Tuesday, 11 May 2004

THE HAGUE, Netherlands

Today the conference took on the state of transatlantic environmental relations with a lively debate. In a panel I sat on, we discussed how policies might change under new administrations on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as opportunities for doing good while mending some hurt transatlantic feelings.

The simmering environmental tension between the U.S. and Europe, rather than something to sweep under the rug, can provide a great opportunity for these two old allies to decrease tension across the board.

To make progress on climate, clearly a top priority for the Europeans attending this conference, we should not talk about climate. Sounds silly, but perhaps an example debated today will make the logic clear. Whereas the Chinese government may have little interest in aggressive action on climate change, it shows great interest in energy-efficiency gains for its inefficient boilers, gains which can cut the horrible haze caused in large measure by the burning of dirty coal. Investment in the economic efficiency and respiratory health of the Chinese population is an issue that can gain traction in China. It just so happens, of course, that energy-efficiency gains in China have the potential to make real progress in lowering emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

In the U.S., playing state politics might be a more effective tactic than railing against Washington’s climate inaction. The history of U.S. environmental progress is commonly a story of state-led innovation and regulation. Americans here suggested that Europeans pass over Washington and go directly to Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mitt Romney, and George Pataki, three Republican state leaders from California, Massachusetts, and New York, who appear to be taking climate change seriously.

Also, Europe and the U.S. should stop focusing almost exclusively on differences over climate change and rally around development problems faced by residents of the global South. Dirty water, for example, is responsible for approximately 2 million deaths per year. Both the U.S. and particularly the European Union, with its Water for Life initiative, have made commitments in this area, but they have not been enough. Compared to the complexity and expense of coping with climate change, ramping up investment in providing safe water should be politically doable. Talk in the hallways here suggested that the G-8 meeting in the U.K. next year may provide an important political forum for such a ramping up of human-security support. Climate promises to be a priority at the G-8 meeting, but so does Africa and HIV/AIDS, the latter two leaving room for what is, from a Southern perspective, a more immediate human-security agenda.

The war in Iraq did predictably rear its head during conference proceedings today. As an addendum to an otherwise practical plea for energy efficiency and green behavior, one director of a European environmental NGO suggested the Europeans should strike a bargain with the Americans. They should help bail the U.S. out of its quagmire in the Middle East, and in return the U.S. would have to ratify a raft of treaties that remain unsigned and/or unratified: the Biosafety Protocol, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, among others. The Europeans, in this view, have the U.S. over a barrel at the moment and now is the time to strike a hard bargain. Reactions ranged from enthusiasm for the sentiments to derisive dismissal. The suggestion produced some shaking of heads at the idea that the Europeans could rectify the mess in the Middle East even if they tried as well as the idea that the U.S. Senate would suddenly go on a treaty-ratification spree.