Summary: The United States is once again engaged in the international effort to combat climate change, but significant domestic political obstacles are limiting the degree to which the Administration and Congress can both meet international expectations and adjust to scientific realities. While positive first steps have been made, including the passage of major climate legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, there is a clear understanding in the climate change community that the U.S. is not there yet, and that there is a lot of work to do if any hope of agreement on a global deal on climate change is to materialize by the end of the year in Copenhagen.

Introduction: Six months into the Obama administration, early promises of U.S. leadership on climate change face considerable obstacles. Above all, the Administration is seeking to avoid a repeat of the Clinton Administration's failure in 1997, which was to sign an international climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, only to have the U.S. Congress refuse to ratify it. As such, pressure is building for Congress to conclude a U.S. climate and energy bill in advance of December's UN meeting in Copenhagen, where countries hope to conclude a new international climate agreement. The House has passed a bill that while not ideal, is generally acceptable to the environmental community as a first step. Many organizations are calling on the Senate to strengthen the bill, which is slated for markup in September. Ultimately, the substance of this legislation will either allow, or not allow, the Administration to credibly meet international needs and expectations. But the financial crisis and a fractured Congress are making progress difficult - resulting in policy proposals on emissions reductions and adaptation assistance that may be inadequate in the context of international negotiations. Climate advocates are working feverishly, with Congress and the Administration, to change this.

2 Key Objectives: Efforts to address climate change hinge on two complementary objectives: mitigating climate change (i.e. minimizing the extent of climate change through cutting greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing the ecosystem's ability to absorb, or capture, those emissions), and adapting to climate change (i.e. minimizing the vulnerability of human and natural systems to the effects of climate change). Both objectives emerged as clear international priorities from the UN Bali Climate Conference in late 2007, and agreement on both will be necessary for concluding a global deal in Copenhagen.

Mitigation: Minimizing the extent of climate change has been the primary focus of advocates for quite some time. While mitigation proposals are varied and complex, they primarily center around reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the United States is a party to, includes one particularly critical goal in that respect: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Key mitigation objectives. In terms of reducing emissions, there are key long term, and short term goals being discussed at home and abroad. In the long term, the UNFCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the highly influential Stern Review, and key U.S.-based coalitions, campaigns and NGOs, including 1Sky, the Energy Action Coalition, NWF, and NRDC, have stated that the scale of the climate change problem will require cutting emissions by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In the near term, the IPCC, based on recent science, has called on developed countries to cut emissions by "25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020." A draft treaty prepared by international NGOs reiterates that objective, and most U.S. advocates have embraced it as necessary. Internationally, the European Union is considering 30% reductions below 1990 levels by 2020 if others follow suit, and a bloc of developing countries have demanded 40-60% reductions by 2020 from their developed country partners.

Where are we now? While President Obama committed to capping emissions by 83% below 1990 levels by 2050 in his budget blueprint, the Administration has not yet made specific commitments to emissions targets in international negotiations - preferring to wait for Congress to produce its own. Instead, the Administration has reiterated previously advanced low-end goals (1990 levels by 2020), and spent much of its energy during the recent Bonn negotiations trying to secure commitments from China - whose unwillingness to agree to binding reductions has helped suppress support for U.S. action in Congress.

On the Congressional side, a significant piece of climate legislation (dubbed Waxman-Markey) passed the House of Representatives on June 27 by a close vote of 219 to 212. An analysis by 1Sky demonstrates that the legislation could commit the U.S. to reducing emissions at least 71% below 1990 levels by 2050, and 18% below 1990 levels by 2020. This includes emissions reductions resulting from a new cap-and-trade system, proposed energy efficiency standards, avoided deforestation, and small amounts from "carbon offsets." However, other analyses show that despite the targets, certain key sections of the bill (especially the 'offset' provisions), could result in as little as 2% reductions from current levels by 2020. While the 2050 target is broadly consistent with calls from the IPCC, the broader international community, and key collaborative climate campaigns in the U.S, the 2020 objective falls short, even in the most optimistic of analyses. The Center for American Progress, Grist, and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network have also posted extensive reads on these key parts of the bill. The provisions in the bill are still subject to change, however, especially as the Senate has yet to produce its own version. Overall, while considerable disagreements remain over the consequences of various provisions in the bill, most environmental organizations agree that the passage of Waxman-Markey is a positive start, but that advocates should promote a stronger version in the Senate.

Adaptation (minimizing the vulnerability of human and natural systems to actual, or expected, effects of climate change): While 'mitigation' has been the primary focus of U.S. initiatives thus far, adaptation concerns are equally important and have gained significant traction since the IPCC 4^th Assessment Report and the Bali Climate Conference of 2007. Most analysts agree that to secure a global deal in Copenhagen this December, the developed world will have to provide substantial adaptation assistance to the developing world, which is already facing the effects of climate change - whether it be drought and its impacts on water availability and food production, increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, or the spread of diseases. This is not only seen as a practical matter for securing a deal, but also as a matter of fairness and justice - especially given that the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions stem from the developed world. For this reason, the Bali Action Plan of 2007 included a commitment amongst UNFCCC parties to "support urgent implementation" of programs to "protect poorer countries against climate change impacts."

Key adaptation objectives. A commonly accepted figure in terms of developed country commitments is "$50 billion every year for adaptation financing" - a figure based on a recent study from the UNFCCC secretariat. Key stakeholders in the U.S, such as the National Religious Partnership for the Environment and the Inter Action Climate Change Working Group, have called for 7% of revenues from any future U.S. cap-and-trade market (or about $7 billion) to be directed towards international adaptation - and a total of "$12.5 billion to $21.5 billion per year for international adaptation." U.S. advocates have also supported "adaptation financing that is implemented with adequate accountability, transparency, and community participation."

Where are we now? The Obama Administration has not said very much about adaptation, preferring to remain silent on the subject while allowing Congress to work out the details. The Waxman-Markey legislation, on the other hand, includes specific provisions. It commits 1 percent of 'auction revenue' from the proposed cap-and-trade plan to helping other nations in adapting to climate change, which would then increase to 4% by 2027. According to Vicky Rateau of Oxfam America, this would provide "approximately $750 million annually each for international adaptation and clean energy technology," far short of the $7 billion envisioned by advocates, and requested by developing countries. On the domestic front, the legislation calls for 2 percent of the revenue to help the U.S. adapt to the negative effects of climate change, which would eventually rise to 8 percent. These measures, while welcome, are seen as inadequate by many.

Conclusion: The Obama Administration and Congress have broken considerably with past U.S. intransigence on the climate change issue. Support for concrete and enforceable action on climate change and constructive U.S. leadership within the UNFCCC framework is on the priority list of the highest levels of government, including the White House. Nonetheless, political and economic realities, not the least of which is the financial crisis, remain as obstacles to robust action on the both the domestic and international front. The Obama Administration's international negotiating position will in all likelihood not be clear until the Congress produces a piece of climate legislation that is both passable domestically, and adequate in terms of both global expectations on emissions reductions, and adaptation assistance to the developing world. Organizations working on the issue are, on average, cautiously optimistic - and continue to work feverishly to ensure that a solution emerges which allows the United States to present itself as a responsible leader in the international community, as well as a responsible steward of the Earth's human and natural systems. The intervening months from now until Copenhagen in December are an extraordinarily critical time for the United States, and the world. Watch this space for regular updates as things progress.

Updated: 7/09/2009

This report is part of an extended, regularly updated series on the issues of greatest concern to our community, highlighting the state of play on these key topics, and the state of the key players involved. You may also find an unabidged version of this report here. We strongly encourage community members to comment on and add to this piece by sending an email to Francesco Femia at ffemia@connectusfund.org. We will include all significant updates to these reports in future Connect U.S. Fund newsletters.