U.S. can show emissions cuts on track
Meanwhile, he said, the United States actually has a strong story to tell about domestic emissions. A recent study found the country is on target to meet the 17 percent goal, in part because of the recession and rise of natural gas, but also because of energy efficiency measures imposed by the Obama administration (ClimateWire, Oct. 24).

"This is very important because the harder the line the president takes vis-à-vis China and India, the more political leeway he will have at home to reduce emissions," Bledsoe said.

But he also argued that no international treaty can come together until after the United States prices or caps its own domestic emissions -- and any expectations otherwise are both unrealistic and counterproductive.

"Do we really believe that China and India will take binding targets? Why are we negotiating a treaty that has no chance of passing the U.S. Senate? Why are we wasting time with that? The entire process has this embedded lack of credibility," Bledsoe said. He said U.S. diplomats should "take on the legally binding obsession and say, 'We'll go ahead and negotiate, but we have to be clear and say we don't believe this is the way forward.'"

Stephen Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agreed with the futility of negotiating a legally binding agreement and said the focus should be on lowering the price of renewable and alternative energy.

"The fundamentals still haven't changed. It's still going to be very difficult to get an agreement," Eule said. "The process is at a point at which I can't see any binding agreement getting out of the U.N. that would get 67 votes in the Senate, so it's still challenging. We had an election here, but they didn't have one in China, they didn't have one in India, they didn't have one in Brazil."

Eule argued that despite the Durban agreement that ostensibly calls for all emitters to become legally bound to cut carbon by 2020, major economies will find a way to wiggle out of that commitment.

"People try to make this more complicated than it really is. The fact is that alternative energy sources are more expensive than traditional energy sources. The key is to lower the price of alternatives," Eule said. "We have to lower our sights and get a little bit more realistic about what's going on in the world. Everyone wants a grand bargain in the international negotiations, but that's still many years away."

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

10 Comments

1. 1. Traveler 007 11:31 AM 11/14/12

   He will sell out our coal and oil industry to appease the UN

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Sisko 11:47 AM 11/14/12

   The article seems to promote the idea that if the US only pushed harder, then a binding international treaty on limiting CO2 emissions at a level that would prevent a rise in atmospheric concentrations would be achievable. That notion is completely untrue!
   
   Developing countries are the ones whose CO2 emissions rates will dramatically increase over the coming decades because they want access to electricity and personal transportation. Neither the US nor the EU can subsidize developing countries so these countries will use the most cost effective means possible to achieve their goal.
   
   The president will not be able to get a treaty ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate if is a treaty that is not in the best interests of the US. These are simple facts folks.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. LarryW in reply to Traveler 007 12:52 PM 11/14/12

   Good!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. Postman1 in reply to Sisko 09:36 PM 11/14/12

   Sisko- I feel pretty confident in predicting that the top three producers of CO2 in ten years will be China, India, and Brazil. Probably in that order, and I suspect they will give nothing more than lip service to any possible treaty. Plus, like you say, the US will not ratify.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek in reply to LarryW 09:15 AM 11/16/12

   I concur! Down with coal and oil! Let's have some more government investment into renewables!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek in reply to Postman1 09:17 AM 11/16/12

   Morning, Postman1. I agree, but I still hope for a Green Party victory here (which would result in the US signing the Kyoto Protocol).

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. gunt 02:17 PM 11/16/12

   Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc ,
   If you mean with renewables wind and solar, this would not help. You can build as many windmills as you choose, you need always the back-up of nuclear or fossil power stations, because there will be always days where there is no or nearly no wind.
   In addition - for an industrialized country as the US the energy needs of industry are incompatible with the electricity generated (or not) by wind, because electricity from windmills is generated when the wind chooses to blow and not when - for example - a chemical factory needs it.
   So - you need the existing 'traditional energy' power stations and the money invested in the wind mills is just on top.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. gunt in reply to Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 04:15 PM 11/16/12

   it's always the same : If people with fixed ideas are confronted with facts, they come back with insults.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek in reply to gunt 11:41 AM 11/17/12

   You just described yourself perfectly!
   
   I see people like O'reilly try to insult others in similar ways, with the exact same ironic effect.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. Postman1 in reply to Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek 10:41 PM 11/19/12

    Glad to hear you watch O'reilly!

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this