The chances of a meaningful climate agreement coming out of the UN conference in Copenhagen seem increasingly remote. Obviously, getting the world’s nations to agree on anything provides a challenge. But convincing them to agree on something that is not only the 21st century’s greatest problem, but will force their economies and consumption levels to contract, is nigh well impossible.
The United States has played an obstructionist role in climate change for two decades. Its refusal to sign on to Kyoto helped doom meaningful progress on climate change internationally while hurting the world’s perception of the U.S. The supposed debate over whether climate change is actually happening has been perpetrated largely by the mainstream media’s desire to portray two sides to every issue, allowing crackpots and extremists to sow doubt into the minds of the American public.
Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has done more damage to climate change reform that any single American. Inhofe continues to prove that intelligence is not a prerequisite for service in the world’s greatest deliberative body. His deliberate distortions of science make a mockery of the office. Inhofe is little more than a front for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other right-wing organizations that resist any form of government regulation.
Republicans also argue that developing world nations such as China, India, and Brazil have no intention on curbing their own emissions. These nations have argued that the developed world hypocritically attempts to deny them the right to get rich. There is some truth to this. Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan engaged in horrible environmental practices during the Industrial Revolution, actions which have largely caused the climate problems we face today. Moreover, much of the raw materials for the Industrial Revolution came from the global South.
Given the sordid history of colonialism, developing world leaders have a strong case to make against the hypocrisy of environmentalists. But their arguments also have more holes than Swiss cheese. First, the democratic structures in many of the nations making these arguments are questionable at best. Does anyone really believe the government of China acts in the best interests of their population? Their enormous pollution problems and the rural unrest they have caused certainly don’t suggest so. I certainly believe the majority of world citizens want to live in a clean and healthy environment.
Second, the average Mexican, Nigerian, or Vietnamese doesn’t see a cent of the riches made off their nation’s Industrial Revolution. Perhaps they can acquire a low-paying job after being kicked off their land through free trade agreements that undermine the prices of farm goods, but work in a maquiladora is not making their lives better. So when these leaders talk about getting rich, they mean their personal bank accounts much more than their people. Of course, that’s not so different from John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan in the Gilded Age.
Third, the same corporations who oppose climate change legislation in the United States and Europe are often the companies heavily investing in the developing world. Even today, a neocolonial relationship aptly describes interactions between the United States and the developing world. Petroleum, apparel, and mineral companies, to name just a few industries, continue to shuttle resources north.
Local elites are heavily invested in this process and closely tied to these multinational corporations. The international economy, however, is very different from earlier periods of industrialization. For however destructive America’s Gilded Age was, at least the money was both created and stayed in the United States. Today, the money goes to multinational corporations and those at the top, the ones with Swiss bank accounts.
Conservatives’ opposition to climate change also results from the stark challenge it presents to capitalism. I believe conservative opposition recognizes this threat for what it is. Effective climate change legislation challenges the free-market capitalist ideology that has underpinned the world since the fall of communism. It says that there are real costs to unrestrained growth, to our culture of consumption, and to the race for profit.
Certainly clean energy advocates have not stressed anti-capitalist ideology. On the contrary, they promote green jobs. Oil magnate T. Boone Pickens sees great profit in wind energy, no doubt for good reason. I certainly see the strategic advantage of downplaying potential economic sacrifice. Americans certainly are not ready to make real economic sacrifices for nature. But in order to make the drastic changes necessary to stabilize world temperatures, our entire economic system must undergo drastic changes. Real sustainability means limited profit, locally based lives, and a significant decline in consumption.
Ultimately, none of these arguments against a climate pact should make a difference. Poor nations who claim western imperialism in forcing them into emissions limits are going to suffer disproportionately from climate change. It will cost far more to deal with the consequences of climate change than it will cost to alleviate these problems now.
Unfortunately, humans don’t plan ahead very well. Between the incremental changes in climate that become obvious only over decades, greed, and a lack of responsibility among world leaders, it seems clear that while something might come out of Copenhagen, it’s unlikely to have any real teeth. This might be better than nothing, but it might not be better than Kyoto. And it certainly isn’t going to do anything useful to fight climate change.
Today, Copenhagen is barely on Americans’ radar screen. Tiger Woods’ affairs and the doings of Sarah Palin dominate new coverage. But future historians may well see Copenhagen as the last chance humans had to control the climate. If a meaningful deal doesn’t happen in Copenhagen that starts us on a positive path, will it be too late? My sense is yes. And the future will look upon us with disdain and contempt.