ESPM 169 - US Foreign Environmental PolicyOctober 7, 2003 Recall Election!!1. Importance of US to GEPThe US is the world’s most powerful country - biggest economy, user of resources – e.g. has 18.5% of world’s annual consumption of forest products (1996 figures); 1995 – world average per capita materials consumption 1.66 tons – 10.84 tons in US in 1995; difference has remained constant since 1970; emits 22% of world’s CO2 and has 4.6% of world’s population - role as benevolent hegemon in post WW2 era - considered very important to success of any treaty; though does not have to actually initiate diplomatic activity - however, role has been decidedly mixed: has certainly not been a leader (with exceptionof Montreal protocol), and has been a laggard in many instances - though actively participates in CITES; launched International Coral Reefs Initiative in 1994Other treaties: CBD, climate, Basel - despite strong record at home (see Easterbrook 1995)Institutional structure: OES, EPA, State Department – key roles in making international environmental policy (foreign environmental policy) - but influenced by many other actors and interests, governmental and extra-governmental - often at odds with each otherIssues of:1. engagement in negotiations2. ratification3. other international links and institutions with respect to environment: investment, multilateral banks, UN funding, population policy, NAFTA and WTO4. Transboundary issues: Canada and Mexico (e.g. air pollution and waste); also US military bases abroad - so US is directly affected by international environmental issues other than global commons2. General trends in US foreign policy - strongly driven by concept of "national interest", which has meant very different things in different eras - also traditionally more elite driven (lower levels of public interest in international issues, hence Congress, driven by electoral concerns, trends the same way)Phases: isolationism - pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 (1941); hegemony (until early 1970s, end of Vietnam War and fixed currency); multilateralism (especially in executive branch); currently, "aggressive unilateralism" - e.g. pulling out of Kyoto, International Criminal Court, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, war in Iraq - issue of direct threat to US national interest – international environmental issues have tobe framed in those terms on the whole the environment typically has held low priority with the Administration (with exception of Gore) - this can work both ways3. 2 Level Games: A general theory of international negotiation  note from Peter Haas's piece: US role in FEP seemingly unrelated to Administration - agreements need to be ratified; majority in house, two thirds majority in Senate - Putnam provides framework for analyzing these situations: - in order to succeed, policy requires international pressure and domestic resonance - Level I - negotiators, Level II - constituents who ratify - and their interactions - notion of "win-sets" - the set of outcomes that will be accepted at home - the larger this is, the greater chance of success, BUT the greater the chance of negotiator being pushed around - size depends on level II interests and coalitions, political institutions, negotiators'strategies (maximize other countries' sets, appear to minimize one's own)What does this framework tell us about environmental negotiations? - that negotiators have to take domestic interests and institutions into account when negotiating - have an incentive to play tough when facing other countries - more likely to succeed when powerful domestic interests unlikely to be negatively affected - works especially well with respect to climate change; ozone - Kyoto - Gore ignored domestic interests - need on part of UNEP etc. to work on issue linkage: by, say, linking in environmental issues to trade debates more likely to get environmental cooperation: NAFTA side agreements4. Trajectory: Bush to Clinton/Gore to Bush1992: Clinton and Gore elected: brave new era??- new advisory committees - people with activist, albeit high level, backgrounds appointed to key positionsBut, with BD: has not ratified, though c. 180 countries have - observer status means that US unable to participate in decisions that will severely affectits industry – which had initially reluctantly endorsed the treatySenate worries: too binding on Congressional freedom of action; too many concessions to other countries; outright oppose giving any powers to international organizations and groupsPaarlberg: pure partisanship, senate rules (though not always an issue) and weak connection to human health and welfare - p. 252: “most of the additional species the CBD would be protecting [cf. CITES] wouldbe plants or insects living in settings for the most part distant from and unfamiliar to US voters”CC: domestic opposition from labor and industry, weak science and unsolved international cooperation problems - LDC participation, costs of compliance - industry deadly opposed to taxes, e.g. on BTUs (a broadly based tax based on the heating ability of all energy sources; British Thermal Unit) - congress: refusing to ratify – or even release funds to look into ratification - but, fiercest debates happened in executive branch, right before Kyoto – and during (delegation given flexibility to reduce on 1990 levels by 2008) – though failed to meet goal set by senate – that LDC participation mandatory before new emissions limits could be agreed to, let alone reductions – AND that agreement would not result in serious harm to US economyLunatic Fringe: http://www.citizensunited.org/ give us Al Gore, the United Nations, and the Cult of Gaia :U.S. taxpayers are being forced to subsidize a new form of state religion which holds that natural resources have to be protected for the sake of Gaia, a so-called Earth spirit. This religious movement, which has cult-like qualities, is being promoted by leading figures and organizations such as Vice President Albert Gore, broadcaster Ted Turner, and the United Nations.Rejecting Kyoto - April 2001Why? - initial thoughts of GW doing a "Nixon to China" - CC negotiations set up to keep US on board - role of LDCs - scientific evidence - oil and fossil fuel lobby - general attitude of administration towards international treaties - general attitude towards environmental regulation - Kyoto: unratifiable anyway? - Paarlberg: "the worst of both worlds: a promised US cut larger