A legally enforceable domestic bill and a legally enforceable international treaty have, at times, resembled a chicken and egg. The United States needed to pass a strong climate bill before Copenhagen; then it needed to structure the framework of a treaty in Copenhagen; now it needs to pass a climate bill, negotiate a treaty at the next Conference of the Parties in Mexico City, and get 67 votes in the Senate on the treaty or, perhaps, 60 votes in the Senate and a simple majority in the House.
Initially, I thought Obama increased the climate bill’s chances in the Senate. He and negotiator Todd Stern made it clear to all in Copenhagen that they respected the Senate’s authority; they would not and could not commit to more in Copenhagen than the climate bill (in all its permutations – Waxman-Markey, Kerry-Boxer, Kerry-Graham-Lieberman framework) promised. He personally negotiated the Copenhagen Accord with the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China). Although one fly on the wall commentary maintains that China punked the rest of the negotiators, a close observer of China’s position on climate, Julian Wong of the Green Leap Forward concludes that China ended up in a draw with the rest of the world. In any case, some Senators are obsessed with China, and their obsession affects their position on the climate bill.
Reuters concludes that the Copenhagen Accord hurt the climate bill because the accord didn't contain any emission targets, thus enabling Senators concerned about locking China into a specific number.
A quick comparison of the language of the accord (6 page pdf) and the concerns expressed by various Democratic senators over the course of the fall shows little that would add to their comfort level.
* Tariffs: a group of nine "Brown Dog" Senators who insist on border adjustment mechanisms before considering the climate bill may not be mollified because the accord says nothing about tariffs or similar topics.
* Transparency: prior to the accord, US Senators had insisted that everything from China be measureable, reportable, and verifiable, while China resisted fiercely. The final accord – measured domestically within China (and other countries still considered "developing" according to the Kyoto protocol), subject to international consultations and analysis – may not please Senators.
* Climate finance: Bashing giveaways of American dollars to other countries is a perennial bipartisan sport, likely to be especially popular in years with large deficits and shrinking job markets. The accord is somewhat vague on financing, but I predict a large outcry at the idea of climate finance when the issue comes into sharper focus.
Brad Johnson at the Wonk Room collects statements made by Senators suffering from what I call Anti-Sino Syndrome.
Separately, Politico manifests an entirely separate species of Testy Republicans Of Little Love for the planet: Healthcare reform has been too nasty for us to be bipartisan on the climate bill! Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, all considered potential yes votes on the climate bill, decry the poisoned atmosphere of the Senate. And anonymous sources deliver a eulogy for the Kerry-Boxer bill:
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have pronounced dead a climate bill introduced earlier this year by Kerry and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), because of the partisan way it passed through Boxer’s committee. Instead, Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have been getting input from members across the Senate as they attempt to craft a bipartisan climate bill.
Concern trolling by TROLLs and asinine statements by @SSes both need to be taken with a grain of salt. The Copenhagen Accord is proving to be a Rorscharch test distinguishing optimists who praise engagement with China from pessimists who decry its various weaknesses. On balance, I’d conclude that the Copenhagen Accord will have the same effect on the climate bill as giving chicken soup to a corpse: it can’t hurt, but it’s not going to create a positive result either.
(Cross-posted at The Seminal)