By David Watkins
In any American Politics Textbook, the distinction between the foreign policy and domestic policy is noted, usually with regard to the president's relatively greater power in the arena of foreign policy. This is, of course, true as a general rule, as anyone following American politics in the years following the terrorist attacks of September 11th will surely recall. But sometimes the picture is less clear.
Consider climate change politics. In the 1990's, President Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto protocol, a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, in 1997 the Senate passed a resolution by the astounding vote of 95-0 indicating they would not entertain ratification until a number of changes (many of which Clinton agreed with) were made--most involving commitments from China and other developing countries to reduce emissions or restrict future emissions growth. Any hope for progress on this issue halted in 2001 when George Bush unsigned the Kyoto protocol and withdrew the United States from negotiations for eight years.
President Obama has made a significant re-entry into global climate change politics a significant part of his early agenda. He strongly supported a "cap and trade" bill which would institute a scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill has passed the House of Representatives, but has not yet been considered in the Senate, which will almost certainly prove much more difficult terrain.
But Obama is not waiting for the Senate to act. In advance of an important international summit on Climate Change, Obama is making strong commitments on behalf of the United States:
At the international climate meetings in Copenhagen next month, Mr. Obama will tell the delegates that the United States intends to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, officials said.
The figures reflect targets specified by legislation that passed the House in June but is stalled in the Senate. Congress has never enacted legislation that includes firm emissions limits or ratified an international global warming agreement with binding targets.
One might plausibly argue that Obama is getting ahead of himself here: he's making a commitment that requires the cooperation of the Senate, where a number of necessary votes have, by all accounts, yet to be secured. But Obama is perhaps sending a message to two groups with this commitment: to Congress, and the Senate in particular, that he's making this an international and significant priority, and to the International community, that he's commited to making climate change mitigation a priority. If the latter message is well recieved, that of course makes it more likely that the substantive goal of the policy will be reached, as climate change mitigation requires a high level of global cooperation. It will be a huge challenge, but as economist John Quiggin notes, there's more reasons for optimism around the world than there have been in a long time.