Obama’s Climate Doctrine: It’s About ‘Leverage’

President Barack Obama (L) and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper take a walk on the second day of the G8 summit at the Lough Erne resort near Enniskillen in Northern Ireland on June 18, 2013.
National Journal
Ben Geman
Feb. 20, 2014, 2:02 a.m.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4745) }}

Pres­id­ent Obama didn’t of­fer a timeline for his de­cision on the Key­stone XL pipeline after meet­ing in Mex­ico with Canada’s prime min­is­ter Wed­nes­day.

But the pres­id­ent did provide an­oth­er win­dow onto his think­ing about U.S. cli­mate policy and its dip­lo­mat­ic fal­lout, dur­ing his joint press con­fer­ence with Prime Min­is­ter Steph­en Harp­er and Mex­ic­an Pres­id­ent Pena Ni­eto.

In sum: It’s great that North Amer­ica sits atop such a huge pool of fossil fuels, but if it looks like we’ll burn them forever, we’ll have little lever­age with China, In­dia, and oth­er na­tions where car­bon emis­sions are sur­ging.

“One of the won­der­ful things about North Amer­ica is we have this amaz­ing bounty of tra­di­tion­al fossil fuels, and we also have ex­traordin­ary busi­nesses that are able to ex­tract them in very ef­fi­cient ways. And that’s something that we should wel­come, be­cause it helps to pro­mote eco­nom­ic growth,” Obama said after not­ing he wants to work with Harp­er on green­house-gas emis­sions policy.

Obama ad­ded: “But we only have one plan­et, and so I be­lieve that ul­ti­mately we can both pro­mote eco­nom­ic de­vel­op­ment and growth, re­cog­niz­ing that we’re not go­ing to im­me­di­ately trans­ition off of fossil fuels, but that we do have to point to the fu­ture and show lead­er­ship so that oth­er coun­tries who will be the main emit­ters fairly soon”“China, In­dia, oth­er emer­ging mar­kets”“so that they can look at what we’re do­ing and we have lever­age over them in terms of them im­prov­ing their prac­tices as well.”

The com­ments in Mex­ico on Wed­nes­day night, offered dur­ing the press con­fer­ence that fol­lowed a meet­ing between the three heads of state, came as the ad­min­is­tra­tion po­s­i­tions it­self ahead of the next rounds of rocky in­ter­na­tion­al cli­mate talks that are sup­posed to end with a glob­al ac­cord in Par­is in 2015.

In re­marks pub­lished by The New York­er a few weeks ago, Obama sim­il­arly said that when it comes work­ing with China and In­dia (the world’s largest and third-largest car­bon emit­ters), “it’s very hard for me to get in that con­ver­sa­tion if we’re mak­ing no ef­fort.”

Back to Key­stone: Obama de­fen­ded what has been a years-long fed­er­al re­view while ac­know­ledging that Harp­er, who has been seek­ing ap­prov­al of the pipeline for years, has chafed at the U.S. pro­cess.

“There is a pro­cess that has been gone through, and I know it’s been ex­tens­ive, and at times I’m sure Steph­en feels, a little too la­bor­i­ous. But these are how we make these de­cisions about something that could po­ten­tially have a sig­ni­fic­ant im­pact on Amer­ica’s na­tion­al eco­nomy and our na­tion­al in­terests,” Obama said.

The State De­part­ment re­cently launched the latest phase: A 90-day pro­cess to get in­put from oth­er fed­er­al agen­cies about wheth­er the pipeline is in the “na­tion­al in­terest.” But there’s no dead­line for a fi­nal re­com­mend­a­tion from Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry or a fi­nal White House call.

The 90-day pro­cess fol­low a late Janu­ary State De­part­ment re­port that con­cluded Key­stone is un­likely to cause a surge in green­house-gas emis­sions. But, leav­ing Obama wiggle room, the ana­lys­is also modeled al­tern­at­ive scen­ari­os in which the ef­fect would be more sig­ni­fic­ant.

“So the State De­part­ment has gone through its re­view. There is now a com­ment peri­od in which oth­er agen­cies weigh in. That will be eval­u­ated by Sec­ret­ary of State Kerry, and we’ll make a de­cision at that point,” Obama said.

His re­marks came hours after a new set­back for pipeline ad­voc­ates. A Neb­raska judge on Wed­nes­day tossed out the state law used to ap­prove the pipeline route through the Cornhusk­er State.

The State De­part­ment had no com­ment on the judge’s de­cision, which Neb­raska’s gov­ernor quickly vowed to ap­peal. The con­sult­ing firm Clear­View En­ergy Part­ners on Thursday said the Neb­raska rul­ing could delay the fed­er­al re­view.

“Yes­ter­day’s rul­ing could give the State De­part­ment and the White House a reas­on to ex­tend the on­go­ing Na­tion­al In­terest De­term­in­a­tion pro­cess,” the firm said in a short ana­lys­is.

What We're Following See More »
11 HOUSE MEMBERS NOW BEHIND HIM
Two Committee Chairs Endorse Trump
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Two powerful House members—Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller (R-FL)—are throwing their support behind Donald Trump.

Source:
BUT WOULD HE THROW THE CHAIR?
Bobby Knight: Trump Would Drop the Bomb Just Like Truman
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
LAST PLACE
Trump Still Struggling for Endorsements
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
AT ISSUE: VENEZUELA SANCTIONS
Deal Struck to Confirm Ambassador to Mexico
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The United States is finally about to get an ambassador to Mexico. Senate Republicans who have been negotiating a way to confirm Roberta Jacobson as the nation’s top diplomat to Mexico have reached the contours of an agreement that would allow Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—Jacobson’s chief obstacle—to secure renewed sanctions against Venezuela in exchange for lifting his objections."

Source:
MORE INDEPENDENTS, FEWER SUPERDELEGATES
Sanders Could Force Changes to Nominating Process
12 hours ago
THE LATEST

There are not "ongoing, direct conversations between" the Bernie Sanders camp and the Hillary Clinton camp regarding "the platform or rules changes," but Sanders "is already making his opening arguments" about those issues on the stump. Sanders is putting "complaints about closed primaries" atop his stump speeches lately, and figures to start a "conversation about the role of superdelegates in the nominating process." He said, “Our goal, whether we win or we do not win, is to transform the Democratic Party."

Source:
×