Representatives of 192 nations are preparing to descend on Denmark in mid-December to talk about global climate change, its causes, the solution to the problem and a binding international treaty to enforce and fund the agreement.
But we believe there are too many questions unanswered to commit to what is dubbed the “Copenhagen Treaty.”
The clear intent behind current draft documents for the treaty is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by industrialized countries, provide financial support to developing countries to help limit their emissions, and to create a multinational organization to control the money exchanged in the process.
In our view, we should take care of business at home before joining the international coalition. The effects of man-made emissions on global climate and the actions needed to reduce such effects is an unsettled political issue both domestically and internationally. Even the science is unsettled.
How big the problems are and how drastic the actions must be to remedy them is a huge debate without clear answers. We need solid science and good answers before we enter into international agreements.
Until the new administration, Congress, emitters of greenhouse gas and the American people demonstrate the political will to embrace the steps necessary at home to cut harmful emissions, how can we expect other countries to do the same? We challenge representatives of President Barack Obama’s administration at the upcoming summit to negotiate in good faith, look for areas on which we can build climate consensus with other industrialized nations, and set attainable goals for reducing our own emissions before moving toward an international accord.
Yvo De Boer, a Dutch diplomat who heads up the United Nations climate secretariat, was quoted Tuesday in a New York Times column as saying, “There isn’t sufficient time to get the whole thing done.” But, he added, he hoped the meeting would “go well beyond simply a declaration of principles.” Boer said he hopes the Copenhagen meeting would lay “groundwork for a ratifiable agreement next year.”
We would caution that bypassing American political consensus on this issue through the use of an international treaty, until we get our own house in order, is the wrong approach.
