September, 22 2010, 11:15am EDT

Memorandum: New Storylines Emerging From Climate Negotiations
WASHINGTON
United Nations climate negotiations will resume in Tianjin, China, on
October 4, 2010. This is the first time formal international climate
negations are taking place in China. Several stories are developing that
you may wish to cover. Friends of the Earth is prepared to provide you
with information and contacts related to each of these stories, should
you decide to pursue them.
Lack of climate legislation in U.S. may lead to less tolerance for U.S. efforts to torpedo Kyoto Protocol
The U.S. remains the only wealthy country that has not ratified the
Kyoto Protocol, the only international instrument related to climate
change that contains legally binding emission reduction targets. The
first period of emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol
ends in 2012, the point at which, according to the Protocol, a second
commitment period is supposed to start.
Instead of supporting this second commitment period, at the Copenhagen
climate talks in December 2009, the U.S. championed the "Copenhagen
Accord," a weak, nonbinding document that features national pledges to
reduce emissions that countries individually put forward, regardless of
science, equity, and what national pledges add up to in aggregate. (The
Kyoto Protocol assigns an aggregate and individual mitigation targets
for developed countries, except the U.S.) The U.S. claims not to take a
position on the Kyoto Protocol, but the "pledge-based" or "bottom-up"
approach it has promoted in the Accord is, in practice, incompatible
with a second commitment period for the Protocol and, in effect, is
therefore an attempt to replace the Protocol with a far weaker
substitute.
In the run-up to the Copenhagen summit and in the months afterward,
many countries felt compelled to tolerate U.S. efforts to weaken
international climate policies because they believed this was the only
way to bring the U.S. on board, given the precarious state of U.S.
domestic climate legislation. However, with U.S. legislation now
seemingly off the table for the next few years, it is likely that the
U.S. will come under increased criticism in Tianjin, with the
possibility that many countries will propose moving forward on
mitigation and other aspects of the negotiations without the U.S. This
backlash has already started, as countries have increasingly voiced
concerns about the role of the U.S. in recent months.[1] For more information, please see the joint NGO analysis, "What Role for the U.S.? A Question for the Rest of the World."[2]
Lack of climate legislation in U.S. may lead developing countries to buck U.S. demands
The lack of U.S. climate legislation will have another likely effect:
increasing the bargaining power of poor countries. For the past several
years, the United States has acted aggressively with regard to
international climate negotiations to try and win concessions from
developing countries. For example, to compel developing countries to
associate with the Copenhagen Accord, the Obama administration
threatened to withhold climate finance from countries outspoken in their
opposition to it. Obama carried out this threat in the cases of Bolivia
and Ecuador. U.S. Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern has also vigorously
pressed to shift the burden to address climate change onto many
developing countries by calling for an agreement that is "legally
symmetrical" with "the same elements binding on all countries, except
the least developed."[3]
The U.S. has especially pushed China to adopt greenhouse gas reduction
commitments, making particular demands about the measurement, reporting,
and verification of its mitigation actions. More recently, the U.S.
articulated that it will block forward movement on establishing a global
climate fund if its demands on mitigation and transparency from
developing countries, especially China, aren't met. Stern issued a new
ultimatum at the Geneva Dialogue on Climate Finance earlier this month,
saying, "We are not going to move on the Green Fund [a UNFCCC climate
fund to help developing countries adapt to and mitigate climate change]
and the $100 billion [in long-term financing that the U.S. had
previously promised to help deliver]. If the issues that were central to
the Copenhagen Accord that were part of the balance of the Copenhagen
Accord, including mitigation and transparency, don't also move."[4]
The U.S.'s bargaining chips in international climate talks have
historically hinged on two promises: the prospect of binding U.S.
emissions cuts and the U.S.'s provision of climate finance. But the
U.S. has largely lost both of these leverage points. Without the
prospect of U.S. climate legislation passing anytime soon, the Obama
administration has lost much of its credibility on this issue and its
ability to make demands of developing countries. With its recent attempt
in Geneva to hold climate finance hostage to more actions from
developing countries, particularly in the areas of mitigation and
transparency, the U.S. has reinforced its image as a bad faith
negotiator making onerous and unreasonable demands.
China has lower per capita emissions and higher poverty than the U.S., yet is investing much more aggressively in clean energy
As the climate meeting takes place in China, much attention in the U.S.
is likely to be directed toward comparisons of the two countries.
Critics who wish to engage in China bashing for domestic political
purposes may point out that China now produces more total greenhouse gas
emissions than the U.S., implying that China should act first when it
comes to emissions reductions.
However, per capita, the U.S. is still a far larger polluter than China
(19.2 vs. 4.9 metric tons in 2008) and the U.S. has a much greater
economic capacity to act. China is still a developing country. Some
one-third of China's population lives on less than $2 a day; per capita
GDP in the U.S. is some eight and a half times higher than in China.
Moreover, a significant portion of China's emissions footprint actually
belongs to developed countries, as a quarter of Chinese emissions come
from producing goods that are exported to, and consumed in, places like
the U.S.[5]
Finally, because carbon dioxide emissions remain in the atmosphere for
decades, a nation's cumulative (rather than annual) greenhouse gas
emissions are central to determining its responsibility to act. Over the
last century, the U.S. has put far more greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere than China.
Despite this, the Chinese appear to be taking climate change and clean
energy development substantially more seriously than the U.S. on many
levels. For example, an estimated 12 percent of the 2009 stimulus
package in the U.S. is considered green, compared to 34 percent of
China's 2009 stimulus.[6]
United Steelworkers challenge China's green development
The United Steelworkers union filed a 5,800-page petition with the U.S.
Trade Representative on September 9, 2010, alleging that China has
violated international trade law by providing subsidies to its clean
energy industry. The Obama administration must decide by October 24 if
it will take the petition forward for further action at the World Trade
Organization (WTO). Although the Steelworkers' complaint focuses on
China, it also points to the continued failure of the U.S. government to
enact comprehensive climate policies and scale up investment in the
emerging clean energy sector, which will heavily disadvantage the
competitive position of the U.S. and U.S. workers moving forward.
This move by the U.S. Steelworkers will likely have repercussions in
the UN climate negotiations. The U.S. has harshly criticized China for
its greenhouse gas emissions, yet China is now being attacked for doing
exactly what the U.S. has demanded of it. The impact of trade measures
on carbon emissions has historically been a hot-button issue. For
example, in 2009 developing countries criticized the Waxman-Markey bill
passed by the U.S. House of Representatives for its proposed "border
adjustment measure," a tariff on carbon-intensive imports of countries
deemed not to have taken sufficient action on climate change. Moreover,
the Steelworkers' petition will raise questions about one of the top
priorities of the climate negotiations: climate finance. Funding for
developing countries to transition to clean technologies is part of the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which requires wealthy
countries to help developing countries build up locally appropriate,
endogenous clean energy industries. Will industries in developed
countries now launch trade wars as countries make good on their UNFCCC
promises?
It is also important to note that the WTO unduly constrains the ability
of governments to act in the public interest, in this case, to enact
effective climate policies. For example, many existing and proposed
climate-related policies and programs run afoul of WTO rules. President
Obama would surely not acquiesce in the face of trade challenges to
policies designed to protect both U.S. livelihoods and the environment.
Developing countries are certain to point out this contradiction in the
Tianjin negotiations. For a developing country perspective on the
Steelworkers' petition, and on how the WTO's subsidies agreement is
prejudiced against developing countries, please see Trade: Beware of U.S. Protectionism by Martin Khor.[7]
A Way Forward
It is clear that domestic politics at this time will not allow the
United States to lead global efforts to tackle climate change. The Obama
administration must stop pretending it can lead. It must cease its
efforts to drag the rest of the world down to its very low level of
ambition, when what the climate crisis demands is far higher ambition
from all developed countries.
In 2007, international climate negotiators developed a solution to
bring the slow-moving U.S. on board with global climate action--a
solution that won the support of the Bush administration. The 2007 Bali
Action Plan included a carve-out for the United States: a special
section (paragraph 1(b)(i)) to ensure that the U.S. would make emissions
reductions (under the UNFCCC's Long-term Cooperative Action negotiating
track) that were comparable to those made by other wealthy countries
under the Kyoto Protocol negotiating track.
Instead of trying to torpedo the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. should simply
plug its weak reduction pledge (currently 3-4 percent below 1990 levels
by 2020) into its own special section of the Bali Action Plan while
other developed countries continue with emissions reductions under the
Protocol. This would allow the world to move forward and avoid the
danger of a gap between Kyoto commitment periods, during which binding
emissions reduction targets for other developed countries could
disappear. The European Union, rather than continuing its strategy of
catering to the U.S., could reemerge as a climate leader and take up the
cause of binding, equitable, and science-based emissions targets.
[1]
See, for example, "U.S. Steps Up Its Effort Against a European System
of Fees on Airline Emissions," New York Times, September 10, 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/business/energy-environment/10emit.html.
[2] "What Role for the U.S.? A Question for the Rest of the World." https://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/pdf/assessments/Bonn_II_U.S._Assessment_11_June_2010.pdf
[3]
U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern Keynote Address As
Prepared May 18, 2010, Brookings Conference-- Energy and Climate Change
2010: Back to the Future, https://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2010/20100518_energy_clima....
[4] Remarks of Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern in Geneva in September 2010: https://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/remarks/2010/146821.htm
[5] Briefing by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, July 9, 2008: https://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/tyndallpress09july08.pdf
[6] "Stimulus is Greenest in South Korea and China," Reuters, Sept. 25, 2009. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/business/global/25green.html
[7] Khor, Martin. "Watch out for New U.S. Protectionism Abroad," The China Post, September 15, 2010. https://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/special-to-the-china-post/2010/09/15/272607/Watch-out.htm
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
'This Fight Is Not Over': Progressives Launch Last-Ditch Push Against GOP Budget Monstrosity
"This country deserves better than this dumpster fire of greed, cruelty, and cowardice."
Jul 02, 2025
Progressives within and outside of Congress are mobilizing and working to rally public opposition on Wednesday as House Republicans moved to put the final stamp of approval on a budget package that includes unprecedented cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance—alongside trillions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
"This fight isn't over, and we're not backing down," Andrew O'Neil, national advocacy director of Indivisible, said following the Republican-controlled Senate's narrow passage of the budget reconciliation bill on Tuesday, a vote so close that Vice President JD Vance was forced to intervene to push the measure over the finish line.
The GOP's margins are similarly thin in the House, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) only able to lose three Republican members amid unanimous Democratic opposition.
Indivisible and other advocacy organizations are driving calls and emails to House Republicans on Wednesday urging them to vote down the Senate-passed legislation, which is significantly more expensive and contains more aggressive Medicaid cuts than the bill the House approved in May. Medicaid cuts are highly unpopular with the U.S. public, including among Republican voters.
The phone number for the U.S. House switchboard is (202) 224-3121.
"Your Republican representative could be the deciding vote," Ezra Levin, Indivisible's co-executive director, said in an appearance on MSNBC late Tuesday. "We've got about 26 Republican targets. We need four of them—we just need four. And this is not a done deal."
While a House vote on the legislation could come as soon as Wednesday, far-right hardliners in the Republican caucus are threatening to prevent a quick advance of the bill, pointing to projections that it would add trillions of dollars to the nation's deficit over the next decade.
Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) reportedly headed to the White House on Wednesday to meet with Trump administration officials, who have urged Republican holdovers to drop their objections and help pass the budget legislation.
Progressive lawmakers in the House, meanwhile, are united in firm opposition to the bill, which they warn would have catastrophic impacts on vulnerable Americans nationwide.
"No way will I allow [President Donald] Trump and the GOP to rip healthcare and food away from millions of Americans just so he, [Elon] Musk, and their billionaire buddies can get a tax break," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said Wednesday, declaring that he will vote "hell no" on the Republican bill.
Today the Senate passed the biggest betrayal of working people in modern history.
It rips health care from 17 million, slashes food aid, and showers billionaires with tax breaks.
Next stop: the House. Progressives will be voting HELL NO. https://t.co/qd4Q13YiNa
— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) July 1, 2025
House Republican leaders are hoping to get the bill to President Donald Trump's desk for his signature before the July 4 holiday on Friday.
If passed, experts say the GOP legislation would spark the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history.
Heidi Shierholz, president of the Economic Policy Institute, said Tuesday that the Republican bill "steals from the poor to give massive tax cuts to the wealthy."
"If the Republicans wanted to add $4 trillion to the national debt, they could have instead written a $12,000 check to each and every adult and child in the United States," said Shierholz. "However, this grotesque bill would cause the bottom 40% of households to lose income on average. This country deserves better than this dumpster fire of greed, cruelty, and cowardice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Defenders Denounce Trump-DeSantis Alligator Alcatraz as 'Direct Assault on Humanity'
"This facility echoes some of our nation's darkest history," said a civil liberties advocate.
Jul 02, 2025
Civil liberties advocates expressed horror on Tuesday after President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis held a joint press event at a massive new detention facility in the Florida Everglades known as "Alligator Alcatraz."
The facility was first announced last month when Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier unveiled a plan to renovate the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport and transform it into a mass detention center for immigrants. During a press event touting the new facility, DeSantis boasted that detainees being held at the facility had little hope of ever escaping given that it was surrounded by miles of alligator-infested swamps.
"What'll happen is you'll bring people in there, they ain't going anywhere once they're there unless you want them to go somewhere, because, good luck getting to civilization," he explained. "So the security is amazing—natural and otherwise."
Civil liberties advocates were appalled by the new facility, which is lined with razor-wire fence and is projected at least initially to house 5,000 beds for immigrants awaiting deportation. Bacardi Jackson, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, accused Trump and DeSantis of engaging in wanton cruelty with their touting of the new facility and said it harkened back to dark chapters in American history.
"Building a prison-like facility on sacred indigenous land in the middle of the Everglades is a direct assault on humanity, dignity, indigenous sovereignty, and the constitutional protections we all share," she said. “Our laws—both U.S. and Florida—prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, this facility echoes some of our nation's darkest history, all while trampling the very land that indigenous communities have long fought to protect."
She added that "the facility's opening also comes as Congress is poised to authorize $45 billion in funding to expand the harmful mass immigration detention machine, right on the heels of multiple deaths in detention facilities" and further said that the project "dehumanizes people, strips them of their rights, and diverts public dollars from the services our communities need."
Guardian correspondent Robert Tait, meanwhile, described the press event surrounding the facility's opening as a "calculatedly provocative celebration of the dystopian" in a place that was designed to be "a location of dread to those lacking documentary proof of their right to be in the U.S."
Former CNN anchor Jim Acosta delivered an even more scathing denunciation of the facility on his Substack page, labeling it a "gulag in the swamp" that was intended to distract Trump supporters from the Republican Party's efforts to take an axe to Medicaid spending in their budget bill.
"Trump knows he can salvage a bad news cycle in conservative media if he can find new and, in this case, medieval ways to torment immigrants," Acosta explained. "Distract the base from Medicaid coverage they're going to lose or the skyrocketing deficits plaguing future generations by conjuring up the fantasy of terrified migrants being eaten by alligators—a prospect that seemed to delight Trump when speaking with reporters Tuesday morning."
Amid growing condemnation of the facility, Trump adviser Stephen Miller encouraged other states to pitch their own ideas for migrant detention facilities during a Tuesday night Fox News appearance. What's more, Miller said that accepted proposals from states would receive funding from the very same GOP budget bill that is projected to slash Medicaid spending by over $1 trillion over a 10-year period.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump CFPB Cancels $95 Million Settlement With Credit Union Accused of Charging Illegal 'Junk Fees'
"How many millions did this CFPB just take from servicemembers?" wrote one consumer financial protection advocate.
Jul 02, 2025
According to an order published Tuesday, the country's top financial protection watchdog nixed a $95 million settlement reached in 2024 with Navy Federal Credit Union, which serves military servicemembers, veterans, Department of Defense employees, and their families. The President Joe Biden-led Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last year accused the bank of illegally charging overdraft fees to customers and ordered the credit union to refund consumers and pay a civil penalty.
Multiple observers, including a former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) employee, said that the move appears to run counter to the CFPB's stated priority of focusing "its enforcement and supervision resources on pressing threats to consumers, particularly service members and their families, and veterans."
The Tuesday order means that Navy Federal will not have to pay $80 million to impacted customers, or a $15 million civil penalty.
In November 2024, the CFPB under then-President Joe Biden said that from 2017 to 2022, the credit union charged customers "surprise overdraft fees on certain ATM withdrawals and debit card purchases, even when their accounts showed sufficient funds at the time of the transactions," in a statement announcing the $80 million refund and the civil penalty.
Then-CFPB Director Rohit Chopra accused the credit union of "illegally harvested tens of millions of dollars in junk fees, including from active duty servicemembers and veterans."
The order on Tuesday is not the first time the Trump administration has canceled enforcement actions brought under the Biden-led CFPB. The Trump administration has sought to drastically cut personnel at the CFPB, which is currently led by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought.
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, a non-profit association of pro-consumer organizations, wrote on X on Tuesday that "it doesn't square when the CFPB gives a free pass to Navy Federal for charging illegal overdraft fees AND claims it cares about servicemembers."
"How many millions did this CFPB just take from servicemembers?" he asked.
Allison Preiss, a former senior advisor to the director at the CFPB, reacted to the news by writing on X that "for months, Trump's CFPB has insisted it is focusing its efforts on protecting servicemembers and veterans," and included some screenshots of statements from the CFPB, such as a statement from May 2025 announcing that the bureau will not prioritize enforcement action related to Buy Now, Pay Later loans.
"The bureau takes this step in the interest of focusing resources on supporting hard-working American taxpayers, servicemen, veterans, and small businesses," according to that statement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular