Climate change and the credibility of international commitments: What is necessary for the U.S. to deliver on such commitments?

Article

Abstract

The engagement of the United States is critical to the success of any international effort against global climate change. Although international climate efforts require long-lasting, credible commitments by participating countries, risk of failure to deliver on such commitments rises with the degree of gap that the domestic institutions permit between the executive and the legislature. The U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol indicated that the Clinton administration’s effort to bring international solutions into the domestic arena before domestic consensus was obtained was counterproductive. The congressional politics over budgetary allocation regarding the Bush administration’s technology policies showed that general preference to a technology-oriented approach to climate change alone did not ensure the credibility of international commitments. These cases revealed that the U.S. climate diplomacy was lacking in domestic institutional mechanisms that bring the executive branch’s deal at international negotiations, and the legislators’ preferences at home, closer together. For the U.S. to take leadership in international climate cooperation, domestic institutional frameworks which reconcile the interests of the two branches are necessary. This paper suggests that such domestic institutional frameworks feature two components: regular channels of communication between the two political branches; and, incentive mechanisms for the two branches to swiftly come to terms with each other.

Keywords

Climate change United States Credibility International commitment Climate diplomacy 

References

  1. Aldy, J. E., Barrett S., & Stavins, R. (2003). Thirteen plus one: A comparison of global limate policy alternatives. Climate Policy, 3, 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bang, G., Tjernshaugen, A., & Andresen, S. (2005). Future U.S. climate policy: International re-engagement? International Studies Perspectives, 6, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumert, K. A., & Kete, N. (2002). Introduction: An architecture for climate protection. In K. A. Baumert (Ed.), Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for protecting the climate (pp. 1–30). Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Bodansky, D. (2002). U.S. climate policy after Kyoto: Elements for success. Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
  5. Bodansky, D. (2003). Climate commitments: Assessing the options. In Pew Center on Global Climate Change (Ed.), Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the international effort against climate change (pp. 37–59). Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
  6. Bodansky, D., Chou, S., & Jorge-Tresolini, C. (Eds.) (2004). International climate efforts beyond 2012: A survey of approaches. Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
  7. Brewer, T. L. & Egenhofer, C. (2005). The political economy of US responses to climate change issues. Final Report, Prepared for Environmental Studies Group, Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan.Google Scholar
  8. Busby, J. W., & Ochs, A. (2005). From Mars, Venus down to Earth: Understanding the transatlantic climate divide. In D. Michel (Eds.), Climate policy for the 21stcentury (pp. 35–76). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, A. C. (2003). Convergence or divergence?: Status and prospects for US climate strategy. Climate Policy, 3, 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. EIA (2004). Annual energy outlook 2004 with projections to 2025. Washington, D.C.: Energy Information Administration.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, D. R. (2004). Bringing the Material Back In: Understanding the United States Position on Climate Change. Department of Sociology, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  12. Grubb, M., & Yamin, F. (2001). Climate collapse at The Hague: What happened, why, and where do we go from here? International Affairs, 77, 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harrison, N. E. (2000). From the inside out: Domestic influences on global environmental policy. In P. G. Harris (Ed.), Climate change and American foreign policy (pp. 89–109). New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  14. Keohane, R. O. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lisowski, M. (2002). Playing the two-level game: US president Busch’s decision to repudiate the Kyoto Protocol. Environmental Politics, 11, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, L. L. (2000). Democratic commitments: Legislatures and international cooperation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Millett, S. M. (1990). The constitutionality of executive agreements: An analysis of United States v. Belmont. New York: Grand Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Milner, H. V. (1997). Interests, institutions, and information: Domestic politics and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP). (2004). Ending the energy stalemate: A bipartisan strategy to meet America’s energy challenges. Washington, DC.: NECP.Google Scholar
  20. Odell, J. S. (2000). Negotiating the world economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pizer, W. A. & Tamura, K. (2004). Climate policy in the United States and Japan: A workshop summary. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper, 04–22.Google Scholar
  22. Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42, 427–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schelling, T. C. (2002). What makes greenhouse sense?: Time to rethink the Kyoto Protocol. Foreign Affairs, 81,2–9.Google Scholar
  24. Tjernshaugen, A. (2005). United States participation in future climate agreements: An assessment. CICERO Policy Note, 01.Google Scholar
  25. Underdal, A. (1998). Explaining compliance and defection: Three models. European Journal of International Relations, 4, 5–30.Google Scholar
  26. Victor, D. G. (2004). Climate change: Debating America’s policy options. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Climate Policy Project, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)HayamaJapan

Personalised recommendations