Bangkok, September 2009
The U.S., one of 180 countries with a combined 1500 delegates at a summit to discuss climate change and get more countries on board with our climate bill, is of course, making demands of people.
America is requiring that countries meet certain emission standards. Smaller countries, struggling to just to survive, cannot see this as a priority. They’re saying they’d agree, if Western countries would help them out with financial aid, to which they are receiving a big “No.”
They can’t help us without our help, but we aren’t going to help them.
But we’d still like their help.
Time’s ticking. The Copenhagen U.N. summit to scratch heads about the Kyoto Protocol is in December, and nobody wants to show up to class without their homework.
In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol (international environmental treaty) was set up, the U.S. signed it. And then the U.S. Congress refused to make it a law. The reason? To prevent damaging the economy.
How considerate.
So, with the bill sitting in Bangkok surrounded by disagreeing delegates, there are only a few months left before the other summit in Denmark. While it seems like a step in the right direction, and a big one, it wouldn’t be politics if self-preservation and last minute details weren’t spitting in everybody’s cereal.
Here’s a breakdown of all the reasons the bill’s passage is all clogged up.
The Oil Industry
When people say “alternative energy,” what exactly do you think they are looking for an alternative to? Why, it’s the oil companies, whose struggle to survive is almost comical in its desperation. Right now, oil refineries are like a sea captain on a flaming ship, holding his crew at gunpoint lest they think of going for a swim.
The recession is erasing their demand. The “going green” is erasing their profits. The Climate Bill itself would require a reduction in carbon emissions of 17% by 2030 and 83% by 2050. Numbers that would have the U.S. bringing in 19.4% of its oil from foreign countries.
Denial can be very, very ugly.
The Climate Bill, in an effort to reach these stats, would be putting limits on the amount of emissions companies are allowed; should they exceed this limit, they will get financially raked.
Their response was to attempt to get the bill tossed out, and as the American Petroleum Institute did what desperate companies with something to prove always do:
“Let’s conduct a study!”
The API claims they do not believe alternative energies will be effective enough in replacing crude oil to equalize the drops in production that will befall the industry and waste everyone’s time and money.
There’s no need to rush into those fancy-shmancy windmills and solar panels that may or may not be cleaner for the environment. Now, let’s just sit back and appreciate the ease and effectiveness of refining, thick, black, earth-choking oil.
Canada
Don’t worry, hockey season starts soon, so these guys won’t be much of a problem for long.
Actually, Canada’s issues are much more sympathetic than anyone else’s. Should the bill go through, Canada’s own regulations on carbon emissions would be less strict than those of the U.S. All this would get them is a series of trade-killing sanctions and send the price of fuel sky-rocketing: bad news for farmers in Canada who rely solely on exporting their goods to the U.S. to make money.
Uh…whoops. Sorry, Canada.
Rural Democrats
Demo…what?! Weren’t these the guys that came up with the bill in the first place?
Yes, the bill’s other name, “The Waxman-Markey Bill,” comes from the two representatives behind it: Henry A. Waxman, D-California and Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts. Yes, the “D” stands for… well, you know.
But what’s important about these particular representatives is that neither of them stems from the Midwest, where another resource consumes the earth and covers the dinner tables all summer long:
Corn.
Corn ethanol to be exact. Which was considered a highly profitable alternative energy source for the region, who would be amongst some of the top manufacturers and suppliers of it once mainstream usage begins (thanks to a particular bill).
However, a recent EPA study (another god damn study) linked corn ethanol use to “indirect land use”. A practice that added percentage points to corn ethanol’s negative impacts on the environment, pushing it over the threshold of unacceptability.
And taking it right off the climate bill.
Needless to say, rural democrats were pissed, and are now claiming they will not vote for the bill, as their states are getting royally screwed by corn ethanol’s omission as an alternative energy.
So, this is what we’re looking at: A backed-up toilet of an issue, with several parties worried about circling the drain. The likelihood of the bill becoming law becomes less and less as opponents rise up with a finger in the air and a reason to shout. Some of them, like Oil, have no right, but others, (Canada) make a more valid point.
Yet, this is what a summit is all about: Figuring this stuff out. Bangkok is merely the warm-up for a clash of the enviro-titans this December in Copenhagen, when the UN gets involved. Unless one side is willing to give, it is going to sit in limbo, until somebody with enough money manages to sweep it under the table. Again.
As the suits assemble for another battle of wits, and the Earth outside just keeps getting hotter, we are forced to watch and wait, and be patient, while the leaders of the world all stare at a Rubik’s Cube and wait for it to solve itself.
