No we can’t

My week in Washington has coincided with an important time for climate policy. A year after the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill) everyone working on climate change in US politics has been waiting for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to announce the next step – a bill in the Senate. Even if passed this would then need to be amalgamated with the ACES Act, but it would have been a big step toward a legal framework for greenhouse gas emissions. Many environmentalists complained that the Cap and Trade proposals were nowhere near ambitious enough – and while this is certainly true in policy terms the fact is that any legislation would have been the first real achievement in terms of the politics.

But this morning the newspapers are reporting that the attempt has been dropped. A simple calculation was made – Reid judged that there was no hope of reaching the 60 votes necessary to bring the bill forward, and decided not to try. Some will blame the Obama administration for not throwing its weight behind the proposal. Others will blame the right wing media’s campaign of disinformation. Others still point to the immediate self interest of the Republicans ahead of the mid-term elections in November. But in reality a huge range of factors have brought the climate change debate to this impasse, including the very structure of US democracy. Time to set out some of my first week’s observations…

In the UK we’re all too familiar with the anti-science agenda of a handful of right wing bloggers who comprise the denialist movement. But their political traction is very slight indeed – only the far right parties and a handful of figures on the right of the Conservative Party give them any credence at all. There is overwhelming political agreement on the fundamental questions – the status of climate science, the role of human activity in causing the problem, and the long term actions which are required of us in response. We disagree about many of the policy options of course (from roadbuilding and airport expansions to wind turbines and nuclear power… from the values of consumerism to the nature of economic growth) but no serious political party doubts the importance of the issue.

Why have we reached this view, while the US has not? The science is no less clear on this side of the Atlantic. The consequences will be no less profound. The desire to ensure that children can grow up to have a decent life is no less strong.

There are geographic factors of course – the ‘farm states’ and the ‘coal states’ have been outright opponents of climate action. But these areas should also see climate change itself as a threat to their own agricultural livelihoods, or see renewable energy as a huge job-creating opportunity. The threats and opportunities are little different in the US than elsewhere. Besides, even the traditionally more progressive regions on the east and west coasts seem to expect fuel to burn and low bills for everything, so the philosophical gulf between the regions can’t be seen as the only issue.

The broadcast media here is far more partial and sensationalist, which doesn’t lend itself to thoughtful analysis of scientific questions. Many ‘news’ channels with very high ratings are little more than 24 hour diatribes, and this is fertile ground for the disinformation and junk science which the ideological opponents of climate action are using.

There’s the political lean to the right of course – America saw communism as its great enemy for much of the late 20th century, and it remains true that left wing politics are demonised here. The term ‘far right’ is just seen as a normal part of the political landscape, unlike the UK. The almost unchallengeable emphasis on free market economics seems to reinforce a “what’s in it for me?” voting pattern. While a clear majority of the US population do seem to share some degree of concern about climate change, they are voting on the basis of their taxes, their bills and their local jobs rather than taking account of the shared wellbeing of the world, or even of US society as a whole.

But perhaps the biggest stumbling block facing those trying to make the US as a whole sign up to the action needed on climate change is the structure of the country’s government. Since the founding of the nation, there has been an ongoing tension over the authority of state and federal government. In the eyes of some, this is more than just tension – it’s the continuation of the civil war itself. ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ isn’t just a resolution against tyranny. For many here it’s a resolution against a significant role for any government, even a democratically elected one. It tends toward unregulated capitalism. It tends toward an entrepreneurial spirit. It tends toward reliance on philanthropy instead of taxation. It certainly tends against co-operative internationalism, and it tends very strongly against ‘imposed’ solutions to any problem from healthcare reform to anti-discrimination law to environmental protection.

Whether or not we admire this aspect of US politics (I personally see its strengths as well as its many weaknesses) it can’t be wished away. The constitutional locks against an increase in federal power without the consent of the states are strong, and if any climate change policy can be achieved which commits the US as a whole to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions it will need to be supported at state level, not just by a President or even by Congress.

I’ve met with a huge range of people to discuss these issues in DC, from the White House Office of Science and Technology to the campaigning NGOs, and from the National Academy of Science to Congressman Markey’s office. At one level it’s frustrating to see so many people accepting defeat for the time being, or striving so hard for a measure which they know is inadequate. Those who understand the science seem afraid to express the genuine alarm they feel, for fear of alienating the unworried mainstream. But there is also the chance of progress, even in this disappointing week. Without legislation, the Environmental Protection Agency still has the power, as confirmed in court in 2007, to take forward a regulatory approach. That would be even less palatable to some of those who have been working against the Cap and Trade approach, and if the regulatory power can be defended against further attacks it might just be enough to persuade them that they need to come up with something positive instead of saying no to everything.

Tomorrow I leave Washington for Chicago, the first opportunity to explore these issues from the state-level perspective. Watch this space!