US demonstrates why we need the UN to handle climate change

The Howard regime's constant refrain was that the best way to handle climate change discussions was through a series of regional pacts such as the Asia-Pacific Climate Partnership. Shadow Environment Minister Greg Hunt tried to attribute India and Indonesia's enthusiasm on climate change to another regional forum, the APEC talks. Perergine disagrees with Hunt's take as India's support is pretty lukewarm given its deep poverty below its still proportionally small middle class and Indonesia's support comes as much from the home-ground hero aura that comes over the host nation at such events. Hunt's clear import was that getting the big phase 1 emitters, the US, Australia and Japan around the table with the big phase 2 emitters, China, India and Indonesia would produce better results than the all-in environment of the UN.

The US position at Bali demonstrates the monumental flaw in this reasoning. The US has an imperial conviction in its own power and self interest. There is an abiding belief in the primacy of American values which principally include free enterprise and exploitation of resources. That said, the federal system of the US has worked to produce a gradual building of momentum towards an national environmental oonsensus. It may soon be impossible for a candidate to win enough electoral college votes for election without a clear vision on limiting the damage posed by climate change.

Unfortunately for the current global position, the last throes of the Bush administration, the most-pro capitalist government yet seen, coincide with the most urgent stage in climate negotiations. Bush is an oil man who does not comprehend curtailing either personal wealth or development or the conservation of resources, choosing to support the mining of Alaska for oil rather than renewable resources.
It is no surprise that the other northern oil mining nation, Canada, is supporting Bush to the hilt.

The US had consistently opposed binding targets in the Bali Conference communique, saying this 'prejudged' the outcome of two years of talks. Unfortunately for its credibility, it dropped support for non-binding targets appearing in the final draft. Worse, it did not like the reference to green energy aid to developing countries. This led to a chorus of boos, so much so that one suspected Bali had turned into an international pantomine.

Then the PNG delegate decided he had had enough and told the US if it could not lead, it should get out of the way. Within minutes, the US agreed to non-binding targets being mentioned in the final text. Under the US preferred system, PNG would not even have a seat at the table, and the views of the Alliance of Small States would have been relegated to the pages of the Green Left Weekly rather than the mainstream media.

In order to solve the problem of climate change, we must all accept the need to be efficient in our use of resources, explore different energy options and make a paradigm shift away from an economy reliant on excessive use of carbon-based fuels. Under its traditional philsophical outlook, the US, global superpower and master of most of the world financial, trade and military markets is ill-suited to playing the lead role in negotiations. Until we see such a paradigm shift in the US, it will still be playing the pantomine villain.