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.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Decision Makers
2.1 President
2.2 Congress
3 Influencers
3.1 Constituency
3.2 Special Interest Groups
3.3 Scientific Research/Economic Advisors
3.4 Public Opinion
4 Conclusion I – Reflection
4.1 Kyoto Protocol
4.2 From Clinton to Bush
5 Conclusion II – The Influence of Domestic Politics in International Environmental Politics
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the complex interplay of domestic political actors and institutional structures in the United States that shape its international foreign policy regarding climate change. The primary research goal is to identify the key decision-makers and the influence of interest groups, constituency concerns, and economic considerations on the U.S. approach to climate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol.
- The institutional tension between the President and Congress in environmental policymaking.
- The dominance of economic interests and industrial lobbying over environmental advocacy.
- The role of "sound science" and economic projections as rhetorical tools in policy debates.
- Comparative analysis of climate policy approaches under the Clinton and Bush administrations.
- The impact of regional characteristics on legislative voting behavior regarding environmental issues.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2 Special Interest Groups
Any observer of the political life in Washington can state that "lobbying is Washington's second largest industry, after government". Some may even go so far to say that lobbyists “collectively constitute the fourth branch" of government.
There are two opposing groups in the climate change policy struggle, the environmental groups and the industry lobby. More than 50 NGOs make up the US Climate Change Network, an umbrella organization for climate policy activities in the United States, although several groups follow conflicting policy objectives and strategies that lessen their impact. Yet recently there is a renewed attempt to coordinate activities. The most influential and proactive environmental groups are the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense. On the industry side the most present and influential lobby group that deals with the issue of climate change is clearly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The vast financial resources at their disposal and the superior professionalism they use to lobby Congress and administration clearly indicates that industry and commerce take the issue of climate change very serious. Examples are public campaigns or research initiatives as mentioned below.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter provides an overview of climate change as a political issue and outlines the central research questions regarding key decision-makers in the U.S. policy process.
2 Decision Makers: This chapter explores the roles and limitations of the President and the U.S. Congress, highlighting the system of checks and balances and the influence of administration priorities.
3 Influencers: This chapter analyzes external factors affecting policy-shaping, including the role of constituencies, interest groups, scientific and economic advisors, and public opinion.
4 Conclusion I – Reflection: This chapter evaluates U.S. policy in the context of the Kyoto Protocol and offers a comparative analysis of the climate policies under the Clinton and Bush administrations.
5 Conclusion II – The Influence of Domestic Politics in International Environmental Politics: This final chapter synthesizes how domestic economic interests and institutional structures effectively hold U.S. international climate policy hostage to internal political dynamics.
Keywords
Climate change, U.S. foreign policy, Kyoto Protocol, Congress, Presidential influence, Environmental politics, Lobbying, Economic interests, Greenhouse gas emissions, Domestic politics, Sustainability, Policy-shaping, Industry lobby, Public opinion, Accountability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the politics behind U.S. environmental foreign policy on climate change, specifically identifying why domestic political and economic factors significantly shape the nation's international stance.
Who are the key players in the U.S. decision-making process for climate policy?
The primary actors are the U.S. President (and his administration) and the U.S. Congress, with Congress playing a particularly dominant role due to its legislative powers and susceptibility to domestic interests.
What is the central research question?
The study asks who the key players are in the decision-making process and which groups exert the most influence on shaping climate policy within the United States.
What scientific methods were used in this study?
The author employs qualitative analysis, including the study of legislative actions, roll-call votes, historical policy shifts, and primary expert insights gained through interviews with congressional staff.
What does the main body of the paper cover?
The main body investigates internal factors like presidential agendas and congressional structure, as well as external influencers like interest groups, regional constituency concerns, and the role of scientific advisors.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include U.S. foreign policy, climate change, Kyoto Protocol, lobbying, domestic politics, and economic interests.
How does the author explain the failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
The author argues that domestic economic concerns and the influence of industrial lobby groups created a bipartisan veto in the Senate, making the Kyoto Protocol politically impossible to ratify.
What is the significance of the "sound science" argument mentioned in the text?
The author highlights "sound science" as a rhetorical tactic used by certain politicians and think tanks to justify inaction on climate change and to avoid international emissions obligations.
How does the climate policy approach differ between the Clinton and Bush administrations?
While the Clinton administration adopted pro-environmental rhetoric and signed the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration shifted the focus toward economic impact, questioned established climate science, and prioritized technological research over direct emissions reductions.
- Quote paper
- Karl Lemberg (Author), 2004, The politics behind U.S. environmental foreign policy on climate change, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/45860
