U.S. President Barack Obama is shown on a Greenpeace billboard in Copenhagen's airport in the lead-up to the United Nations climate-change summit in December, 2009.
Perusing my morning read, I see that "a coalition of 450 environmental groups awarded Canada a Fossil of the Day award" while, on the other hand, the Obama administration was being praised in Copenhagen.
Very strange.
Because over at The New York Times, I read that Canada, the perennial front-runner for the Fossil award, had to settle for third prize yesterday; that second place went to Finland, Austria and Sweden for floating a proposal adopted by the EU; and that first prize went to all the industrialized countries - presumably including the United States - "for collectively showing up in Copenhagen with too low an ambition level to cut carbon and prevent catastrophic climate change."
On the positive side, one thing on which everyone seems to agree is that there was a mood of optimism at the conference due to yesterday's announcement by the Obama administration that the EPA has formally declared greenhouse gases a danger to human health and subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. However, one really has to wonder why delegates greeted by placards reading "Binding Deal for a Safe Future" as they enter the conference would be celebrating that news.
The EPA announcement will have little tangible effect for the foreseeable future; indeed, it was likely specifically timed to burnish President Barack Obama's credentials before he arrives in Copenhagen. Meanwhile, back home, the threat of EPA regulation is said to be designed to pressure the Senate into enacting legislation to implement a nation-wide cap and trade system.
However, if the United States chooses to go the EPA route, it would take at least a year before the regulations are written and many more years before the case ultimately wends its way to the Supreme Court. And have I mentioned all those justices George W. Bush appointed to the bench? And even if the court upholds the EPA regulations, a future administration could cancel them with a stroke of the pen. Which is not exactly the kind of certainty the international community is looking for.
Let's be frank: The organizers of the Copenhagen conference have given up on the original goal of a binding international treaty. Looking for a way to avoid failure - as political leaders are wont to do - they've come up with a fallback plan to get as much substantive agreement as possible and hope that President Obama can sort out his problems with the U.S. senate before the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012.
Here's the problem with the strategy: rather than rush to enact legislation, Republicans will be inclined to view the EPA's announcement as a bluff. Knowing that nothing will happen on the regulatory front in the short to medium term, they will gladly use the political agreement that comes out of Copenhagen as a stick with which to beat Democrats in the 2010 mid-term elections. And to fill their election chest thanks to the fury of the business community.
With other countries pressing the United States for deeper emission cuts and more generous financing of developing countries, the agreement that comes out of Copenhagen could look pretty good for Republicans and pretty bad for Democratic candidates if the Obama administration folds. Nine Democratic senators wrote President Obama last week setting out their bottom line - an early indication that if China and India are given a pass by the international community as they were at Kyoto, the issue could split the Party and play for Republicans into the 2012 presidential election campaign.
(Photo: The U.S. President is shown on a Greenpeace billboard in Copenhagen's airport in the lead-up to the climate-change summit.Christian Aslund/AFP/Getty Images)