Obama is too busy to concentrate on Copenhagen, the environment

The United States was the one glaring country that didn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol. Now, on the horizon of a new international climate change conference in Copenhagen this December, it doesn’t look like the U.S. will have much chance of joining in the world’s next treaty to block toxic practices.

Why? Well, it’s not because President Obama doesn’t want to. He’s said plenty of times that this an important issue for him.

But now we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place, a.k.a. the economy and a raging health care debate. At a time when the rest of the world is thinking strategically about how to extend a green peace treaty past 2012, the U.S. is about as internally focused as possible.

Yes, the issues on the plate right now are undeniably important for the future success of our nation and our people. But the same can be said of climate change. The only difference is the world is waiting for Obama to take the lead on environmental policy, a ball President George W. Bush dropped just before kicking it under his big comfortable sofa.

During his run for president, Obama promised to make climate control a priority and bring the U.S. into the discussion. British Energy Secretary Ed Miliband called on the U.S. to take some leadership.

“We do need significant cuts in emissions from the U.S. We want as much action from America as we can get,” Miliband told the Times. “America and China are the two biggest emitters. They are very key to this. I think a deal without America would be a very bad deal.”

A bad deal for the world, surely, but also a bad deal for a nation that was promised real, lasting change. Even the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is losing faith in chances for a successful Copenhagen Protocol.

The group looks at three key obstacles to a successful conference: politics, financing and the structure of an agreement.

Politics is obvious, because it always makes things tough. On the financial front, it’s going to take a vast quantity of leadership for wealthy nations like the U.S. to put up the money necessary for poor nations to meet any new treaty’s targets. In terms of structure, some nations want an entirely new agreement, while the European Union, Japan and most developing nations want to see something similar to Kyoto.

So once again, the U.S. is the odd one out. Well, Mr. President, you’ve got a tough task ahead, but with a Nobel Peace Prize in one hand and a tight grasp on reality in the other, let’s hope you can make this happen.