UNIVERSITÄT POTSDAM
Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät
Hauptseminar: International Environmental Policy
08. Fachsemester

The politics behind U.S. environmental foreign
policy on lcimate change

by: Karl Lemberg

Structure

1 Introduction 1

2 Decision Makers 2

2.1 President 2
2.2 Congress 5

3 Influencers 7

3.1 Constituency 7
3.2 Special Interest Groups 8
3.3 Scientific Research/Economic Advisors 9
3.4 Public Opinion 10

4 Conclusion I – Reflection 11

4.1 Kyoto Protocol
4.2 From Clinton to Bush 13

Conclusion II – The Influence of Domestic Politics in International

Environmental Politics 15

Annex References 17
 

1 Introduction

Climate change is the extraordinary warming of the Earth from increased concentration of greenhouse gasses (GHG)¹ and the climate consequences of that warming, which can be in many ways harmful to humans and the environment.² In the 1980s climate change appeared on the agenda in international politics³ but only since the end of the Cold War the climate change debate has shifted into the focus of concern in foreign policy circles⁴ until it was swept away by an omnipresent War on Terror after September 11. The United States, as the world’s largest polluter⁵ to climate change – US emissions of CO² exceed those of all other countries⁶ plus on a per capita basis US CO²-emissions are the highest off all countries⁷ – plays a major, if not the decisive, role in international environmental politics and the dialogue for a global strategy to address climate change. While the United States was one of the leading countries in terms of progressive domestic legislation and one of the driving forces behind international environmental agreements (e.g. dealing with the problem of ozone depletion culminating in the Montreal Protocol) ⁸, the US is now not only blocking the Kyoto Protocol, but also actively pressuring other undecided countries not to sign and ratify the Protocol. Paradoxically, American scientists have played a leading role in identifying the anthropogenic affect on global warming and its dangerous consequences, yet political commitment and leadership to address the climate change problem is very weak.

American foreign policy especially with regards to climate change can only be explained by a myriad of factors, ranging from concerns for national interests and the influence of domestic politics, to the ability of exercising leadership.⁹ In the course of this paper I want to shed some light on the politics behind the U.S. climate change policy. The main questions will be: Who are the key players in the decision-making process and which groups influence the policy-shaping of these key players. In the end I will reflect my findings upon the U.S. politics around the Kyoto Protocol and compare the approach to climate change policy of former President Clinton with that of current President Bush. My primary non-academic source is a telephone interview with Daniel Chao – legislative director for Congresswomen Grace Napolitano (D-CA) in the US House of Representatives and key Democratic¹⁰ House staffer for environmental issues – conducted December 28, 2003.

2 Decision Makers

Typically the President is the dominant figure in American foreign policy. In the past 50 years Congress has played a generally less assertive role in most foreign policy decisions led by the President. The presidential dominance in foreign policy can be traced back to several factors such as the administration’s superiority in capacity on the one side and the domestic inward focus of Congress on the other side. Yet, the issue we deal with is not a traditional foreign policy issue since a climate change policy that effectively addresses global warming encloses grave domestic consequences. Therefore, in regards to climate change, Congress plays a more dominant role than in any other foreign policy issue.¹¹ In this part of the paper I will look at the key players in the decision-making process, the President and Congress. In a second step I will consider other internal influences on decision-makers. The U.S. President ¹² and the U.S. Congress¹³ are the executive and legislative branch of the government. The American system of checks and balances neatly involves the two branches in a construct of interdependence that can easily lead to a situation in which not necessarily the two parties, but the two branches of government oppose each other – a political and legislative stalemate situation that is unusual for European parliamentary systems but often the case in the United States.

2.1 The President

The Administration has the advantage of disposing large institutional capacity for any issue. Primarily, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) deals with climate change related issues, though the EPA is enjoying only shifting political attention depending on the President’s priorities. Furthermore, climate change is on the agenda of the State Department, Dep. of Energy, Dep. of Commerce, and Dep. of Defense. Moreover, presidents can initiate different fact-finding groups, councils, initiatives and other executive programs, such as the current Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) or the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). The presidential office sets its agenda outside any party objectives. Though the President needs the party to introduce his legislation in Congress, there is no party policy that dictates the agenda of the President. Thus the priority-level of climate change and global warming is set by the President and his advisors. A look at the White House webpage shows an optimistic outlook in the Official Global Climate Change Policy Book.¹⁴

[...]

1 Mainly carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrous oxide, as well as carbon compounds like chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.

2 Of course I only refer to that proportion of climate change that is anthropogenic, leaving out the natural climate change cycle that inevitably occurs.

3 The first World Climate Conference took place in 1979 and in 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Program.

4 For example the Earth Summit in Rio 1992 or the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) in 1994.

5 5,156 Million Metric Tons annually (reference year 1995) (Claussen, Eileen/ McNeilly, Lisa: Equity and Global Climate Change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 1998. p. 28).

6 See Harris, Paul G: Climate Change and American Foreign Policy. St. Martin’s Press, New York. 2000: p.3.

7 19.4 Tons per Capita annually (reference 1995) (Ibid.).

8 The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was adopted on 16 September 1987 in Montreal. The Protocol came into force on 1st January 1989. (www.unep.org).

9 See Harris, Paul G.: p.3.

10 I chose a Democratic staffer because a) Democratic offices spend more resources and attention on environmental issues than Republicans and b) Democrats are currently the opposition party and therefore more likely to look behind the administrations official policy.

11 The exception is issues related to war.

12 By referring to the President I also referred to as ‘administration’ which includes the President’s cabinet. When I refer to a specific president I add the name, e.g. President Bush.

13 Congress consists of the U.S. Senate, exercising the treaty power, and the U.S. House of Representatives, holding the power of the purse (exercised by means of appropriation bills).

14 See www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html (downloaded 15-12-2003).