In Our View: Climate Accord’s Cost

The announcement of a climate agreement between the United States and China reflects an ambitious diplomatic endeavor for President Barack Obama. And while the accord could be chalked up in the victory column in that regard, it also appears to be a loss politically, economically and logistically for the president.

Last week, Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping surprised observers by announcing a wide-ranging deal that could have vast global implications. The gist: The United States agrees to cut carbon emissions, before the year 2025, by more than 25 percent from 2005 levels. China, meanwhile, would peak its carbon emissions by 2030 before leveling off, and also aim to produce 20 percent of its energy from hydroelectric, wind, or nuclear sources by the same year.

Considering that China and the United States are, by far, the world’s largest producers of carbon dioxide emissions, this is important. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, China in 2012 emitted 9.8 million kilotons of CO2, while the United States emitted 5.2 million kilotons. To add a little perspective, India was third at less than 2 million kilotons.

All of which puts that favorite American political football into play — climate change. While a vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have concluded that human actions are leading to global climate change, there is a loud faction in the United States that disputes this. We won’t argue the science at this point, but we will point out that any action invoking the phrase “climate change” is certain to generate debate. As incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said, “The president continues to send signals that he has no intention of moving toward the middle.”

The political gamesmanship in Washington, D.C., will be interesting to watch, yet the larger concern for Main Street will be the economic impact. The United States has been working to reduce carbon emissions for the better part of a decade, primarily through limits on coal-fired power plants and the use of more efficient automobiles. But, as Michael Levi writes for The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, “The U.S. target looks like it’s going to be really tough to meet without new laws.” Any proposed laws will be weighed against the mantra that regulations harm business and stifle economic growth.

While the political and economic concerns are certain to be raised, the most disconcerting portion of Obama’s secretly negotiated agreement is the logistics. Agreeing that China can continue increasing emissions for 16 years before such emissions reach their peak is a case of misguided appeasement. It represents an abdication of responsibility to the American public, dictating domestic economic limitations while allowing the world’s biggest polluter to give little more than lip-service to the importance of the issue. Li Shuo, who researches climate and coal policy for Greenpeace East Asia, told The New York Times, “Based on China’s current coal consumption numbers, they can do much more. This should be the floor on which they work, rather than a ceiling.”

Bringing China to the table and inducing a joint announcement of the agreement was, undoubtedly, a diplomatic victory for Obama. Regardless of whether or not one believes the scientific conclusions about climate change, reducing carbon emissions is a worthy goal that should grab the attention of the world’s industrialized nations. The question is how much of a cost Obama expects to extract from the United States in pursuit of that goal.