America and the Kyoto Protocol

America is the only country in the world that did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the only document that legally binds nations to emissions reductions under international law. The reasoning in the Senate back in the late 1990s was that the structure of the document was flawed because it allows developing countries to emit a certain amount as they develop their economies while developed countries had to take steps to cut emissions. The clinch point for the Senate was China. Our Senators believed that if China did not commit to binding emissions cuts, then the Chinese could emit more CO2, and so would out compete our businesses.

Our Senate's action upon this deeply flawed assumption has made the U.S. much less competitive in the long term. This is a much bigger issue than just “oh no, China is going to out compete us.” The whole world has been orienting their institutions, production facilities, and markets to make more with less. More and more investment firms are now asking for CO2 emissions data from major companies to gauge whether or not a company's business model is sustainable and hence a good long-term investment. More and more countries have passed tough energy efficiency standards on their products, and so if we do not adopt similar standards, then we cannot export certain goods to major markets (e.g. many American cars cannot be sold in most other developed countries because we haven't bothered to work on fuel efficiency). One British economist recently predicted that if the United States does not take significant steps to cut its emissions, then our country could eventually face trade sanctions due to the unfair competitive advantage we might have as we produce dirtier products.

Our leaders' out of step attitude on climate change and their inaction on the climate change issue as being directly detrimental to future financial well-being of all American citizens, as well as to American economic power. It is an option to continue to be the only country on the planet to do nothing about climate change, but it is getting to the point that it will be economically harmful in the short term.

Here at the climate negotiations, the whole world is desperately negotiating around our climate change inaction, making concessions so that some agreement can be arranged that is acceptable to our people. We are the most powerful nation in the world and we could be working to create a consensus about a future-oriented climate agreement that sets the U.S. on track to remain the world's top economic power in the 21^st century. Instead, because we choose to not engage with climate change, we have chosen a way in which the rest of the world decides around us what the future will look like and how major elements of the global economy will be structured. Forging on towards an American future not informed by the reality of peak oil, a basic respect demographics that predicts a world population of 9 billion by 2050, and the best scientific climate knowledge available is a choice we can still continue to make, but if America continues to choose more emissions now, then eventually it will mean much less money and much less political power in the next few years.