Walter E. Grazer
A Call for U.S. Leadership

The issue of global climate change raises two central religious and moral concerns: "How are we to fulfill God’s call to be stewards of creation in an age when we may have the capacity to alter that creation significantly, and perhaps irrevocably? How can we as a ‘family of nations’ exercise stewardship in a way that respects and protects the integrity of God’s creation and provides for the common good, as well as for economic and social progress based on justice?"

_____

Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (June 2001)

I begin with this quote because the bishops have a key insight. The debate about climate change is not just about economics or politics. Rather, it is about our responsibility as creatures and children of our Creator to take care of God’s gift of the planet and the atmosphere that sustains our lives. Unless as a society we can agree upon the meaning of this global environmental issue – and unless we can come to an agreement about the specific values that should guide public policy – we will continue to be bogged down in the circular policy argument that now dominates Washington.

THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

To adequately address the public policy debate, it is worth remembering some historical events that set the stage for the current debate in Congress. At the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, most of the nations of the world signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change. This framework acknowledged that climate change was a global problem and set in motion a process to address the concern. The convention was ratified by more than 160 countries, including the United States. Among the key provisions of the framework: an agreement to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere; an agreement that it would be voluntary; and an agreement that there are "common but differentiated" responsibilities between developed and developing countries.

However, as early as 1995, the Parties to the Climate Convention admitted that voluntary measures were not working. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was drafted establishing binding targets for industrialized countries, but not for key developing countries. While the United States helped draft the Protocol, it has not ratified it. In fact, in 1998 the US Senate passed a resolution 95-0 to oppose the Treaty. Since then, little serious work has been done in the Congress. The current Administration believes it would be too costly to implement the treaty, putting the U.S. at an economic disadvantage because large developing countries like China (the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after the United States), India and Brazil are exempt under Kyoto. Despite U.S. opposition, the recent signing of the Protocol by Russia in December 2004 placed it into effect on February 16, 2005. Only time will tell how successful the Kyoto Protocol is in getting countries to actually reduce harmful emissions and how helpful it is.

Even with the enactment of the Kyoto Treaty, the debate rages on internationally. Now, we are likely to see greater efforts, particularly by the Europeans, to reengage the United States in a post-Kyoto follow up. Everyone acknowledges two realities: First, Kyoto is only the beginning and not the final measure needed to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions; and second, that without the United States, the Kyoto protocol will not be as effective as it could. Since climate change is the type of problem that needs cooperation by all nations to solve, U.S. leadership and participation are vital. How to get this leadership is the challenge before us now.

CURRENT POLITICAL DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES

The specific political debate in the United States is fueled by very different perceptions of the economic, social and political costs of addressing climate change. Most of the arguing is about proposed solutions, although some still question the basic science of climate change. Some fear that moving too fast will cripple economic growth across the globe. Others fear that waiting too long will necessitate more drastic measures later. Poorer countries blame richer ones for creating the problem in the first place. Richer countries spar over goals and procedures. These polar views make the Congressional debate about climate change very testy and difficult. During the last session of Congress, there were a variety of bills offering proposals for further research and reporting of emissions of greenhouse gases to mechanisms to reduce emissions. None were passed.

However, since the new 109th Congress started in January, we have witnessed a flurry of legislative proposals. This activity is most likely driven by several events: the recent enactment of the Kyoto Protocol; the recent global climate talks in Argentina in December 2004 that highlighted the need to go beyond Kyoto; the intent on the part of Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, to make climate change a major issue at the G-8 meeting in Scotland in July 2005; and several recent reports on the problems of polar ice melting. In addition, our Evangelical colleagues are making the environment more of a priority and thereby capturing political attention in Washington.

In the Senate, where most of the legislative action is occurring, there are also sharp divisions. Some want to address greenhouse gas emissions (particularly CO2) and others only want to address sulfur, nitrogen and mercury. Some want mandatory caps on emissions and others only want voluntary measures and to tie emissions to rates of growth in economic output – a less stringent proposal than outright emissions caps. While this climate debate is complicated enough, it becomes even denser when you consider that it is part of a larger discussion over the nation’s energy policy.

President Bush is making a big push to get his Clear Sky Initiatives, a voluntary program that does not address the CO2 emissions, enacted. Senator Hagel (R-NE) is proposing a bill that would make the State Department deal with this concern as a major foreign policy issue and develop a program of technology transfers for poorer countries. But he would tie the aid to the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic development and not to specific cuts in emissions. His proposals essentially mirror the Administration climate change proposals. Senator Snowe (R-ME) is pushing to re-engage the United States in the international efforts to address climate change and supports more direct help for poorer nations. Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Lieberman (D-CT) have reintroduced their Climate Stewardship Act that sets strict limits on CO2 emissions.

USCCB POLICY POSITION

The policy base for the USCCB’s efforts on climate change is the bishops June 2001 statement, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good. They note:

Although debate continues about the extent and impact of this warming, it could be quite serious … Consequently, it seems prudent not only to continue to research and monitor this phenomenon, but to take steps now to mitigate possible negative effects in the future.

The statement calls for a less polarized public debate and more focus on the global common good. The bishops call for thoughtful dialogue that relies on the political virtue of prudence. Prudence is not simply a cautious and safe approach, but rather a thoughtful, deliberate, and reasoned basis for taking or avoiding action to achieve a moral good.

Specifically, the U.S. Bishops’ Conference:
• supports strong U.S. leadership;
• advocates for much greater assistance to the developing nations, particularly in providing economic development assistance to enable poorer countries to adopt state-of-the-art technology;
• calls for greater emphasis on energy conservation, the development of renewable and clean energy resources; and
• urges assistance to industries and workers displaced during the transition to new and more benign energy production.

The bishops’ primary concern in the current public debate is that the needs of poor people and developing nations be addressed. This debate places two key ethical principles into play: the right to a safe environment and the right to develop. These two rights need not and should not be pitted against one another. Poorer countries have a right to a level of economic development that reduces poverty. Poorer countries cannot be made to bear an undue burden of the global adjustments needed to address climate change. This latter notion is recognized in the original 1992 Framework Convention as the principle of differentiation of responsibility between richer and poorer countries. The USCCB supports legislative provisions to assist the poor and adversely affected communities in mitigating the effects of global warming in the U.S. and developing countries. These measures must include additional foreign aid for sustainable development as well as the transfer of state of the art technology to help poorer countries adopt more benign and efficient energy production.

ACTION REQUESTED

We ask you to contact your Senators and Congressional representative to urge greater U.S. leadership to address climate change and provide significant economic and technical support to developing countries. We also strongly urge you to assist your bishop in sending a cover letter and a copy of the bishops’ statement, Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good, to your members in both the House and Senate. We also urge you to monitor policy developments in your own state. The states in the Northeast and California, in particular, are starting to address this issue in the face of little direct action in Congress. n

Walter Grazer is the director of the Environmental Justice Program of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC. www.usccb.org/sdwp/ejp/publicpolicy/index.htm


National Catholic Rural Life Conference
4625 Beaver Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50310-2199
(515) 270-2634
email address: ncrlc@mchsi.com
website: www.ncrlc.com

This article was published in the winter 2004 issue of Catholic Rural Life©. No portion of this article may be reproduced without written permission from The National Catholic Rural Life Conference. To purchase the winter 2004 issue of Catholic Rural Life, please contact The National Catholic Rural Life Conference office at 4625 Beaver Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa 50310-2199, call (515) 270-2634, or e-mail NCRLC@mchsi.com. The cost is $2.50 an issue plus postage and handling.