Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CLINTON'S NEW HIRE
by Tom Laskawy
To top off all the environmental excitement of the day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton introduced her new Special Envoy for Climate Change, Todd Stern. We can applaud this move not simply because, of course, our most recent former president didn't have one of those himself. But more importantly because it signals the significant role the State Department will have in any political solution to climate change. As for Stern, he was lead negotiator for the US at the Kyoto talks under President Clinton and, naturally, he's another alumni of the Center for American Progress. Which should serve as a reminder that we should all stay on good terms with Matt Yglesias.
Meanwhile, this goes way beyond Stern being the guy who shows up at the climate talks in Copenhagen at the end of year. As Joe Romm likes to say, saving the planet is all about making a deal with China - now the world's number one emitter of carbon and having shown no sign of losing its love for coal. If Stern can't bring China along - and that will undoubtedly be one of his prime responsibilities - we're never going to reduce worldwide emissions enough to stave off that 5°C-7°C warming we're facing (am I the only one who has to remind myself that °C are a lot bigger than °F? We're talking about a 9°-12°F increase in world temperatures - that's hot!) Interestingly, Romm recently uncovered a telling exchange between Sen. Evan Bayh and Energy Secretary Stephen Chu during the latter's confirmation hearing explicitly suggesting that climate legislation wouldn't make much progress in the Senate without a clear sense of cooperation from China. And if Bayh thinks that, it's likely that other moderate Senators agree - no China, no US climate deal. Mr. Stern, you have your marching orders.
COMMENTS (5)
Read The Carbon War, and then get back to me if you still have anything good to say about Clinton and (especially) his Kyoto negotiating team.
You'll excuse me while I hold my applause.
Posted by: McKingford | January 26, 2009 5:30 PM
I think progressives are going to have to start seriously pushing back on this notion that somehow if China doesn't agree to curb carbon emissions at the same time as us, we will be left economically less competitive. The truth is that by imposing real economic costs on carbon and other pollutants, you spur innovation and strengthen your economic position. That's the argument that needs to go out there. It's not about sacrificing competitive edge in favor of a cleaner environment. A dirtier, less usable environment is a competitive disadvantage. Finding a way to generate electricity or power cars or heat homes in a new way that doesn't hinder us with a competitive disadvantage in environmental quality is in itself finding a competitive advantage.
Posted by: Robbie | January 26, 2009 5:52 PM
Are you sure you got the right Joe Romm link there? I didn't find his name attached to it. Please advise, thanks.
Posted by: citizenstx | January 26, 2009 6:35 PM
Climate Progress (where the two Romm links take you) is in fact Joe Romm's blog - also part of CAP, as it happens...
Posted by: Tom Laskawy | January 26, 2009 7:19 PM
Robbie,
Your point is more true for smog than for CO2. CO2 has the same effect on global warming regardless of where it's produced.
Quite simply, if China doesn't get on board, then the US is utterly powerless to stop global warming, and we might as well pollute as much as we can. (It's the equivalent of a prisoner's dilemma's game where the other player assures you that he's going to snitch on you ahead of time.)
Luckily, I think it's in China's interest to prevent Global warming as well, and it won't be too difficult to get some sweeteners that will get them into an international framework.
But it really is incredibly important.
Posted by: David Shor | January 26, 2009 11:46 PM