Leading from behind.....

President Obama has been mocked for his assertion that America has been "leading from behind."

Back in early June, President Obama did a bit of plain old leading by proposing new rules on carbon emissions from power plants (link). The new rules are the first significant exercise of authority exercised by the EPA under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. In earlier posts to this blog, I detailed how this interpretation of the Clean Air Act came about (link to February 2 Post) as well as my belief that President Obama would indeed invoke "executive authority" to tackle climate change during his remaining two years in office (link to April 23 Post).

Reaction to the proposed rule was generally positive, particularly among those who have been pushing for decisive U.S. action on climate change. It was an important step forward, but also one that will not dramatically alter America's contribution to global emissions. In fact, if fully implemented, the rules' main impact may be to force the closure of some of America's oldest, dirtiest, and least efficient coal-fired power plants (see link).

Here's where it gets rich.... The day after Obama's announcement, Alberta's Minister of Environment, Robin Campbell, suggested that Canada and the United States work together on climate change initiatives; something I have argued would grease the political skids for Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline (link). Campbell seemed to be arguing that Alberta was doing some leading. Hmmm....



"We’re moving forward,” Campbell said, “so I don’t think we have to play catch-up with anybody in the world when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions."

“I think it’s promising that the American administration is looking at some changes, but again, I would suggest that they are playing catch-up with us, and we need to be able to sit down and have further dialogue on a North American agreement.” (See story)

Okay, so we can all agree that the United States has little space to be throwing stones on climate change when it resides squarely in a glass house. But "catch up" with Alberta, the lead contributor to the growth in Canada's carbon emissions? Really? Could this be a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Yep! On July 8, the Alberta Auditor General released a fascinating report (link) that includes an assessment of the climate change strategy launched by the province in 2008. Alberta officials can rightly point to the $15/ton carbon levy imposed on large polluters. It is one of the few carbon pricing schemes anywhere. Critics argue that $15/ton is far too low to be meaningful. Indeed, critics of Obama's proposed rule would like to see a carbon market in which emissions are priced rather than simple regulatory restrictions (link). Yet, the Alberta AG's Report is remarkable as it concludes the province not only failed to meet it's emissions targets (something the province admitted it would in 2012), but had virtually no processes in place to even monitor the implementation and impact of its own initiatives; initiatives touted by provincial officials every time they spoke in support of Keystone XL. Seems Alberta wasn't leading or "leading from behind,"... just behind.

Keystone XL is really just a piece of infrastructure caught up in a maelstrom of controversy over climate change. However, the failure north of the 49th parallel to quickly recognize that Keystone became a symbol of something larger has hurt Canada's case in favor of its construction. The cheap critiques of the American political system, coupled with claims of green credentials that we now know don't exist, have helped kill Keystone, probably until after the next president assumes office.

My hope--and advice, should anyone ask for it-- is that we might see a coordinated North American approach to climate change in the very near future. The demonstration effect of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, coordinating emissions regulation, pricing, and reduction, would be powerful in the larger multilateral climate change setting. The real points of cleavage on global climate change mitigation reside at the intersection of developed and developing countries. If North America could find a way to address climate change together, it would obviate the need for window dressing of national policy failings and shift everyone's orientation away from "leading from behind" and toward just leading.