Editorial: Copenhagen is About More Than Climate Change

In June of 1992, George H. W. Bush signed the UNFCCC at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. Upon passage by the Senate later that year, the United States became the first developed nation to ratify the landmark treaty, which recognized that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere were the result of the industrialization through which the United States and its contemporaries came into prominence. The treaty affirms that these rich nations hold the financial responsibility for reducing emissions, while developing nations will need to grow their economies and emissions to bring their standards of living up to par.

This egalitarian ideal did not exist in international relations before the United Nations gave it a forum. And while the United Nations has been roundly criticized by opponents of industrial globalization for indirectly damaging the economies and societies of developing nations, the ideals professed in the UNFCCC, and in the Millennium Development Goals set in 2000, are a laudable step in transcending nationalism for a broader sense of global citizenry. They recognize that the well-being of a random American on the West Coast is no more, or less, connected to the well-being of someone in Athens, Georgia, than it is to that of someone in Malaysia or Peru. This notion is especially important in protecting the environment and its ecosystems, which also do not heed political boundaries.

But this enlightened idea is a tough sell in the best of times, let alone when unemployment and national debt are on the rise. Most U.S. politicians who support climate change legislation will say that it should not be allowed to hurt the economy. But if it is to achieve climate and egalitarian goals, it will have to hurt, at least a little. Because in a world of limited resources and environmental constraints, carbon-based wealth (oil, gas, coal, timber) cannot increase in a linear fashion for all people. For the conditions of the world's poorest to improve, there must be a degree of sacrifice from the rich. This balancing of the scales is at the heart of United Nations' stated mission for the new millennium. It is part of the noble pact the United States ratified in 1992, but is afraid to put into practice today.

How much will carbon limits cost American families? Will it be the equivalent of a postage stamp a day, as promised by the Obama administration, or the thousands of dollars a year estimated by Republicans? Ultimately it depends on how rapidly we are able to transform our economy away from a reliance on non-renewable resources.

I believe that climate change is underway and that we have no time to waste in reversing the growth of global emissions. I believe the United States can no longer afford to act as a unilateral player on the global stage and that we must pay the price to recognize the equal rights of our neighbors. And finally, I believe we must seize this opportunity simultaneously to strengthen international cooperation and reduce dependence on non-renewable resources, so that as they run out, we will be less inclined to fight for the last drop of oil, the last lump of coal and the last productive cropland.

What do you believe? What do your U.S. Senators believe? The fate of U.S. legislation-and the course of international relations-will be decided in the next few months, and regardless of our beliefs, it will affect our lives and the lives of those who come after us.

++++

Bart King is News Editor of SustainableBusiness.com. This column first appeared in Flagpole on Wednesday, December 9, 2009. Contact bart@sustainablebusiness.com.