1

Sims
Katherine Sims
September 7th, 2013
American Primacy and Climate Change
During the next decade the world will inevitably be facing the effects of climate
change as greenhouse gasses become increasingly concentrated in our atmosphere. To
increase primacy for as long as possible, the United States must take several steps to
advance international cooperation on this issue, so that the US is seen as a positive

leader. Although there are many policies that need to be enacted, this paper will focus on
one crucial step: a high-profile international treaty or agreement spearheaded by the
United States which focuses on creating (a) a goal of a cap of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere to 450 ppm and (b) carbon tax policies.
A widely publicized treaty led by the United States, that agrees upon standards and
practices for global carbon emission reduction, would be an important step to solving this
problem and increasing primacy by showcasing decisive American leadership. While all
major economies should be included, countries that require focus include the large and
emerging markets of China and India. As the first (EPA) and third (Gordon and Broder)
largest contributors of emissions respectively, China and India are crucial to the future of
sustainability, and working with them will prevent them from having the power to
independently influence the climates fate a weighty power that threatens our primacy.
Decreasing others power to pollute is a way that the US can assert primacy. The US
should strongly assert an international standard that compels other countries to stand up
to. China is also paradoxically a leader in production of sustainable industries such as

Sims

wind, hydropower (Campbell 2), and solar energy (10), and the US must be able to
compete economically to maintain economic primacy.
One of the main ideas of the treaty should be the creation of 450 ppm as an
international cap on carbon emissions. This is a number that is agreed upon by some
climate scientists (den Elzen and Meinshausen) to be the maximum the atmosphere can
manage. It is also a realistic goal currently the atmosphere contains around 400 ppm of
CO2 meaning the transition to decreased emissions does not have to involve radical
changes. 450 ppm leaves room for growth, meaning developing nations can continue to
develop economically through more traditional means their number one goal as they
transition to more sustainable practices. Eventually the world will need to reduce carbon
emissions in the atmosphere to around 350 ppm (Hansen), but this treaty can focus on a
more feasible job of capping emissions for the next decade.
Another important inclusion for an international agreement should be a carbon tax on
big fossil-fuel consuming products. This uses market mechanisms the most efficiently
more so than cap and trade policies (Economist). A carbon tax is a way to increase the
incentive for personal investment in products like electric cars, because the price of oilbased products will be raised. According to economist Laura DAndrea Tyson, a carbon
tax leads to increased competitiveness. If every major state has a carbon tax, it is a way to
bind each to an international norm (Walt 147). One obstacle to this part of the treaty
would be that every state absolutely must sign on to avoid advantages from outliers. Yet
if it is truly a multilateral agreement all states will benefit. Another benefit of this treaty
would be its symbolic nature, which holds every state accountable to a standard, and
failing to meet such would cause decrease ones legitimacy. US leadership on this helps

Sims

the US image as a benevolent power. A commitment to shared goals shows how valued
and respected the opinion of other countries is, and US primacy would be seen as a more
legitimate, because of our willingness to engage with others (Walt 163). This would be
especially true because of the beneficial goal of our leadership and the international
actions that stem from it, especially in the eye of countries that have been more focused
on this issue (Walt 163). Its not just the political implications of preventing climate
change that increases primacy simply preventing the catastrophic impacts such as
economic struggles, decreased agricultural production, natural disasters such as
hurricanes, land loss from rising sea levels (EPA), and even national security risks
(Simeone). Some scholars are even considering it a factor in civil war (NPR). Increased
cooperation will be an improvement in that it will both stem harmful carbon emissions
and it will quell the idea that the United States uses its primacy solely for selfish reasons
and without regard for the interests and potential of other states. However, the challenge
to accomplishing these goals is the question of how to compel others to agree. Yet it is
important to make more of an effort than previous and current policies have been, as
described below.
Although the Obama administration has recently increased focus on climate change,
the United States lethargic action relating to climate change has been taking it on a path
that undermines primacy. The US has hurt itself the past few decades both
environmentally and politically by blocking international action intended to slow climate
change. The United States notably refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, the first
meaningful international action on the issue. This refusal to engage helps other states
resist US primacy by making the rules and paying less and less attention to US

Sims

interests as they proceed, as Stephen Walt says in Taming American Power. Although
Obama has signed several agreements such as the Copenhagen Accords although not
Kyoto (White House) and plans to work with the UN on a global treaty (Gordon and
Broder) the United States is still hurting from the idea that we reject multilateral
solutions, because resentment is based on past actions (Walt 88). As Walt says of Kyoto,
the US is bound to the power of the first draft (Walt 151). Slow action on climate
change is also detrimental to our economic primacy because it allows other states to take
economic leadership and increase their own power in a changing world. China cheaply
produces more sustainable technology, especially solar panels, than the United States or
anywhere else (Campbell 16). The US needs to focus more on competition with Chinas
sustainable production industry so that China does not find an economic advantage in this
field.
Recent actions that have been more progressive include Secretary Kerrys
commitment to a global treaty negotiated under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (Gordon and Broder). These kinds of actions are more in
line with this papers recommendations and so should be continued, however it is
important to take more of a leadership role and to make concrete goals and agreements.
Binding agreements have been difficult in the past (Lawrence) but by reaching out to
China and India and offering them agreements that are binding yet still amenable to
development, such as giving them the leeway that a 450 ppm goal allows, a more tangible
agreement can be made. In general however, climate change policies are generally passed
aside for other issues, and given little publicity. This can be attributed to domestic
gridlock in Congress, a problem that will be certainly be difficult to overcome.

Sims

International responses to increased US outreach on climate change likely depend

on the countries current approaches to climate change. Countries that have been
innovative on this issue such as the EU would appreciate that the USs position has
become more similar to their own. The countries with the most important reactions
though, remain China and India. It might be assumed that a likely response to a carbon
tax proposal from heavily pollutant countries would be to balk and refuse to agree to a
carbon tax thus the issue of how to convince them to cooperate is important. However,
a carbon tax is becoming more popular, and in fact China has tentatively announced plans
to implement one (Tyson). Strategies should include making the treaty as agreeable as
possible to their interests, as well as using diplomacy to convince them of the long terms
impacts of not acting on climate change. Hopefully China and India would also react to a
worldwide statement on climate change goals and eventual carbon taxes by increasing
investment in sustainable industries, which would turn the world market in a promising
direction. They need to be convinced that not acting on climate change will bring
catastrophe, while acting could even lead to further growth. Overall though, if the US is
successful in leading the world to decreased emissions and thus decreased negative
results, then the US will better persuade the world that US primacy is better than the
alternative, as Stephen Walt recommends (Walt 247). The most difficult response the US
will face from this policy will be internally. The Republican Party has been consistently
opposed to action on climate change and generally any action that the Obama
administration suggests. A treaty would require a supermajority vote in the Senate
(Department of State). Currently the Democratic Caucus, which has traditionally

Sims
supported climate change prevention, has fifty-four members. It needs sixty-seven, thus
thirteen members from the GOP would have to be swayed.
In response to domestic gridlock on this issue, there are some things that can be
done using executive power such as an executive agreement (Department of State).

However convincing Republicans to vote to approve the treaty could be possible through
appealing to our shared desire for primacy, which is a goal shared by the political left and
right. Firm scientific evidence could help convince opponents, whether Indian, Chinese,
domestic, or other, of the dire situation. The Republican Party could be convinced that
they will suffer election losses if they reject scientific thought especially as scientists
continue to express virtual certainty in climate change, in the most recent large report
from the International Panel on Climate Change as well as every other major scientific
entity (Gillis). Yet past action has shown that scientific evidence is often unconvincing to
Republicans.
The United Nations report could also sway international skepticism over the
importance of sustainable action. The report suggests that cities such as New York and
Shanghai will be greatly affected by a three-foot rise in sea level. Another report studied
which countries will be most affected by climate change and China came out drastically
in the front, with India in a close second place (Friedman). In this situation, China, India,
and the United States would be foolish not to take action. Thus it is clear that each of
these countries have a shared interest in preventing this catastrophe, to which the US can
appeal.
The treaty will also have to be written in a way that makes it most attractive to
potential opponents. The agreement will have to be equitable to the interests of various

Sims

groups. Developing countries, for example, do not have the same resources as the US,
and therefore will be more likely to join an agreement if the US takes more responsibility
in cleaning up the problem. This is one reason the goal should be 450 ppm, even though
some scientists recommend 350 it is important to have a goal that is attainable for
nations that cannot sacrifice development. The United States should enact the carbon tax
first to demonstrate leadership and willingness to compromise, and it should also work
hard domestically to further the 450 ppm goal. Outreach can also be done to satisfy the
interests of conservatives. Economist Laura DAndrea Tyson argues that few goals in
Washington have more bipartisan support, at least in theory, than cleaning up the tax
code (Tyson) and that a carbon tax is one of the best ways to simplify the tax code.
Those who look only to short-term economic gain, or smaller government, could consider
that some of the benefits of a carbon tax include tax simplification, deficit reduction,
[and] less government regulation (Tyson). Overall, a case can be made that climate
change action fits the varied interests of many parties. US primacy will be best
maintained by being seen as a state that makes multilateral efforts but takes strong and
decisive leadership.

Sims

Works Cited:
Campbell, Richard J. China and the United States a Comparison of Green Energy
Programs and Policies. 30 March 2011. R41748.FederationofAmerican
Scientists.Web.11September2013
ClimateChange:InternationalLeadershipWhitehouse.gov.TheWhiteHouse.n.d.
Web.12September2013.
ClimateChangeImpactsandAdaptingtoChangeEPA.gov.EnvironmentalProtection
Agency.n.d.Web.12September2013
den Elzen, Michael G.J., and Malte Meinshausen. Meeting the EU 2C Climate Target:
Global and Regional Emission Implications. Bilthoven, The Netherlands:
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2005. Electronic.
Friedman,LisaWhichNationsAreMostVulnerabletoClimateChange?TheDaunting
PoliticsofChoosing.TheNewYorkTimes.24February2011.Web.11
September2013
Gillis, Justin Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming. The New York Times. 19
August 2013. Web. 11 September 2013
Gordon, Michael R., and John M. Broder Kerry Prods India to Cut Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. The New York Times. 23 June 2013. Web. 11 September 2013
Hansen, James, et. al. Target atmospheric CO2: Where Should humanity Aim? Open
Atmospheric Science Journal Vol. 2 (2008): 217-231 Web.

Sims
Lawrence, Susan V. US-China Relations: An Overview of Policy Issues 1 August
2013. R41108. FederationofAmericanScientists.Web.11September2013

NPR Staff. How Could a Drought Spark A Civil War? KUOW.org. University of
Washington. 8 September 2013. Web. 12 September 2013
Simeone, Nick. Panetta: Environment Emerges as National Security Concern American
Forces Press Service. 3 May 2013. Web. 12 September 2013
Timid, Tepid; World Will One Day Adopt Carbon Tax. The Economist 29 June 2013.
Web. 12 September 2013
Treaty vs. Executive Agreement. US Department of State. n.d. Web. 11 September
2013
Tyson, Laura DAndrea. The Myriad Benefits of a Carbon Tax. The New York Times
28 June 2013 nytimes.com Web. 12 September 2013
Walt, Stephen. Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy. New
York: Norton, 2005. Print

Sims

10