What was seen in the heady days of 2007 and 2008 as the likeliest venue for a new international agreement on carbon emissions now caps a year of mixed results. While the American political system has, in many ways, seen a total transformation in its capacity and willingness to tackle such a transcendent issue, some of the traditional obstacles remain — primarily the age-old laws of partisan politics and the limits on how much ambitious legislation Congress can absorb at one time.
At the apex of the 2008 campaign, with the League and other groups leaning hard on a crowded field of presidential candidates, and congressional Democrats shifting steadily toward the view that action would be required, a Democratic victory seemed likely to mean a treaty in the new president’s first year.
In retrospect, though, what had seemed like a political coup was just a partial victory. The populist organizing, the new rhetoric of green jobs and the long-term goals of the campaign season glossed over the concrete terms that have turned 2009 into a season of diminished expectations, making clear that Copenhagen will be, at best, just another step in a long process. In interviews, environmental leaders made the case that the movement’s successes vastly outweigh the setbacks and that they probably never could have predicted the main obstacle to passing major climate legislation this year.
“When someone asks why aren’t we going to get a deal in Copenhagen, the biggest reason comes down to two words: health care,” said Karpinski.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member