Amidst high theatrics, the Senate wrapped up its climate policy hearings last week, shifting the issue to the back-burner until after the August recess. Meanwhile the climate action spotlight followed US Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton overseas as they brought the Obama climate lobby to China and India respectively. 
By now, the story of China and India is a familiar one: both countries are quickly growing into carbon spewing behemoths. Both claim climate action could hurt their economies. Neither is enthusiastic about committing to legally binding emissions cuts. Either could emerge as a spoiler in climate treaty talks in Copenhagen this December.
To its credit the Obama administration has been making some efforts to change all that recently. Hence we’ve seen the high level Chu and Clinton missions and Obama’s joint resolution with other G8 leaders on endeavoring to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, and cut emissions 80% by 2050. Trying to set a good example, the US is finally starting to talk the talk on global climate action.
But so far all this has really amounted to is a lot of talk, with no legally binding action to back it up, and promises are clearly not the kind of climate carrots that China and India will respond to. Despite diplomatic overtures by the US, neither country has signed onto the emissions reductions goals set at the G8 summit, and neither Clinton or Chu ended their climate missions with very much to show except more Chinese and Indian refusals to talk about legally binding emissions targets.
Even the Waxman-Markey bill didn’t do much to impress either country. In fact, their only real reaction to the passage of the bill was outrage at the last minute amendment imposing “carbon tariffs” on goods imported from countries without climate laws in place.
The upshot here is essentially what we in the climate movement have been saying about US leadership and the international picture all along. If we want the Chinas and Indias of the world to come on board, we have to lead by example and pass a strong climate bill that codifies our commitment to seriously addressing our own contribution to the crisis.
And this is not just a matter of inspiration. Many of the provisions that climate advocates have been calling for to make the bill effective domestically, are also exactly the kind of carrots that may enhance the international impact of the bill and produce results if dangled before countries like China and India. A bill which strictly limits allowance giveaways to polluters, for example, will produce more revenue for domestic investments in energy efficiency, green jobs and consumer protection programs, as well as international investments in the types of clean energy technology transfer programs China and India have been calling for.
All the more reason for the Senate to deliver on a strong bill this fall, and for President Obama to invest just as much high profile lobbying time on swing Senators at home as swing States abroad. For if the best approach to climate leadership abroad is through climate leadership at home, then Obama’s best international lobby strategy must rest on a strong Senate lobby strategy.
