Will Congress enact comprehensive climate legislation this year? Will Copenhagen produce a full and final agreement? The answer to both is very likely not. But that doesn’t mean Copenhagen can’t produce genuine progress.

One didn’t need a crystal ball to foresee two years ago in Bali, when governments set the Copenhagen deadline, that a final agreement was unlikely. One big reason was that the new U.S. administration would have been in office just 10 months, hardly enough time to secure the broad consensus and strong legislation needed to underpin a binding international commitment.

So here we are. The Obama administration has made remarkable progress on the administrative front, including three significant actions in September: One, announced Wednesday by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, proposes to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from large new or modified stationary sources each year – those roughly 400 each year that emit more than 25,000 tons per year – under the Clean Air Act by requiring the use of the best available technologies. Two is the mandatory national greenhouse gas reporting rule finalized by EPA last week. And three is the joint EPA-DOT proposal issued last month to increase CAFE standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

In Congress, the Senate climate and energy bill introduced Wednesday by Sens. Boxer and Kerry marks a critical step in the process. But comprehensive legislation faces tough going in the Senate, and without a final bill in hand (or much closer than it’s likely to be), the administration won’t be in a position to commit to a firm emissions target in Copenhagen.

Truth be told, other major players won’t be ready for a final deal either. While China, India, and other developing countries are offering some positive signals, neither has embraced even the concept of international commitments. And they’re not likely to unless developed countries are clear about the kind of support they’re willing to offer, which so far they’ve been anything but.

Given all that, the aim for Copenhagen should instead be an interim deal that lays a solid foundation for negotiating a final, ratifiable treaty. This interim deal must do a number of things: It must outline a new legal framework for verifiable mitigation commitments by all major economies, including economy-wide emission reduction targets for developed countries and a broader range of policy commitments for major developing countries. It must establish the nature and scale of support that will go to developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. It must include a clear mandate to conclude a final agreement by a date certain. And it must set an ambitious level of effort – a global goal of cutting emissions at least 50 percent by 2050; an aggregate 2020 target for developed countries; and a collective peaking year for developing countries. (For more details, see the Pew Center’s vision for a Copenhagen Agreement).

An interim deal of this kind is something the U.S. could sign on to without final legislation. And while anything short of a full and final agreement will strike some as a woeful failure, it would in fact be a huge step forward. Copenhagen won’t be the grand culmination many had hoped. But it could be a powerful springboard toward the new treaty we need.

When the House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act in June the world took notice. It was an important step towards proving that the U.S. is serious about combating global warming and will work hard to positively engage in international climate negotiations that culminate this December in Copenhagen.

Yesterday, Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer took another important step by introducing the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. This legislation seeks to strengthen the House bill by cutting global warming emissions 20 percent by 2020 and including policies that would protect consumers and unleash investments in clean energy throughout the U.S. In response to the Senate bill introduction President Obama said he was “deeply committed” to passing a new energy law that would put limits on global warming pollution.

In addition to clear Congressional movement, the Environmental Protection Agency has continually expressed a commitment to keep the ball rolling on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with or without legislative action. EPA Administrator Jackson complemented the Kerry-Boxer proposal yesterday by announcing plans to curb carbon pollution from big power plants and other major polluters under the Clean Air Act. These two significant global warming proposals in one day signaled serious U.S. momentum on climate action leading up to Copenhagen.

All of this movement is bolstered by the majority support of the American public when it comes to passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. Poll after poll has shown that, despite the millions spent by Big Oil and other corporate polluters attacking these policies, support continues to grow when people realize dealing with climate change is essential to a prosperous future. That’s because transitioning the U.S. to a clean energy economy will create jobs, make us more energy independent and protect the planet for future generations.

While it may seem that we have a ways to go to an international climate agreement it’s important to remember how far we’ve come. Positive announcements from countries like India, China and Japan continue to pour in as the Senate energy debate commences. These global commitments should inform deliberation as the bill moves forward to ensure provisions fund both economic growth at home and adaptation efforts abroad. We have seen the building blocks slide into place for a similar commitment to climate action in the U.S. and with focused efforts and momentum on our side it can be done.

You don’t have to read 800+ pages to know that this legislation has no connection with economic, energy, or technology realities. The idea that we could get out of deep recession, get back on a path of more than 2% annual economic growth and simultaneously reduce CO2 emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 shows a total disconnect with the real world.

Senators Kerry and Boxer may have dropped the term cap and trade but there is no escaping that this is a cap and trade bill that contains all the flaws associated with cap and trade. The EU system has demonstrated those flaws but Congress seems unwilling to learn the lessons of actual experience.

The mandated reductions are more than 1 gigaton which is the equivalent of doubling the miles per gallon of every car on the road, building over 100 nuclear power plants, or more than 300 clean coal power plants. Who with a straight face can show how that can be done while achieving expected levels of economic growth?

If Senators Kerry and Boxer believe this is a credible piece of legislation, they should lay out clearly how these reductions will be achieved while simultaneously achieving our economic growth objectives. I do not believe that they can do that because what they ae proposing is not economically realistic.

Senator Kerry tried to tie this bill to energy security and energy independence. If he really wants to stop sending dollars to the Persian Gulf and the jobs that go with those dollars, he would support expanded oil and gas exploration in the US and in our coastal waters. He will not. The Energy Information Administration is very clear that oil and gas will remain our dominant fuels over the next several decades. So, Senator Kerry’s call for reduced dependence on imported oil rings just as hollow as the goals that he and Senator Boxer have set for greenhouse gas reductions. This bill like the one passed by the House is a sham. Isn’t it time to get serious about actions that can make a difference in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting undue damage on the economy and the public?

As a very wise non-legislator once said, even the longest journey begins with a single step.

Senators Kerry and Boxer have just taken an important and necessary stride forward, moving the United States closer to a consensus that has eluded this nation for two decades. Looking back we have moved quite rapidly this year, with the House successfully passing the Waxman-Markey energy jobs bill in June. Now it is the Senate’s turn. A bill introduction does not guarantee a good result, but inaction surely guarantees a bad result. Now that the bill has been introduced, a markup can be scheduled – not just in one committee, but also in the several committees that have significant jurisdiction over the Senate bill.

The rest of the world will continue to wait as long as we waffle. But we are finally moving with new focus and urgency, and if we continue to do so, we should soon reach a point where U.S. indecision can no longer be used as an excuse by other nations to hold back. Instead, our leadership will give China, India and the rest of the world the rationale they need to participate.

Will the introduction of the Senate Bill build momentum for Copenhagen? It might. Should it? No. While facts are a very stubborn thing, numbers are more so, and with the House Bill barely passing at 219-212 with 44 Democrats (mostly moderates) voting against the Bill, there is little-to-no momentum going into the Senate, much less Copenhagen. The only way to build momentum in the Senate is to attract all of the moderates, both Democrats and Republicans. Because, the important number in the Senate is not the 60 vote threshold to end debate, but the 67 votes necessary to ratify any Treaty obligations resulting from Copenhagen. The Senate Bill is unlikely to build that momentum because instead of a 17% reduction by 2020, which was too much for the House moderates, the Senate authors choose to go with a 20% reduction by 2020, a move which will probably result in opposition from key moderate members. The Bill as introduced will not get the 60 votes needed for cloture and will fall even further from the 67 votes needed for a Treaty, placing the Obama Administration in a difficult Copenhagen negotiation.

Sadly -- and in spite of the introduction of the Clean Energy Act in the Senate, which the Sierra Club strongly supports -- once again the US has slipped into the back of the Pack on energy and climate reform leadership.

But happily we did so because countries like India, China and Japan leapfrogged us, taking big steps while we were inching our way forward with small ones. Japan announced a commitment to 25% cuts below 1990 levels in its already very efficient economy. India introduced legislation with government support that would place limits on its carbon emissions, and China announced it was considering its own cap and trade system.

There are two big problems with the path the US is on. First, our goals are far too modest. The 20% figure that the Clean Energy Act sets as America's 2020 goal is below 2005 levels, not 1990 levels, so in fact it only takes us back to that 1990 level. And right now we are already more than 8% below 2005 levels, and have been cutting our emissions trajectory very rapidly over the past four years. So if we just kept moving towards clean energy as fast as we have been, adding tougher emission standards for vehicles, substituting natural gas for coal, improving the energy performance of our homes and offices, and rolling out renewable electricity sources, we will get to much lower levels than the Clean Energy Act requires. That's what the rest of the world expects -- that's likely to be what we actually do -- but the coal industry is desperately trying to avoid committing us to further progress, in the hopes they can bring back their stranglehod on our energy economy.

The second problem is that we want to keep dumping our greenhouse pollution on the rest of the world, using up their carbon sinks, without paying for the privilege. The issue here is not some kind of foreign aid -- it is paying for what we are taking from the rest of the world. India has made it clear it is willing to pursue a clean energy pathway, but needs up front financial capital to pay for the incremental cost -- it sees no reason it should pay for expensive clean energy so that the US can continue to utilize dirty energy to keep its utility bills lower than India's. They see that -- correctly --- as unfair. But while the Europeans have tentatively offered to pay for part of the burden they put on the rest of the world,. the US has refused.

And this refusal has consequences. India has made it clear that it will not subject its emission commitments to international verification until the international community starts paying for the carbon sinks it is using.

We need to lead -- today's Senate bill is a modest step forward, but we need to break away from the politics of the past, the politics of coal and oil.

So China will reduce emission intensity by a “notable margin” by 2020. That’s progress? No that’s what George Bush promised and delivered. It happens automatically. From 1990 to 2000 China cut intensity 50% with no policy at all, but its emissions increased 26%.

As always, there’s a lot of happy talk and promises. Nixon promised to cap oil imports at zero by 1980. Ford, by 1985. China capped its intensity down 10% by 2010. It’s not happening. Canada and Spain are missing their Kyoto caps by over 20%. The Waxman-Markey bill promises caps that the EPA and DOE say we will miss by a mile. And, both agree that in 2020 we will still be above, not below, our 1990 emission level.

Unfortunately, the U.S. theory, that strong Congressional action will guide us to a strong agreement at Copenhagen, is completely lacking in economic and strategic analysis. Our cap works against global carbon pricing and in favor of “NAMAs.” Listen to any developing country—“tough caps for you; NAMAs for us.” Bush’s national voluntarism has triumphed, and it will never fix the free-rider problem called climate change.

At Kyoto we knew that pricing carbon at zero was the root of the problem. So the focus was on achieving an enforced global price for carbon. That was grounded in serious economics. The current draft agreement barely mentions carbon pricing but focuses on Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA’s). That’s flimflam. That’s the Bali-Bush voluntary approach backed by developing countries who are dodging caps.

The fault lies squarely with the American and European fixation on caps as the only possible form of international commitment. From news reports you would think there was no other possibility. Yet our two top climate economists (Stiglitz and Nordhaus) and our top climate scientist (Hansen) all agree that caps are a particularly poor—perhaps disastrous—approach to commitment. Kyoto was right about carbon pricing, but politically mistaken about caps.

Ever since Kyoto, pushing for caps has pushed the developing countries to look for another approach. And at Bali they found NAMAs. Now blessed by the G20, these are mentioned over two hundred times in the draft Copenhagen agreement, though you will find few attempts to pin them down. And that’s the idea.

We are headed for a plan requiring industrialized countries to fund “sustainable development projects” having at least some climate benefit. Developing countries will implement them—if they are fully funded. India has already picked its project—20 GW of distributed solar PV. This is just about the least cost-effective climate-policy imaginable. Why did they pick it? Spend a few minutes reading the Indian press and you will find they believe it’s a way to break into the semi-conductor industry, since PV’s are semiconductors.

So how did we get into the mess? Way back before Kyoto there was an alliance between economists, environmentalist, and believe it or not, Enron. Enron, then viewed as heroic, wanted to “make the market” in carbon allowances. The economists wanted carbon pricing and were happy to back cap and trade—one of two market-based approaches. The environmentalists didn’t trust markets, but cap-and-trade had three things going for it, (1) they viewed the caps as good-old command and control, (2) they could sell caps as a modern market-based approach, and (3) all those “free” permits would be great for making backroom deals (bribing polluters).

Had it worked, then fine. But even before Kyoto was signed, it was obvious the developing countries had extremely good reasons to reject caps. Stiglitz explains this best. Without China and India, there’s no stopping CO2 emissions, so there was no logical choice but to change track. But that was not to be.

The other market-based approach favored by virtually every economist is national commitments to carbon pricings carried out by carbon taxes or, if you like, cap and trade. The key is that India or China could commit to, say, $20/tonne instead of to 6 billion tonnes by 2020. Committing to a price is far less risky and far less humiliating than committing to a cap set at the U.S. emission level in, say, 1885.

Given that our best climate economists and climate scientist think committing to a carbon price is an excellent form of commitment, what right does the U.S. have to continue to browbeat China and India for 15 years for not accepting caps? More to the point, what sense does it make to run the Copenhagen conference into the ground over an economic theory rejected by almost every economist—that cap and trade is better than a carbon tax. This view is even rejected by the economists who invented cap and trade!

And lest anyone think carbon pricing cannot work without caps, history tells a different story. The strongest climate policy ever was carbon pricing without caps. And it worked miracles. That was, of course, OPEC’s oil-crisis policy—the worst possible form of carbon pricing. Still in those 13 years our GDP grew slightly more than in the previous 13, and CO2 declined absolutely. And it declined relative to its trend by 2 Gt per year (present emissions are 6 Gt/year). There was no cap; no one was even thinking about CO2. And the success was not due to nuclear power (the absolute CO2 decline is calculated assuming all nuclear plants burn coal).

So that’s the story. The U.S. has ruled out the best climate policy—global commitments to a carbon price—to please environmentalists who don’t trust the market. Then we have insisted that developing countries accept caps far below our own. And we have stuck to this absurd position until we have thrown the Copenhagen conference onto the most dangerous track possible for the climate—NAMAs. The Senate is not the problem. The problem is our command-and-control mentality, now disguised as cap and trade.

Last week, the statements of national leaders on climate change in and around the opening of the UN General Assembly mainly served as a scene-setter for the difficult challenges of the Copenhagen Summit. The media coverage of Presidential statements in New York and protesters in Pittsburgh gave important visibility to the depth of the challenge, but not to the details of solutions. Seasoned observers did not expect much more: New York and Pittsburgh were not the real negotiating sessions and good negotiators know not to give away much until the real bargaining sessions occur in Copenhagen.

The stakes for Copenhagen are massive for the United States. It is not only about addressing the rapid rise in carbon emissions, but it is also about restoring American leadership in global sustainability.

Pending legislation would establish our national policy for cutting greenhouse gases from now until 2050 – and Copenhagen would establish an enabling global framework surrounding it. From a negotiators perspective, it would be nice to speak from the position of clarity – and credibility — of having enacted legislation at home. But there are definite advantages to developing the international and domestic policies in tandem, which implies having some flexibility at home to accommodate the structures that emerge from the international talks in the final domestic legislation. This is how the U.S. handled policies to phase out CFC’s in the 1990s. Congress advanced legislation almost to the finish line and the international negotiators took account of legislative developments as they negotiated the Montreal Protocol. In the end, the final legislation reflected the Protocol, and vice versa. This is the model the U.S. can use in Copenhagen – although in the case of climate change, it may need to be even more iterative.

The legislative progress in the House of Representatives – combined, at a minimum, with approval from the Environment and Public Works Committee, or, better yet, completed floor action in the Senate —can give the U.S. delegation its fundamental negotiating parameters for Copenhagen. Ultimately, the Copenhagen Summit is likely to establish the broad elements of a policy framework, and the details of implementation will be subject to further discussions. This will provide time for the completion of U.S. domestic legislation (through a House-Senate conference), which can then inform U.S. positions in international policymaking next year and beyond.

On climate change, the opponents in industry routinely use the domestic and international processes against each other as a very effective delay tactic. In the early 1990’s when Congress first considered climate legislation, industry argued that it made no sense to adopt a domestic program before an international treaty was completed – otherwise, our program might be tougher than what other countries agreed to do. But when international policy became clear in the Kyoto Protocol, few of those voices supported U.S. climate legislation.

Which brings me to the questions of responsibility and leadership. More delay tactics by U.S. industry will cripple our nation’s leadership on climate change and damage our international credibility. But if we take responsibility for our share of global emissions and become leaders in the cause of global warming, our actions will inspire actions by others – most importantly, India and China, the world’s fastest growing carbon emitters. It is gratifying to see the numbers of U.S. industry opponents declining, as so many in the business community have begun to respond positively to the call for action demonstrated in business participation in U.S. Climate Action Partnership and other initiatives. While I appreciate the ethics that drive these decisions, I also believe the support is driven by commercial needs – needs like clarity for investment and vision to expand into new markets. With climate policy in place, U.S. energy companies can begin to invest again, build things again, create jobs again – and lead the world in climate action again.

There was a significant amount of momentum generated at last week’s high-level events on global warming pollution.

China made the biggest news at the UN Climate Summit by pledging to reduce its carbon intensity by a “notable margin” by 2020. India signaled that it would take domestic steps to reduce their emissions. Japan’s new government committed to a much deeper target than the previous government. And key world leaders strengthened their support for dealing with deforestation emissions.

Of course there are a lot of details that need to be fleshed out before Copenhagen, but it is getting harder and harder to find countries to hide behind to justify inaction.

There was movement on the U.S. front as well. In his speech, President Obama showed that he clearly understands the urgency of the climate crisis and the benefits to our economy, our health and our security that will come from shifting to a clean energy economy.

Now the focus turns to the Senate. Heading into the Copenhagen talks, the US will be in a much better position to secure strong commitments from other key emitting countries such as China and India if the Senate has passed a clean energy and global warming bill. China and India simply won’t consider us credible if the Senate hasn’t already acted.

Today, Senators Boxer and Kerry brought us closer to that action by introducing their clean energy and climate bill. This is the right step at the right time, although passing the bill remains a great challenge.

Yet even while health care occupies the center ring, a great deal of serious work is underway on climate legislation in the Senate outside of the spotlight. Take, for instance, the fact that last Monday, the federal appeals court in New York ruled that America’s biggest electric power companies can be sued in federal court to curb their carbon pollution.

This decision will send shock waves through American industry, but its most immediate effect may be felt in the Senate, as companies facing their day in court press our lawmakers to pass climate legislation. Indeed, American Electric Power’s spokesman told the New York Times, “Legislation would be the best approach.”

The Home Stretch to Copenhagen: World Leaders Get Serious

Last week, the world’s leaders demonstrated their commitment to success in Copenhagen in the face of scientific and political urgency to act on climate change and stimulate the global economy through clean energy jobs.

President Barack Obama became the first U.S. President to address the United Nations General Assembly regarding climate change. His address was followed by another historic first, when China’s President, Hu Jintao, spoke of his nation’s pledge to mitigate global warming. Clearly, with fewer than 70 days until Copenhagen, the world’s leaders have gotten serious.

Hearing such determination from the United States and China should reassure those anxious for success in Copenhagen. Together, the United States and China account for 32 percent of the world’s GDP, and 40 percent of global emissions. As the two nations most responsible for the future of the world’s climate, our shared commitment to success in Copenhagen provides unparalleled momentum to the UN process. This shared commitment is more than symbolic, as both nations are working to align domestic energy policies with a substantive international accord.

Since the last decisive negotiation on a global climate agreement –in Kyoto in 1997 – the transformation of China’s domestic policy has been dramatic. China’s leadership has identified the opportunity to win the global race for clean energy jobs, moving aggressively in the manufacturing and installation of low-carbon technology. China’s rates of investment in clean technology and carbon capture and storage are now on par with those of the United States. Though we still have the best research universities in the world and a workforce hungry to build wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles here at home, every second Congress delays action on comprehensive energy legislation - like the Waxman-Markey bill -Chinese companies are anticipating the money they will make selling clean energy technologies back to us.

It’s time for us to get in the game. After twelve years of sitting on the sidelines, the United States is once again fueling the innovation that proved synonymous with our leadership of the 20^th century.

President Obama’s first eight months in office saw the investment of $80 billion in energy technology research, development and deployment. House passage of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act in June further cemented our commitment to the mitigation of climate change and the development of a clean-energy economy. In his address before the United Nations last week, President Obama characterized the House’s ratification of this historic bill as the most prominent signal of American resolve in addressing climate change. The U.S.’s chief climate negotiator, Todd Stern, echoed this sentiment in a hearing of my Select Committee three weeks ago, noting that the House passage of Waxman-Markey had afforded his negotiating team an unprecedented credibility.

Since June, we’ve continued to work to build momentum for success in Copenhagen. In July’s Major Economies Forum, President Obama secured the common commitment to dramatic, near-term reduction of emissions – an unparalleled move for China. This week, our counterparts in the Senate plan to unveil their climate and energy bill. Another sign that the United States understands the economic and environmental price for inaction is simply too high.

**

For ongoing news and information leading to the Copenhagen climate summit, please visit the Road to Copenhagen resource guide located on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming website (www.globalwarming.house.gov ), where we look forward to your feedback on the international negotiations.

Presidents, prime ministers, kings, and other such leaders are not necessarily the people who make international summits work well or fail. It is mostly the hard work done by the staffers and others quietly and out of the spot lights. There are many subsidiary meetings that are often not mentioned in the press that lead up to such big picture summits. In the US there are the other sides of the political equations, most particularly the Congress.

There are built into The Constitution certain checks and balances. Then there are the lobbyists and other pressure groups that “lend their thoughts” to add in further supra-constitutional input into such important processes. The public also sort of has its say, in the usual 2, 4 or 6 year votes, but they are neither at the tables nor are they privy to the real work that goes into the process of any major climate or other treaty, agreement, etc.

The Congress is not fully on board. The public is generally clueless about what Copenhagen is all about, and what could result from it. The staffers in The White House and some departments and agencies will toil away at the details and the big players consider the big pictures. We need both views, but the details may partially derail Copenhagen.

There are also many other political pressures and changes happening in Japan, China, the US, South Korea, India and elsewhere that could cause some difficulties in Copenhagen. The US is not alone in its internal dissent and debate.

Climate issues, however, have taken something of a back seat to the health care debate in the US. Most in the public, and hence most in Congress are focused on the health care issues. As with the health care debate the climate change debate in the US is more heat than light. This is quite unfortunate indeed. Both of these issues are vital to the long term health and prosperity of this country and more.

Washington has been often accused of being able to only handle one idea at a time. It is surely time to handle many ideas at the same time. The levels of the debates have to ratchet way up, and the tones of the debates need to become far more civil.

The press has to become far more sophisticated and far more educating. Reading the average US newspaper on the health care and climate debates likely tend to confuse rather than to clarify. The press, our leaders, our educators, and many others need to engage more properly in these major debates of our times. Sound bites after sound bites will simply nibble away at the potential for a much better future.

We need real debate, real leadership and real courage to move forward on these complex and vital issues. Can Copenhagen give us this? The answer is: not on its own. There is a lot that goes into the development of such meetings, and what I am seeing is that there has been a rush to the kitchen by far too many chefs trying to add their own ingredients, and who are not working together, for this diplomatic entre to come out right.

There are many well-meaning, well-educated and fine people working on Copenhagen. I wish them the best, but I do not expect the best.

The US needs to regain its leadership position on the issues of environmental improvements, climate change, and so many more – including the development of more well-functioning financial markets and more well-functioning international negotiations. (The list of neglect could go on for pages, and this is not the place to list these things.)

Another problem with Copenhagen is that expectations for the results are far too high. There will be lots of trade offs and lots of gives and takes on many issues. There will be muddling through. There will be some things not exactly palatable to some in the US and elsewhere. However, we will likely see a more constructive effort from the US than we have seen sometimes in the past. It is a good thing that we have in President Obama someone who can handle the complexities of these issues with an intellectual view as well as diplomatic and political views.

Copenhagen will likely prove to be a fairly small part of what will prove to be a gigantic effort to improve international energy and environmental security. The really hard part of “beyond Copenhagen” will be working all of this out before we realize as a nation, and as a world, that we have failed in our responsibilities to future generations on so many levels.

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, liked to joke that when world leaders gather for a major international convocation only two outcomes are possible: success . . . and real success. With the Obama Administration's negotiating team likely to go to Copenhagen in December empty-handed, the prospects for real success in tackling climate change this year are dimming.

The United States is in the driver's seat in this negotiation. In particular, if the US negotiators were to arrive in Copenhagen with a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions locked in through legislation, then other nations, including the major developing countries such as China and India, would find themselves pressed to commit to emissions controls as well.

If the Congress fails to act - as now appears likely - the United States will cede its climate change leadership role, making any substantial progress nearly impossible.

For Copenhagen to produce a "Beyond Kyoto" climate change agreement, the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility," on which almost all past successful international environmental cooperation has been grounded, must be revived. The idea of "common" responsibility means that every nation must be part of the solution. No country can be allowed to sit on the sidelines.

"Differentiated" responsibility means that what is expected in terms of policy and resource commitments will vary depending on a nation's level of development. The United States, Europe, and other wealthy nations will need to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years while the big emerging economies must agree to reduce the rate of growth in their emissions. For example, China, rather than having its emissions rise 40 - 50% in the next decade, might be asked to limit this growth to 20-25%.

But if the United States isn't willing to sign up to shoulder its share of the burden, the effort to mobilize a worldwide response to climate change cannot move forward. Outside Europe, there is little interest in taking action until the United States addresses its own emissions. More generally, the recent history of international environmental policy cooperation suggests that real success depends on not just US participation but US leadership.

Scientists tell us that the climate clock is ticking. We may have already passed the point where significant damage from global warming and the associated sea level rise, changed rainfall patterns, disruptions to agriculture, and increased intensity of hurricanes - is unavoidable. Simply put, the price for lost US leadership at this moment is very high.

Dan Esty is the Hillhouse Professor of Environmental Law and Policy at Yale University and author of the recent award-winning book, Green to Gold. He served on the US negotiating team that produced the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Last week we witnessed a modern-day version of a tale of two cities. World leaders attending both the United Nations climate summit in New York and the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh were trying to find some common ground for an international climate treaty. Yet the tone and outcome of the two meetings couldn’t have been more different.

At the UN summit on Tuesday, world leaders agreed that it is crucial to strike a climate deal in December at the climate summit in Copenhagen. And several offered to take significant action to combat global warming. China President Hu Jintao announced that his country is ready to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by a “notable margin” by 2020. While the ultimate importance of this announcement will depend on what the “notable margin” turns out to be, the fact that China is willing to limit its emissions economy-wide is quite significant. Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama, meanwhile, reaffirmed that his country would cut its emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, a considerable improvement from the 8 percent offered by the previous Japanese government and on par with what the European Union has promised. And Brazilian President Lula da Silva announced Braziĺ’s commitment to an 80 percent reduction of Amazonian deforestation by 2020, and pledged to bring a comprehensive emissions reduction proposal to Copenhagen.

Those announcements, coupled with recent comments by Indian officials that they will limit emissions, gave the distinct impression that we’re making progress. But the results of the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh on Thursday and Friday provided a much less encouraging story.

The main climate issue on the G-20 agenda, placed there by President Obama in July, focused on how developed countries are going to fulfill a commitment they made at the 2007 UN climate summit in Bali to help developing countries limit their own emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. This is a key sticking point that must be addressed to reach an agreement in Copenhagen.

In the end, the G-20 nations agreed on very little. So the heads of state simply directed their finance officials to develop a range of options to discuss at their next ministerial meeting in Scotland in early November.

At the heart of this failure is the unwillingness of the United States, Japan, the European Union and other wealthy countries to provide the necessary financing. Unfortunately, rhetoric won’t build a single wind turbine, save an acre of rainforest, or help a village cope with the unavoidable impacts of climate change. Without significant new funding, developing countries cannot take sufficient steps to limit their emissions and help ensure that the world avoids the worst consequences of climate change. Progress on this issue is critical for reaching an agreement on a post-2012 international climate treaty in Copenhagen

There was one bright spot at the Pittsburgh summit: The G-20 nations agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies over the “medium term.” That would represent real progress. The International Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimate that eliminating subsidies worldwide would make clean energy sources more competitive in the marketplace and result in a 10 percent reduction in global warming emissions by 2050. But implementing this agreement in the United States and elsewhere will be politically challenging, and G-20 leaders won’t even discuss ways to reduce subsidies until their next meeting, which doesn’t take place until the middle of next year.

The Copenhagen climate summit is coming up in only two months, but there is still enough time to hammer out an agreement that accelerates the transition to a clean energy economy worldwide and protects the environment for future generations. What’s needed from President Obama and other world leaders is political will, and as former Vice President Al Gore likes to say, political will is a renewable resource.

Over a decade has passed since a Conference of the Parties meeting was called a success. And even then, Kyoto -- in hindsight -- was merely a triumph of image over reality. Since then, UN meetings have been long on drama and rhetoric and short on concrete, meaningful results. During these past 12 years, negotiators have simply kicked the can down the road so to speak.

For Copenhagen to meet some standard of success it will have to jettison the Kyoto model -- a difficult goal considering that too many of the bureaucrats who attend these meetings have invested the entire 21^st century in pushing a flawed approach. Needless to say, my expectations are not high.

Like every other COP, this one will be filled with theater, finger pointing, and a call by developing countries for obscene amounts of money from the Western world. Still, it’s inconceivable that developing countries will accept binding obligations when they currently have none. And it’s that very exemption that will provide a fatal flaw in any agreement. So -- like other COPs -- this one will likely drag on to the last hour of the last day, just fumbling to reach some sort of agreement and, as such, avoid embarrassment.

Issues of global aid aren’t the only obstacle delegates will face. If the success of Copenhagen is somehow tied to the US passing legislation, then success is now out of the question.

The chance of the Senate passing legislation in time for a conference committee to complete its work before Congress adjourns is almost zero. Health care does not appear to be on a course for passage soon. Financial sector reform and a dozen appropriation bills are tying up legislators’ time. Moreover, there’s a great deal of political capital at stake for Senators if their version of the climate bill resembles the radical House legislation passed earlier this year.

And that brings us back to UN climate negotiations.

The Major Economies Process has shown signs of real progress and real cooperation between developed and developing countries. It could be a road map for a more effective global approach. A “pledge and review” approach where each country comes up with a plan based on its circumstances and is held to meeting the commitments it makes would put the global economy on a path to actually slow the growth in emissions.

Yet, almost anything resembling the Kyoto targets and timetables will suffer the same fate as Kyoto. It will be DOA because President Obama, like President Clinton, will not want to submit a treaty to the Senate that will be rejected.