Andrew Light at the Center for American Progress wrote today:
"In a historic address to the world today at the U. N. Climate Summit, President Barack Obama acknowledged what no other U.S. president has acknowledged before: That the United States has not been living up to its historical responsibility to respond to climate change: "It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day." In another first he acknowledged that developed countries like the United States "caused much of the damage to our climate" and "have a responsibility to lead." ...
Two new announcements stand out from the address.
First, that the United States will embark on a first ever program to track the amount of greenhouse gas pollution emitted throughout the country. ...
Second, that the United States will propose a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies at the G-20 meeting later this week in Pittsburgh, PA. This idea was originally floated in a letter to colleagues by White House G-20 leader Michael Froman on September 3 arguing that moving to an elimination of fossil fuel and electricity subsidies would "help energy markets work better and improve our energy efficiency."
Link to transcript here
Julian L. Wong of CAP looked at Chinese President Hu Jintao's speech:
"President Hu Jintao of China announced that China will build on existing domestic climate change policies as embodied in its National Climate Change Program and current Five Year Plan to step up its efforts on energy efficiency, development of low-carbon energy such as renewables and nuclear, and increase of forestry cover.
Most noteworthy was President Hu’s introduction of a new goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product from 2005 levels by 2020 by a "notable margin." No specific numbers were provided, but this should not be surprising as such a far-reaching national policy must undergo various necessary legislative steps before it can become domestically binding. However this is the clearest signal yet that China is willing to take on responsibilities that are commensurate with its resources and global emissions impact. This policy would set China on a path to slow down its carbon emissions growth, and implicitly commits China to measure and report carbon emmissions in some verifiable way - a result that begins to meet the expectations that developed nations have of China.
The significance of President Hu’s announcements are best understood in the context of other very recent Chinese policy developments. In August, China’s State Council, led by Premier Wen Jiabao, laid down the objective of incorporating climate change considerations into the medium and long-term development strategies and plans of the Chinese government at every level. Later the same month, the standing committee of the National People’s Congress, essentially the inner circle of China’s main legislative body, adopted a resolution on climate change action that explicitly calls for the strengthening of domestic climate legislation while giving assurance that it will be a constructive player in the international climate process.
The question for Americans to ask: What will Washington vow to do 76 days from now in Copenhagen? Governments around the world have been making bold statements about the need to act since the 1992 Rio conference. And yet, here we are, 17 years later, and still we have not yet a solid framework for moving forward. Even with the dire necessity to take action on climate change no longer a doubt except in the minds of ignoramuses, shills and the self-interested corporadoes running operations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it is unlikely the Senate will move fast enough to produce a better version of the House-passed American Clean and Secure Energy Act in time for Obama's signature prior to the meeting in Denmark.
Obviously frustrating. But, under the circumstances, it might turn out to be a good thing. Passing legislation in a hurry might well produce a bill even weaker than the House's. Arriving in Denmark for climate talks with a bill that, despite many good elements, is coal-heavy could be a detriment to America's role in the talks. A better bill could be drafted early in 2010. On the other hand, not getting a bill done now might mean there would be even more Big Energy and Chamber of Commerce pressure to weaken the bill several months from now. It's a bit of a crapshoot.
If the White House team does arrive in Copenhagen without signed legislation in hand, it will not only have to speak boldly, but also to subsequently act that way if the United States is to have a strongly positive impact on international action. And that will mean upstaging Congress in the process. Whatever flaws are in China's energy-expansion and carbon-control plans, Beijing has taken away America's last remaining excuses (used by the Bush administration) for dragging its feet in dealing with climate change.
Even a moderately bold stance - one that Obama should had taken in his speech today - would set a 20/20 goal for 2020. That is, 20% carbon emissions reduction, and a 20% renewable energy standard. Hardly radical. That's what the European Union vowed to shoot for two years ago. By gubernatorial edict, California's RES standard for 2020 is now set for 33%.
To be sure, Obama's speech was intentionally broad, not deep. But it could mark the beginning of a sharp change not just in U.S. rhetoric on climate change, but also in moving rapidly to actually do something about it. As usual, this will depend not merely on how much actual determination to act there is in the administration, but on how much pressure rank-and-file Americans are willing to exert in opposition to the naysayers and go-slowers who have hamstrung policy change for so many years.