A Chill Pill On Global Warming

It is usually a pity when environmental issues get political. But because they do some analysis on political strategy is due. Climate change legislation has stalled out in Congress. It has come some of the way, but it is far from a finalized piece of legislation with the votes to pass. This has left the Obama administration in a bit of a bind when it comes to the negotiation of an international climate change treaty (scheduled to culminate in Copenhagen in December). The goal of reducing U.S. GHG emissions is well beyond the scope of the executive office alone. So, Obama finds himself in need of the Congress and a climate change bill. The president's political capital is strong, but he is spread thin because of the persistent health care reform issue.

While a strong stance by the U.S. would go a long way towards changing the current state of affairs, the prospect of a meaningful deal at Copenhagen remains bleak. With such disappointment looming, environmentalists should now begin to realize their doomsday-all-or-nothing strategy for an agreement was a poor strategy to adopt. While it is true that climate change is the single largest environmental issue of our time, Copenhagen surely does not represent the last and only chance for concerned persons to change the course of GHG emissions. It has been popular to propagate this idea. In some ways, this strategy makes sense. If you could create enough urgency, you might get something done. But like any attempt to scare people into action, it risks shooting itself in the foot if people aren't scared enough (read: if no deal is reached by Copenhagen).

A strategy to scare people into achieving an agreement at Copenhagen relies on making people believe it all has to happen at that meeting and that if it doesn't, then you've missed your chance to do anything meaningful. Following the logic of that message would mean if Copenhagen comes and goes without an agreement, then we all might as well find something else to do while we wait for the melted Arctic to end up in our backyard. But no environmentalist, sustainability enthusiast, or concerned citizen would seriously suggest that a failure at Copenhagen means all other attempts are in vain. It is admirable to try and put pressure on leaders to come to an agreement, but it has been foolish to engage in do-or-die messaging in order to apply that pressure.

We need action as soon as possible on climate change and GHG emissions. Talking about Copenhagen as if it is humanity's last hope is reckless and has more potential to backfire than to benefit the effort.