Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
11/20/2015
President Barack Obama and a group of negotiators will travel to Paris in two weeks for the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in hopes of striking a new global climate agreement, and congressional Republicans are none too happy about it. In a series of hearings, and the introduction of a resolution, GOP lawmakers have taken advantage of their final business week before the conference kicks off on Nov. 30 to air their grievances.
Following up on the administration’s insistence that the agreement out of Paris will not require Senate ratification – the Financial Times last week quoted Secretary of State John Kerry as saying the targets in the agreement will not be legally binding and thus will not be required to go before the upper chamber – congressional Republicans sought to make it known in two hearings this week the administration does not have the backing of the legislative branch.
Speaking at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) criticized Obama for blazing a path forward without the rest of the government following. “Anytime we have a leader who steps forward and says we want to make some changes in the United States, this is a case of where you have to bring Congress with you, and it seems as though everything works out better if you have a bipartisan effort to get something done,” Rounds said.
Rep. Steve Knight (R-Calif.), speaking during a hearing of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, questioned the logic behind aiming for a non-legally binding agreement merely to avoid having to bring it before the Senate. “As we go into Paris … this agreement that’s going to come out of there, everything that I’ve read, it’s not a binding agreement. There is not an authority to enforce out of this agreement.” Knight noted that this would translate into limited accountability not only for the U.S. but all other countries signing onto the agreement.
However, the exact legal dimensions of the agreement can’t be known until the conclusion of COP21. The most widely accepted speculation at this point suggests a deal with some legally binding characteristics, but without legally binding targets, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) Executive Vice President Elliot Diringer told press this week at a briefing. “I would not expect at the end of the day that the targets will be binding. What I would expect is to see a set of binding procedural commitments. In other words, requirements that countries [describe] and maintain nationally determined contributions, that they report on their implementation of those, and that they periodically update those contributions,” he said.
The European Union has been pushing for a more stringently legally binding agreement, though its success in achieving that is unlikely, due in part to the importance of the U.S.’ involvement in the agreement, Diringer said. “It’s a hypothetical that I would never expect to see because I don’t think the U.S. would agree to an outcome of that sort,” he said. “I think many, many countries would be reluctant to enter into an agreement, particularly a binding agreement, if the U.S. wasn’t going to be a party.”
Senators Pushes for Ratification
In an effort to get the Paris agreement, in whatever form it takes, before the Senate, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Thursday introduced a resolution that would require that “any protocol, amendment, extension, or other agreement” relating to the UNFCCC will have no force and that no funds will be authorized to carry out the agreement until it has been submitted to the Senate for advice and consent.
“The international community needs to be aware that the U.S. Congress and the American people do not support President Obama’s international climate agenda,” Inhofe said in a release. “I would urge caution in considering any diplomatic promises that may suggest otherwise as the president is once again attempting to make international promises he cannot deliver.”
The resolution is co-signed by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). Manchin has jumped the party line several times this week on issues concerning the administration’s climate change agenda, voting in support of two resolutions to void the administration’s carbon emissions standards for new and existing coal-fired power plants. “The energy-producing states in our country, especially West Virginia, and American consumers will be significantly affected by any deal made by this President. This Administration should not be able to unilaterally put American businesses at a disadvantage in the global economy by enacting unattainable and unproven mandates. The Senate must approve those agreements before they are enforced upon our people,” Manchin said in the release.
Power of the Purse Comes into Play
During previous COPs in Cancun and Copenhagen, developed countries committed to providing $100 billion per year in public and private financing to developing countries to support climate mitigation efforts. This effort is called the Green Climate Fund. Recent reports from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggest they are on track to meet that commitment. However, in order for the U.S. to deliver, congressional appropriators would likely need to approve the funding.
In his fiscal 2016 budget request, Obama requested $500 million for the Green Climate Fund. House and Senate appropriators have rejected that request, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. “It is important to make clear, I think to the rest of the world, as climate talks approach, that Congress has the power of the purse,” she said.
During the House Science, Space, and Technology hearing, Rep. Bill Posey (R-Fla.) expressed irritation at the prospect of developed nations being asked to foot the bill for climate action in the developing world “The Paris conference appears to be more about climate financing. Not only is the U.S. supposed to hobble its own economy with the Clean Power Plan in the name of the president’s climate change agenda, it seems now we’re going to be asked to pay billions to developing countries,” he said, referencing the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants.
Speaking at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) stated that the money the U.N. is attempting to allocate for climate mitigation would be better spent on other programs. “I think the people who are most disadvantaged in this world would rather have us use money to improve education, to increase electricity availability, to fight malaria,” he said. “Think of what the United Nations could do with the money that we’re going to put, if it’s $100 billion or whatever, think of what we could do to help people in poverty.”
Senators to Obama: We’re Not Paying
On Thursday, a group of 37 senators, led by Inhofe, sent a letter to Obama expressly stating that the Senate will not support the Green Climate Fund. “We pledge that Congress will not allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to go to the Green Climate Fund until the forthcoming international climate agreement is submitted to the Senate for its constitutional advice and consent,” the group wrote. “We therefore request that you direct United States Special Envoy Todd Stern to be forthcoming with his foreign counterparts representing developing nations in Paris about the views of members of Congress.”
