America’s Opposite Hand: Germany’s Parties Agree on the Necessity of Environmental Protection and a Green New Deal

 essay  Comments Off on America’s Opposite Hand: Germany’s Parties Agree on the Necessity of Environmental Protection and a Green New Deal
Jul 102009
 

“The political system pushes the parties toward the middle,” “party homogeneity is rather weak” … in Germany’s antiquated libraries, students might pick up these messages from text books about the U.S. political system. We all know that today’s reality is a different one. Over the last twenty-five years or so, the U.S. electorate has drifted further and further apart. The election of Ronald Reagan marks the beginning of the U.S. drift to the right in the 1980s. The two Bush presidents and even Bill Clinton—“it’s the economy, stupid!”—continued Reagan’s doctrine of the supremacy of a preferably untamed capitalism. The chimera of “the invisible hand of the market” has become an imperative of all political action, and arguably hit the “soft issue” of environmental protection even more than others. The U.S., once an environmental leader—the country with the first national environment plan, the birthplace of the idea of national parks, the place of departure for the global spread of the green movement in early 1970s—became the epitome of subordinating environmental protection under economic priorities.

To be sure, the U.S. in the mid-1980s became a leader in brokering a global treaty for the protection of the ozone layer—after Dupont had claimed the patents for the substitutes of ozone-depleting substances. When TIME magazine chose “Endangered Earth” as Person of the Year 1988, Bush Senior began referring to himself as the environmental president—albeit with limited credibility, the 1990 reform of the Clean Air Act notwithstanding. Clinton chose the greenest senator of all times, Earth in the Balance author Al Gore, as his vice president, but his sublime green agenda for the most part collapsed already in the first few years.

Later on, he signed the Kyoto Protocol but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification because its defeat on the Hill was certain. Then Congress shifted toward a more pro-active stand on climate and green energy in the beginning of this century—mostly because even a Republican majority considered Bush Junior too much of a market radical.

Contract with America: Let ‘em Pollute! Please read my essay for Transatlantic Perspectives here.

Profiles in Transatlantic Cooperation: Alexander Ochs

 portrait  Comments Off on Profiles in Transatlantic Cooperation: Alexander Ochs
Aug 212008
 

In: Carbon & Climate Law Review 2/2008, pp. 219-21

You have worked on transatlantic climate relations for several years, both as a researcher and as a policy adviser. In a report written in 2006, you suggested that there is “little that cannot be done if Americans and Europeans agree – but very little that can be done if they do not”, expressing concern that climate change might become an issue dividing the transatlantic partners further apart. Has this assessment changed since you first wrote this, and if so, in what ways?

The first quote is actually an assessment made by Jessica Tuchman Mathews, President of the Carnegie Endowment, concerning global issues in general. Certainly, climate change has gained infamous prominence over the course of the last two decades as a topic dividing the two traditional partners Europe and the United States. It often heads lists of transatlantic disagreements. Transatlantic dispute over climate change well precedes the current U.S. administration. Ever since the topic of climate change has appeared on the international agenda, the United States has been made responsible for the slow progress in the negotiation of an international climate regime. But the dispute escalated when the Bush ‘43 government unilaterally declared the Kyoto protocol “dead”. Subsequently, Bush also broke his 2000 presidential campaign pledge to set mandatory reduction targets for CO2 emissions from… Read the whole interview here: C&CLR.Interview.pdf

U.S.-Klimapolitik jenseits von Washington: Wider die Ignoranz des Weißen Hauses

 essay  Comments Off on U.S.-Klimapolitik jenseits von Washington: Wider die Ignoranz des Weißen Hauses
Jul 292008
 

Die amerikanischen Bundesstaaten schreiten in der Klimapolitik voran und werden so zum Wegbereiter einer neuen U.S.-Regierung.

Es war der erste Schritt der neuen Regierung von internationaler Bedeutung: Kurz nach seiner Amtseinführung 2001 ließ Präsident George W. Bush seine Sicherheitsberaterin Condoleezza Rice das Kyoto-Protokoll wortwörtlich für „tot“ erklären. Unilateral, ohne jede Unterredung mit den Führern anderer Staaten, revidierte er damit die Position seines Vorgängers Bill Clinton. Auch von seinem Wahlversprechen, verbindliche Höchstmengen für den Kohlendioxidausstoß von Kraftwerken festzulegen, wollte der neue Mann im Oval Office nun nichts mehr wissen. Seitdem wartet die Weltgemeinschaft vergebens auf die Demonstration amerikanischer Führungsstärke in der Klimapolitik. Anfangs erhob Bush gar Zweifel an den wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen zum Klimawandel. Dann stellte er ein nationales Klimaprogramm vor, deren groß angekündigte Ziele bei näherem Hinsehen wenig mehr als business as usual entsprachen. Auf internationaler Ebene glänzte Bush ebenfalls mit vollmundiger Rhetorik, muss sich aber vor allem für eines verantworten: sein weitgehendes Nichtstun. HEINRICH BÖLL STIFTUNG

Neue Chance gegen globale Erwärmung

 newspaper article  Comments Off on Neue Chance gegen globale Erwärmung
Jun 252008
 

Tony Blair sucht beim G8-Gipfel den transatlantischen Schulterschluss in der Klimapolitik. Doch Amerika wird sich kaum rühren.

Mit dem Hinweis, der Klimawandel sei für ihn die langfristig wichtigste globale Herausforderung, sagte Tony Blair der globalen Erwärmung den Kampf an. Zusammen mit der Entwicklung Afrikas gilt dem Thema das Hauptaugenmerk des Gipfels der acht größten Industrieländer im schottischen Gleneagles vom 6. bis 8. Juli. Doch während etwa bei der Entschuldung der ärmsten afrikanischen Staaten bereits im Vorfeld Einigkeit erzielt wurde, besteht in der Klimafrage die Spaltung zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und dem Rest der G8 fort: Der größte Verursacher von Treibhausgasen verweigert unter der Führung von George W. Bush weiterhin jegliche Zusagen zur Emissionsreduzierung – entgegen allen wissenschaftlichen Empfehlungen. DIE ZEIT, 7 Jul 2005