Thoughts on Jim Webb's Letter to Barack Obama

I've got a few thoughts on this story, which reports on Sen. Webb's letter to President Obama "warning [him] against agreeing to any binding climate change agreement during a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark this month."

First, here's Sen. Webb's letter.

Dear Mr. President:

I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.

Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.

I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb
United States Senator

Now, here are my thoughts.

1. It's totally appropriate for Sen. Webb to remind the president - any president of any party - to consult with Congress, and certainly to submit any treaties for Senate ratification (as required by the U.S. Constitution).

2. Having said that, it's a little baffling that Webb would feel the need to send such a letter to this specific president on this specific matter. The fact is, presidents and their administrations negotiate treaties, trade agreements, etc. all the time. The negotiations are normally conducted with frequent consultation and advice from Congress, and this case is no exception. The fact is, what President Obama is planning to tell the Copenhagen conference the United States is prepared to do on greenhouse gases is exactly the same as the target set by the House climate bill passed in June -- "in the range of" a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 (compared to 2005 levels). It's also what the Senate is working on right now. In short, this doesn't in the least bit sound like a president bent on circumventing the will of Congress. In fact, it sounds like the exact opposite.

3. I would point out to Senator Webb that the EPA - an executive branch agency, by the way - already has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, aka "commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program."

4. The Obama Administration, including his Secretary of State (who Jim Webb respects greatly, based on everything I've seen), knows full well how treaties work under the U.S. constitution. Why, then, the need for this letter at this time?

5. In general, it would be great to see Senator Webb taking the lead on dealing with the tremendous economic, national security and environmental concerns posed by anthropogenic global warming. I'd be shocked if Webb doesn't understand the national security issues involved. I'd also be surprised if Webb didn't understand the economics of fossil fuels like coal, especially given that he wrote this:

The people from the outside showed up [in Appalachian coal country] with complicated contracts...asking for "rights" to mineral deposits they could not see, and soon they were treated to a sundering of their own earth as the mining companies ripped apart their way of life, so that after a time the only option was to go down into the hole and bring the Man his coal, or starve. The Man got his coal, and the profits it brought when he shipped it out. They got their wages, black lung, and the desecration of their land...Coal made this part of Appalachia a poverty-stricken basket case while the rest of the mountain region remained mired in isolation.

Unfortunately, despite Webb's clear understanding of the national security and economic implications of our fossil fuel dependence, so far as U.S. Senator he hasn't taken the lead on passing strong legislation to break our "oil addiction," create millions of clean tech jobs in the United States, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars on energy expenditures, and preserve the earth's for both current and future generations (that of course includes outdoorsmen of all kinds, including hunters and anglers). Instead, we've gotten a proposal with Lamar Alexander for loan guarantees aimed at the nuclear power industry (which I have nothing against, it simply won't make a dent in the problem at hand). I strongly urge Webb to be a leader on this crucial issue.