U.S. Must Continue Leadership on Climate Security after Lima Talks

Over the weekend, the latest round of talks for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change concluded in Lima, Peru, where an agreement was reached on the outlines of a global climate change accord that could be finalized next year in Paris. While the agreement so far is not perfect, it represents a major potential breakthrough towards the first global climate change reduction agreement, unlike agreements in the past that have not included developing countries. The agreement also highlights the value of American leadership in avoiding ecological catastrophe, with the recent groundbreaking U.S.-China agreement on climate change having made a fully global agreement possible. A number of critical issues still must be resolved, including how much specific countries will contribute to overall reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and what the overall global goal in reductions should be. But as participants work on the specifics, the United States should continue to lead by supporting aggressive reductions in line with the recommendations of scientific and global security experts in order to avoid irreversible ecological disaster with its attendant consequences for American security interests.

Agreement at the Lima climate talks showcases the value of American leadership on climate change.  

The U.S.-China climate deal paved the way for success in Lima: The Guardian editorializes, “The prospects for Lima looked particularly         bright in the wake of the agreement between the US and China on carbon emissions that was announced by Presidents Obama and Xi in    November. Once, the reluctance of China – now the world’s biggest polluter – to accept emissions targets gave Congress an excuse not to      sign up to Kyoto. Without them both engaged, there could never be a             real global agreement. So it was a cause for optimism that, in the        November deal, China abandoned its argument that emissions should    be estimated on the basis of population – a system that favoured      developing countries – and accepted it should be on the basis of        national aggregates. In turn, President Obama committed the US to        tougher reductions in emissions.” [The Guardian, 12/14/14]

Secretary Kerry’s speech in Lima highlighted global security         consequences of climate change, adding energy to the    negotiations. Last week Secretary of State John Kerry made the case to             delegates that, “Measured against the array of global threats that we      face today – and there are many – terrorism, extremism, epidemics,   poverty, nuclear proliferation – all challenges that know no borders –             climate change absolutely ranks up there equal with all of them. And I   challenge anyone who has thought about the science or listened –        actually listened carefully to national security experts tell us that these    dangers are real – I challenge them to tell us otherwise and to show us   otherwise.” According to journalist James Fahn, Kerry’s speech had an         impact on the proceedings in Lima: “One of our Latin American        journalist Fellows remarked to me how enthused she felt by Kerry’s        rousing speech. The reaction in the past to U.S. speeches has often        [been] between depression, anger or bewilderment.”

Kerry’s remarks on the connections between climate change and global security come in the wake of major U.N. and U.S. Department of Defense reports that likewise highlighted the links between security and climate change. [John Kerry, 12/11/14. James Fahn via New York Times, 12/14/14]

Unprecedented agreement was struck between every country in the world, creating the basis for a truly global climate change regime as countries take follow-up steps in the coming months ahead of a final deal.  The agreement was reached between 195 countries rather than past agreements’ limitation to mostly developed countries. Robert N. Stavins, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, explains, “By establishing a new structure in which all countries will state (over the next six months) their contributions to emissions mitigation, this latest climate accord moves the process in a productive direction in which all nations will contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Now countries will develop and submit plans for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions ahead of the next meeting in Paris where a final deal will hopefully be reached. Stavins continues, “within the next six months the other industrialized countries will announce their own contributions, and — more importantly – so will the other large, emerging economies – India, Brazil, Korea, South Africa, Mexico, and Indonesia. Coverage of 80% to 90% of global emissions can be anticipated, although major questions remain regarding what can be expected from some key countries, including India, Russia, and Australia.” [Robert N. Stavins, 12/14/14]

Ahead of the next meeting in Paris, obstacles remain to reach a clear and fully-effective agreement. A number of details remain to be hammered out ahead of continued negotiations in Paris on a final deal, including the overall goal of how much greenhouse gas emissions are to be reduced. Reuters reports, “The talks agreed on a 37-page document of ‘elements’ that will form the basis of a negotiating text for Paris next year. But the range of options is very wide. One option, for instance, is to set a long-term goal of a cut in greenhouse gas emissions to ‘net zero by 2050,’ requiring a drastic shift from fossil fuels in coming years. Another long-term option for the same section would merely require ‘low-emission development strategies.’ Many developing nations want help to adapt to climate change, for instance helping farmers to grow drought – or flood – resistant food. One option, for instance, says: ‘Establish a global goal for adaptation’ – another the opposite: ‘No global goal for adaptation.’” [Reuters, 12/14/14]

As countries – including the United States – prepare their plans for greenhouse gas emissions ahead of meeting in Paris, they should listen to climate change and security experts who call for aggressive action to prevent ecological disaster. The Washington Post summarizes that “Scientists and policymakers have set a goal of restraining the average global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, on grounds that a higher increase would change the climate so dramatically that neither humans nor natural ecosystems could easily adapt.” Underscoring the need for decisive action now, the most recent U.N. climate change report finds that “Scenarios that are likely to maintain warming at below 2 [degrees Celsius] are characterized by a 40% to 70% reduction in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions by 2050, relative to 2010 levels, and emissions level near zero or below in 2100.”

Against the backdrop of such stark scientific findings, The Military Advisory Board of the Center for Naval Analyses, which includes former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and 16 retired military flag officers, warns about the unnecessary political obstacles to change: “We are dismayed that discussions of climate change have become so polarizing and have receded from the arena of informed public discourse and debate. Political posturing and budgetary woes cannot be allowed to inhibit discussion and debate over what so many believe to be a salient national security concern for our nation. Each citizen must ask what he or she can do individually to mitigate climate change, and collectively what his or her local, state, and national leaders are doing to ensure that the world is sustained for future generations. Are your communities, businesses, and governments investing in the necessary resilience measures to lower the risks associated with climate change?” [Washington Post, 11/2/14. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report, 11/1/14. CNA, 5/14]

Secretary Kerry addresses the Lima Climate Change Conference. Department of State Flickr, 12/11/14.