Lesson Report:
Okay, here is the lesson report generated from the transcript:
**Lesson Report: US Climate Change Policy – History, Foreign Policy Implications, and Mechanisms of Inconsistency**
This lesson analyzed the United States’ approach to climate change as a key example of a transnational challenge. Building on previous discussions about US foreign policy framing and rhetoric vs. action, the class examined the historical oscillation in US climate commitments (Kyoto Protocol vs. Paris Agreement), explored the security and economic dimensions of climate change from a US foreign policy perspective, and analyzed the roles of different branches of government (President, Congress, Agencies) in shaping this inconsistent policy landscape.
**Attendance**
* 1 student (Rafael) was noted as absent.
* 1 student (Hamdam) arrived late and appeared to leave slightly early.
**Topics Covered**
1. **Introduction & Recap of Previous Lesson**
* Transitioned from last week’s topic: US government framings used to justify policy actions (e.g., combating terrorism, promoting democracy) and the question of rhetoric versus genuine commitment/geopolitical interests.
* Introduced this week’s focus: Common global/transnational issues the US is involved in.
* Today’s specific topic: Climate Change.
* Wednesday’s topic preview: Human Rights (connecting via workshops/simulations).
* Objective: Analyze the US approach to shifting transnational challenges, specifically climate change, using course frameworks (continuity/change, rhetoric/action).
2. **Defining Global/Transnational Issues**
* Lecture defined characteristics of global/transnational issues:
* Borderless: Affect multiple/most countries.
* Require Multilateral Cooperation: Cannot be solved by one country alone.
* Involvement of Non-State Actors: International organizations (IOs), NGOs are often involved.
* Intersectionality: Often linked to human rights, economy, development, etc.
* Climate change presented as a perfect example fitting all criteria.
3. **US Climate Policy: A History of Oscillation**
* Framed the core question: Why does US policy on climate change (and other transnational issues) oscillate so much?
* Traced the history beyond the recent Paris Agreement flip-flopping:
* **Kyoto Protocol (1990s):** First major international attempt during the Clinton administration. Included legally binding emission reduction requirements. Clinton supported it.
* **Congressional Blockade:** Congress (Republican majority) passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution *before* potential ratification, effectively killing US participation. Resolution stipulated the US wouldn’t join treaties that negatively impacted the US economy or didn’t hold major developing countries (i.e., China) to the same standards. Kyoto failed these criteria. Clinton never formally submitted it to Congress.
* **Bush Administration:** Opposed Kyoto Protocol participation.
* **Obama Administration:** Joined the Paris Agreement (2015).
* **Trump Administration:** Withdrew from the Paris Agreement.
* **Biden Administration:** Rejoined the Paris Agreement.
* **Trump (Potential Future):** Stated intent to withdraw again.
* Highlighted the pattern: Oscillation between partial support/short-term commitment and withdrawal/opposition.
4. **Climate Change as a US Foreign Policy Concern**
* Framed climate change beyond environmentalism, focusing on hard policy/security interests.
* **Security Implications (Climate Change as a “Threat Multiplier”):**
* *Definition:* Exacerbates existing international threats.
* *Water Stress:* Discussed potential impacts, especially in regions like Central Asia and the Middle East. Leads to resource conflict and regional instability, which implicates US interests and security concerns (e.g., conflict between Kyrgyzstan/Uzbekistan over water).
* *Food Stress/Insecurity:* Linked to water scarcity, leading to instability, potential state failure.
* *Refugee Crises:* Climate-induced migration creating pressure on the US and allies.
* *US Military Readiness:* Impacts of rising sea levels and extreme weather on coastal bases; operational challenges in new environmental conditions (e.g., extreme heat).
* *Arctic Geopolitics:* Melting ice opens new shipping lanes and resource access. Increased strategic competition (US/Alaska, Russia, China claims) for control and economic opportunities. Instructor recommended buying property in Alaska.
* **Economic Implications:**
* *Cost of Inaction:* Massive infrastructure investment needed due to severe weather damage (wildfires, hurricanes); impacts on agriculture; supply chain disruptions.
* *Global Competition:* Race for dominance in green technologies (EVs, batteries), with the US facing increasing competition, particularly from China.
* *(Note: Instructor cut this section short due to time constraints before fully elaborating).*
5. **Mechanism Deep Dive: Kyoto vs. Paris Implementation**
* Revisited the Kyoto Protocol context: Growing scientific consensus, UN support, binding targets. Explained why Byrd-Hagel blocked it (economic concerns, China standard).
* Explained Obama’s strategy for joining the Paris Agreement despite Byrd-Hagel:
* Used an **Executive Agreement**, not a treaty requiring Senate ratification.
* Circumvented Byrd-Hagel by arguing the core emission reduction **pledges were non-binding**. Legally binding aspects were minimal (reporting, planning).
* Highlighted the **inherent weakness** of this approach: Executive agreements can be easily undone by subsequent presidents via executive action (as Trump demonstrated), unlike treaties which require Congressional action to withdraw (NATO cited as an example).
* Discussed limitations on executive actions/agreements: Congressional control over budgets limits feasibility; presidential norms against overreach (though eroding).
6. **Activity/Discussion 1: Influence of US Foreign Policy Mechanisms**
* Students were asked to reflect on the roles of the President, Congress, and Agencies in US climate policy.
* Key points discussed:
* **President:** Sets agenda, proposes/approves/vetoes legislation, directs agencies, uses executive action/agreements (circumvents Congress but creates fragility), high public visibility.
* **Congress:** Ratifies treaties (key power missed in Paris), controls budget/funding for agencies and initiatives, conducts oversight hearings, passes blocking legislation (e.g., Byrd-Hagel).
* **Agencies (e.g., EPA, Dept. of State):** Implement policies on the ground, develop detailed regulations/plans, conduct international coordination, advise the President, possess technical expertise.
7. **Activity/Discussion 2: Identifying the Primary Driver of Inconsistency**
* Students were challenged to argue which mechanism (President, Congress, Agencies) is the *primary* cause of US inconsistency on climate policy.
* **Arguments for the President:** Frequent changes in leadership (4-8 years vs. longer Congressional terms) bring different priorities, agendas, and framing of the issue (Democrat vs. Republican example). Represents US interests *at that time*.
* **Counter-argument for Congress (Instructor):** Congress created the fundamental obstacle with the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, forcing presidents into weak executive agreements. Other policy areas (e.g., NATO) show more stability despite presidential changes because they are rooted in treaties/stronger Congressional consensus. Congress’s initial action set the stage for oscillation.
* **Other Factors Mentioned:** External events (e.g., climate disasters like hurricanes, wildfires) can influence agendas but don’t fully explain the structural inconsistency.
8. **Conclusion & Preview**
* Brief wrap-up of the discussion.
* Previewed Wednesday’s class: Transitioning from climate change to a broader discussion of human rights in US foreign policy.
**Actionable Items**
* **Lesson Planning/Timing:**
* The instructor noted wanting more time for the workshop/discussion activities towards the end of the class. Consider adjusting the lecture/activity time balance for future sessions covering similar amounts of material or splitting content across sessions.
* **Student Attendance:**
* Follow up with Rafael regarding his absence if necessary per course policy.
* Monitor Hamdam’s attendance/punctuality if late arrival/early departure becomes a pattern.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
Based on the transcript, the lesson concluded with two in-class reflection and discussion activities regarding the roles of different branches of the US government in climate policy and the primary drivers of policy inconsistency, with no mention of any assignments to be completed outside of class.