the issue of climate change that the President seemed to abandon relatively early on in his term. Likewise, this analysis suggests that the Copenhagen climate change summit in December 2009 led to greater engagement with the issue of climate change by the President in the aftermath of its failure, rather than in the significant run-up to the summit itself.

'Climate change' is considered a foreign policy issue

This analysis also shows that ‘climate change’ is much more likely to be mentioned by the President in terms of foreign policy than anything else. While some of the cases here were Speeches and Remarks to domestic organisations, such as the Democrat National Committee, many were to foreign press-packs or joint-statements with Premier’s from other countries. This suggests that the President is far more likely to discuss climate change in the international arena (in terms of both policy and setting) where it can be framed in terms of shared duties, than at home where the issue remains controversial or non-salient.

It also suggests that the President is more likely to mention the issue when there is some implicit international pressure. It suggests that if the President’s focus is solely on domestic affairs, then climate change is far less likely to feature in one of his Speeches or Remarks. However, in the international arena the President – and by default, the United States – are forced to engage with the issue of climate change much more frequently.


Endnotes: 

1. This analysis is a quantitative content analysis. As such, it relies on the categorisations of both ‘Speeches and Remarks’ and ‘issue tags’ of the White House, not the author. Furthermore, there are limits to how much ‘mentions’ of ‘climate change’ can tell us; with some mentions obviously being more significant than others.
2. To clarify, the ‘issue tags’ are different to ‘speeches made’. For example there are 88 issue tags in the dataset for 90 speeches. This is a subtle but important difference. For instance, President Obama does not mention ‘climate change’ in reference to ‘foreign policy’ in 45% of his speeches. Instead, of the mentions of climate change in the dataset, 45% of them are in reference to foreign policy issues. I.e. it is 45% of the tags, not the speeches.

You want to save the world? Forget Obama and go persuade the middle managers of the U.S.

Much can be said about the nature of American federalism - good, bad, and ugly. But when it comes down to it, the one thing that may actually save the world could be America's variety.

That a nation that has for the past 200 years had one President, one federal legislature, and one all powerful court yet remains as disparate and diverse as America demonstrates the determined individualism and persistent resistance to comprehensive homogeneity in the U.S. That you can wander through New Orleans and be dumb-struck by the devastation and destruction one day, and stroll through the beaches of California and be dumb-struck by the vulgar materialism of it all the next, illustrates the point. I'm not saying that were Coventry to be leveled by a Tornado that shopping in Chelsea would immediately cease, but i think it would probably continue to make the national news for considerably longer than Katrina did. American's love their State, not so much their nation. When they say 'God Bless America' what they actually mean is 'God Bless America; which is Texas; which is Me'. Herein lies what i believe could be the answer to saving the planet from the McAmericans; aim for the States.

There is an inherent symmetry in the American political systems that makes it much more effective to go for the middle-layer of influence (States), than for the top (federal) or bottom (the People). We can try to make people stop driving, turn off their air conditioners, and eat locally in the hope that essentially everyone does but, i'm sorry, IT WON'T WORK. We can hang on every word that Obama says and continue to acclaim him as the saviour of us all in the hope that he can persuade a resistant Congress and a difficult People that it's worth giving the green life a go but, sadly, IT WON'T WORK. We can go to the State legislators and suggest state-wide and regional emissions trading systems, and push for an increase in the use of sustainable transport but, i'm sorry, IT WON'T... oh, it has worked.

In the last couple of months alone, California - a state with more plastic than a bag of Haribo being run by a man who (until recently) looked more like an action figure than a real person - has just committed itself to producing a third of it's electricity from renewable sources. Hawaii has followed suit and has announced a mass network of charging points to accommodate all the lovely new electric cars they're going to get. And it's not just the States, thirteen major U.S. cities are part of the C40 climate leadership group which was set up by a president (Clinton), but only after he'd left office.

Looking further a field (or, as it were, closer to home) the UK continues to try to influence the behaviour of others, but shouldn't we tend to our own back yard first? Arguments persist that an EU-integrated approach is key to success at a global level. This is true. But it could also be true that national examples are the most effective way of persuading others to follow? Britain is very much taking it's wind policy prompts from Germany, and people in the UK continue to marvel at the relatively cheap, efficient, and effective transport infrastructure that is in place across most of the continent. The argument goes that a global deal saves the world; but the fact remains that a global deal only saves the world if it is a good one. In the meantime, why not look closer to home - not as individuals but as States and, if need be, large cities. Then we can go and say 'look, we have; so why don't you?' and, furthermore, 'this is how'. If France reduced it's emissions by 50% in the next three years without imploding then i'd be damned in the rest of the EU didn't follow suit. Likewise, if America could show China and India that it has 'gone green' then a comprehensive international agreement would be that much closer.

America is not a 'green' nation of 'green' citizens, and I don't believe it ever will be. What it can be, though, is an environmentally-friendly nation formulated on the collective efforts of the States. We don't need to persuade everyone to do what's right by the planet; we need to persuade the right people; and the right people are not always the most powerful. Instead of exhausting large expense and effort at the highest level trying to persuade actors with very little room to maneuver, lets expend a little more lower down and see if we can sort it out for ourselves. We need to aim efforts towards those who are essentially the middle managers, the 'Coca-Cola League 2', the 'Team GB's third bronze of the Games', of the most consuming country on the earth; not their Chief Executive. Ultimately, it may be the middle people who save us all.