Stern vs. Chu
June 4th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The Obama Administration is uncharacteristically speaking with two voices on international climate policy.
Here is Todd Stern, special envoy on climate change for the State Department:
No deal will be possible if we don’t find a way forward with China
Here is Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy:
President Obama has made it clear that the US should act first. Using China as a reason not to act is no longer an option.
Predictably, Republicans have seized upon the apparent inconsistency. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-PA) fired off a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton requesting the following:
Please clarify for the record that the State Department still leads the Administration’s international efforts on climate change. Please also clarify the position of the United States in the U.N. climate change negotiations that are to result in an agreed outcome in Copenhagen in December. Specifically, is the United States seeking “a strong new international agreement that will include significant commitments from all countries,” as articulated by Mr. Stern, or a “new global deal on climate change” without commitments by China and other developing countries, as articulated by Secretary Chu?
Please provide clarification of the Administration’s position on these critical matters by June 15, 2009.
I’m not sure what the odds are, but I’m taking Chu in a knockout.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:20 am
The question is whether this is intentional or not. It wouldn’t be the first time that different messages were sent intentionally, given that difference audiences are listening.
Many in Congress are using China as an excuse to oppose us doing something, while others recognize that the US must lead if China is going to be convinced to do something serious on the issue. This could allow the administration to tell the Chinese in private (they like private communications so much) that Chu’’s statement are the real policy and Stern’s are for domestic politics (a position the Chinese will understand) while at least holding Congress off for a while with Stern as they await that clarification. Getting the Chinese to agree to act might depend on whether W-M dies or not, irregardless of what we think of its merit.
I’m not saying that I think this is what they are doing. I have no idea. Just that is is one strategy that is not unusual. But maybe they just are confused. How quickly the administration moves to clarify this may be the answer. If clarification is slow in coming, it might indicate that the split message is intentional. Or it could indicate an internal debate. However, a fast clarification would tend to indicate a lack of communication internally.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“I’m not sure what the odds are, but I’m taking Chu in a knockout.”
This article seems to support your pick:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/03/ceq-nancy-sutley-obama-to-stake-political-prestige-on-passing-us-climate-bill/