Nearly one year ago, the world agreed that climate change poses an urgent threat to society, that global cooperation is imperative to address it, and that every country must decrease greenhouse gas emissions. After years of frustrated attempts, leadership on both sides of the Atlantic was instrumental in reaching this historic agreement. While the individual efforts of Germany and the United States were instrumental in reaching a successful outcome, along with skillful and indefatigable French diplomacy, it was the sum of their efforts and the collective power of their leadership that achieved what was previously elusive. While a giant step forward, Paris is just the beginning. Paris was the statement of purpose, the foundation and framework, the blueprint that while necessary, is in and of itself insufficient. Beyond simply making promises, in the coming years countries must live up to the commitments they made. This will likely require painful reforms, years of transition, and even economic restructuring, along with the adoption of innovative policy models, sustainable investment frameworks, and disruptive technology. To state the obvious, the challenge is far too great for any one country to tackle alone. Developing and disseminating the tools and policies for the energy transition and motivating countries to use them will require global leadership—leadership which should and indeed must come from the United States and Germany.
Germany has perhaps the only energy policy in the world so well known that the word itself, Energiewende, has taken on a life of its own, joining the ranks of Kindergarten, Zeitgeist, and Schadenfreude. While the policy is not perfect, its celebrity is perhaps its biggest strength. The Energiewende stands for a mix of aspiration and implementation and provides proof that an advanced economy with strong industry can also be climate friendly. It also offers a bit of a moral compass, showing not only that climate change mitigation is possible, but also responsible.
The U.S. demonstrates quite different, but equally useful lessons through its (thus far) bottom up, state-driven approach—namely, that experimentation and innovation can produce great progress. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have declined in recent years thanks to technology (and federal support for R&D) that enabled natural gas development and power sector fuel switching. Where Germany provides a roadmap, the U.S. experience is characterized by flexibility and state entrepreneurship, resulting in successes like the California emissions trading program, the second largest in the world. The U.S. case shows that overarching top-down policy is not the only way to approach a problem, a useful lesson for many countries.
That is not to say that both countries do not have shortcomings. Rather, in tackling the same problem with different approaches they have something to share with one another, and with the world. The two countries have a wealth of policy experience to exchange and innovative technologies to disseminate, backed up by the economic heft and diplomatic strength to assist and persuade other countries to address an issue which will affect all countries, regardless of economic status, regime type, or level of development.
However, just days after the formal adoption of the Paris Agreement, its future is already in jeopardy. Just one day after being elected President, Donald Trump and his Republic allies in Congress announced that that rapid reversal of President Obama’s climate policy is a top priority. Such an outcome would be detrimental for U.S. progress and disastrous for international commitment to a shared goal. Paris lacks formal enforcement mechanisms, and implementation instead rests on goodwill, public opinion, and the willingness of nations to comply. Countries will require encouragement and occasional diplomatic pressure to meet their commitments—a task that would be infinitely more difficult if the U.S. withdrew both its support and its substantial diplomatic leverage. American inaction would destroy chances of meeting the global targets agreed to in Paris, while a withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, or even worse from the 1992 Framework Convention, would send a dangerous signal to the rest of world.
For Germany, keeping the world’s second-largest emitter from going off this climate cliff is critical. Amid this uncertainty, U.S.-German climate cooperation is even more crucial, and much rests on this strategic partnership. Germany is perhaps the only country with the diplomatic clout and climate credentials to try to influence the U.S. position. As the U.S. potentially moves into a post-Obama era where climate change is relegated from national security threat to hoax, Germany must hold the U.S. government accountable while continuing to encourage and foster progress. In the meantime, it is imperative that the two countries continue to exchange on the working level, to ensure regulators, technology developers, and policymakers learn from one another and enable innovation.
Ultimately, strategic partnerships are distinct from special relationships. Strategic partners have different strengths and failings. They offer criticism where they see shortcoming and guidance where they have learned from experience. They push one another where opinions and approaches diverge. They point out flaws, prod one another to action, and hold each other’s feet to the fire. They work together to take on challenges too immense to be tackled alone. The U.S. and Germany are, and should continue to be, strategic partners, and hold one another accountable to the promises made at Paris. Most importantly, they should provide the combined global leadership required to inspire and enable all countries tackle a problem we can no longer afford to ignore.
Hi Elise,
I really enjoyed reading your piece. It’s incredibly well written, your points are clear and concise, and you perfectly sum up the importance of preserving the U.S. and German alliance.
What I would love to continue reading from your piece is recommendations on how the U.S. and Germany can preserve their alliance, given the political climate and the rise of populism and nationalist sentiment. You mention the importance of safeguarding U.S.-German cooperation in light of the election of Donald Trump, but what about in light of the growing anti-globalist, anti-EU trend? Just today pro-Eu leader Prime Minister Renzi announced his resignation. Given the political climate, what are the odds that president elect Donald Trump — outspoken anti-EU, anti-TPP and anti-NATO — will ally with one of the last-standing pro-EU leaders, Chancellor Angela Merkel? And given this reality, what should we do to preserve the U.S.-German relationship?
I understand these are tough questions to ask, especially with so much uncertainty about the future. Thank you for sharing such an incredible piece! I personally enjoyed reading it since I also wrote about the future of global cooperation in tackling climate change.
Best of luck as you continue your work and research!
Andrea
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for the thoughtful comments and advice, I think you are right on with the questions. I agree with your point that relying on Donald Trump to preserve the U.S.-German relationship is an uncertainty and likely dim prospect–I think this is where the states, NGOs, companies, and other organizations with ties to Germany and the EU and a vested interest in climate action should step in. For example, many U.S. states have said they will continue their climate change mitigation efforts regardless of the new administration, and I think in this space information sharing, training, and contact with peers and counterparts in German agencies would be a useful way to maintain the relationship on the working level even if on the diplomatic level the next four years are a bit rough. That said, I firmly believe in the power of peer to peer exchange, and thus am of the opinion that if civil society organizations along with utilities, energy companies, and states can maintain the relationship that progress can continue.
Hi Elise,
I really enjoyed reading your piece. It’s incredibly well written, your points are clear and concise, and you perfectly sum up the importance of preserving the U.S. and German alliance.
What I would love to continue reading from your piece is recommendations on how the U.S. and Germany can preserve their alliance, given the political climate and the rise of populism and nationalist sentiment. You mention the importance of safeguarding U.S.-German cooperation in light of the election of Donald Trump, but what about in light of the growing anti-globalist, anti-EU trend? Just today pro-Eu leader Prime Minister Renzi announced his resignation. Given the political climate, what are the odds that president elect Donald Trump — outspoken anti-EU, anti-TPP and anti-NATO — will ally with one of the last-standing pro-EU leaders, Chancellor Angela Merkel? And given this reality, what should we do to preserve the U.S.-German relationship?
I understand these are tough questions to ask, especially with so much uncertainty about the future. Thank you for sharing such an incredible piece! I personally enjoyed reading it since I also wrote about the future of global cooperation in tackling climate change.
Best,
Andrea
Hi Ellen,
I totally agree on your arguments. Germany and the US have indeed the capacity to carry the Paris Agreement forward and to lead by example. As I also pointed out in my article, the first meaningful step to achieve that is to learn from one another and to implement the best practices on both sides of the Atlantic. This kind of serious effort would give a Transatlantic Alliance enough credibility to convince other countries to follow our path. I’d be interested to discuss with you some concrete actions that you consider useful for the US and Germany in order to move on.
Best regards
Christian
Dear Christian,
I hope to get the opportunity to discuss this in more detail–I think we are at a quite crucial moment, as countries are going to have to really move toward implementation, and will look to countries like the U.S. and Germany as examples, as well as sources of inspiration, technological know how, and funding. A big test will be how the U.S. moves forward with its (thus far promised) contribution to the Green Climate Fund…although with a GOP Congress I concede this does not look good.
Ellen,
I enjoyed your article. You made the point that a country must not sacrifice the benefits of a strong economy to be able to be progressive in terms of climate policy. What can the US and others learn from these policies? Frankly, how do we get people to care more about climate policy? Germany itself will be unable to forever be the proverbial Atlas, perhaps metaphorically supporting the world, at least its physical state, on its shoulders. As you stated, climate change will require the partnerships among many nations.
Hi Ellen,
Thank you for your well-informed piece. You are going to add incredible value to this forum. Climate change stands as the most important issue of our discussions. I wrote this in a previous response, and I will write it again. Not because I do not have anything new to add, but because it bears repeating:
“While other laws and policies can be modified and improved over time, climate change is irreversible.”
In an effort to add value to your piece, I have included a brief history of environmental issues in the United States. I hope you find this historical approach helpful and meaningful. Due to the character limit, I will include it in an addition response.
Hi Derek,
Thank you very much for your kind words, and I completely agree with your point, and that ultimately in the US we still need to do a better job of articulating why this matters. I think in terms of the political and historical context, and considering this question of how to make the American public care, it should be noted that many major environmental initiatives (creation of the EPA, passage of the Clean Air Act, CAA Amendments) were completed under GOP Administrations, and that at one point John McCain sponsored climate change legislation. I think we used to be at a point where environmental issues were more a point of agreement than departure, and I think we can get there again–we just need to move beyond or otherwise separate climate change from the social issues it has been subsumed with–which will of course require public outreach and education.
In the 1960s, Americans are starting to become aware of the dangers of pollution. Books like Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” (1962) and Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” (1968) brought environmental issues to the forefront. However, attached to the counter-culture movement of the times (think the hippies and the return to nature), it remained a grassroots movement.
In the early 1970s, environmentalism grew into a professional and political organization. Smoggy cities, polluted water, and other tangible issues to the pedestrian observer gave agency to the environmental movement. Consequently, it began to lobby for political change, and the US government passed the EPA Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). This progress continued in the late seventies with an aerosol ban (1978) and a nuclear moratorium following the Three Mile Island Meltdown (1979).
However, in the 1980s, the rise of conservative overtook conservation. The conservative revolution sought to overturn government regulation – including environmental concerns. James Watt in particular (Reagan’s appointment to the Dept. of Interior) wanted to sell national parks to private developers. Fortunately, largely discredited and dismissed before delivering on his objectives. Yet, the backlash and security threat remained – environmental militancy and eco-terrorism. Groups like Earth First and Earth Liberation Front started to sabotage industrial projects, break into power plants, start fires at new development projects, and other things of this nature.
To connect this history to your article, think of these two points. First, the US entered a dark period in the 1980s on environmentalism and prevailed – peoples attitudes did return to progress. Second, an old national security threat will return. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement or abolishing the Environmental Projection Agency will lead to eco-obstruction, eco-sabotage, and eco-terrorism.
Ellen, Thanks for your insightful analysis. I especially agree with your concluding assertion that the US and Germany should continue to work together as defenders of the Paris Agreement. However, when you state that Germany and the US should “provide the combined leadership required to inspire” other countries to address the global climate issue, do you think that part of this leadership responsibility means that the US and Germany should cover more of the costs? Especially considering the fact that these two countries are some of the biggest polluters, do you think that having the US and Germany pay an over-proportionate portion of the costs would actually incentivize or disincentivize other countries to follow suit? The question of “fairness” of course has many subtleties; what is fair sharing of carbon sharing costs, fair sharing of compensation costs, and a fair guaranteed right to development, in your opinion? This also leads to the question of whether developing countries should be given any extra time (though this could be accused of reversed discrimination against developed countries already paying enough costs for a global issue), or is this not “fair” in turn to the entire planet that would be endangered at the cost of developing countries given extra time? You acknowledge that climate problems need to be tackled as a group effort, but I would love to hear your thoughts on how you think cost compensation should be divided.
Hi Eliza,
I think the U.S. and Germany, along with other developed countries, will of course have to cover some of the costs given the historical track record and current emissions profiles. That said, I think there are more creative ways of thinking about this as well–while I think an effort like the Green Climate Fund can go a long way in creating a common pool and financial support from Western countries to developing nations, I think the U.S. and Germany also have a lot to contribute in terms of technology, expertise, and policy models, and through research and development and technology dissemination could make the path easier for those who follow. Thus, I think a more comprehensive view that includes these kinds of contributions is a good way to think about how the historical emitters can “pay” for this history along with contribute to climate mitigation overall.
Hi Ellen,
I find your article very interesting. It will take a global effort to tackle climate change. The United States and Germany could play a tremendous role in the fight. However, in light of the United States electing Donald Trump there will be issues in maintaining the Obama administration’s stance on climate change. If we remember one of the reasons why Kyoto failed was due to the United States not ratifying. Therefore, the United States stance will be very crucial and so other nations must rally for their support. I agree with you that the Paris Agreement is a powerful modern agreement and the fact that it allows countries to create their own policies in regards to climate change shows the power of the agreement (bottom-up approach). Technological advancements will play a crucial role in limiting green house gas emissions and so the United States and Germany can lead the charge in creating sustainable development. Great article !
Hi Rendee,
Thanks for your comment and I completely agree, the Trump election thus far does not bode well for U.S. participation in Paris. That said, I think some of the individual states will continue their efforts, and thus far this does not seem to have led to a massive domino effect of states saying they will drop out if the U.S. does. China, for example, has reiterated its commitment, sending a strong signal (and unfortunately showing the consequences of the U.S. abdicating a leadership role), while the EU is moving forward as well. I think the U.S. could still be a leader in certain technologies, as private companies recognize what the future of energy holds and where it is going, and do not want to lose out simply because of politics.