ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
insistence of the US government that it be allowed to offset its emissions
against its carbon sinks (i.e. its vast forests). Disagreements between devel-
oped countries can be attributed primarily to differences in energy resources
and the structure of the energy industry (Paterson 1996 ). Countries that rely
on fossil fuels for export income, such as Middle Eastern oil-producing states,
and those with large energy resources, including the USA, have been most
resistant to cuts.
The USA has an abundance of fossil fuel energy: it is the world’s second
largest oil and natural gas producer, and the largest coal producer. America
has developed a ‘gas-guzzler’ culture of cheap, available energy, which gen-
erates strong resistance to improving energy efficiency. The economic and
political costs of implementing emission cuts are therefore seen as higher
in the USA than elsewhere and because climate change is not perceived
to be asserious a problem in America as it is across the Atlantic, the US
government believes the costs of adapting to climate change are affordable.
Furthermore, American politicians have been subjected to strong pressure
from a powerful domestic industrial lobby, particularly motor and energy
interests (which bankrolled Bush’s presidential campaigns), to obstruct the
regime-building process (Newell and Paterson 1998 ). Consequently, the Bush
administration has played the role of veto state with some aplomb, doing its
best to reframe the climate change debate on its terms (Schreurs 2004 :219–
22). For example, in the face of growing scientific consensus about climate
change, the US government has exploited remaining uncertainties, such
as the heavy dependence on scientific modelling, although it subsequently
shifted ground by conceding that whilst human activities had contributed
to climate change it was too late to do anything about it, and that Kyoto was
certainly doomed to fail (ibid.: 221–2). Support for emissions cuts was also
inconsistent with Bush’s domestic agenda of hijacking the California energy
shortages to justify the exploitation of oil reserves in Alaska on the grounds
that there was a huge demand for more energy (Lisowski 2002 ). By con-
trast, most European governments regard climate change as a much greater
threat. EU countries are heavily dependent on imported energy and there is
no gas-guzzling culture as in the USA, while governments have a stronger
balance-of-payments incentive to cut carbon emissions because of the knock-
on effect of reducing imports of fossil fuels. There is a stronger tradition in
Europe of government intervention in economic decision-making, so gov-
ernments are expected to take a lead in dealing with climate change and
there is general approval of the proactive role played by the EU in climate
change diplomacy.
However, there is evidence of growing opposition in the USA to the Presi-
dent’s intransigent position. Several states have developed their own climate
change strategies: California has passed laws requiring vehicles to cut carbon
emissions and all major industrial producers to cut emissions by 25 per cent
by2020 in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020