Climate policy of Obama administration is delayed

An article “Obama Administration Pushes Climate Talks into 2010” published on The New York Times September 17 introduces the Obama administration’s plan for new emissions pact which will be billed on the coming United Nations Climate Summit in Copenhagen this December. From this article, we can see Obama administration is not ready for the new emission pact. All of the preparation work for it, called “Plan B” is trickled into 2010.

Why cannot the Obama administration give a prompt and effective solution to response to the new emission pact? Certainly, you can say now the Council has more important bill to be discussed. The health care reform called “Plan A” has squeezed much time and vigor from both the House and the Senate. But climate-change legislation as a significant part of Obama's first-year accomplishments is the same important.

As we know, how to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission has become an important economic problem. “One percent of global GDP is required to be invested to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.” So Bush administration didn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 just after Bush was elected as president in order not to increase the economy strain, which led to GHG emission of USA in 2004 increases 15% comparing with that in 1990. To control the GHG emission, the Obama administration promises US will enter a cap and trade system to limit global warming. On June 26, 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, a cap and trade bill was passed in the House of Representatives. This act shows Obama administration’s attitude and goal. But how to implement the act is still a challenge for the Obama administration in the current economic situation.

Economic factors are more prominent and more critical in the climate problems, in spite there exist political factors. It will be expected how Obama administration controls the GHG emission without impeding the USA economy recovery.

Vote and Employment

This Wednesday Massachusetts State Governor Deval Patrick said he wants to organize Massachusetts employees to boycott Hyatt hotels after the failure of his third attempt to persuade the company to take back its decision to replace the housekeepers at three Boston-area Hyatt hotels with lower-wage workers from a Georgia staffing firm.

I think this is a conflict of politics vs. economy. As a statesman, Patrick surely hopes every employee could keep his/her job during the worst economic period in decades, especially at the period of his hotly contested race for reelection. He hopes to get more people’s support and needs more votes from the populated employees. But the current economic situation is not optimistic. Many companies have to reduce their sizes, even get bankrupt. Unemployment has become a serious social problem. More and more people lose their jobs since last October.

As a star in the hotel industry, Hyatt also cannot avoid the business depression. The layoff appeared in Boston area last month proves Hyatt has the same economic problem with many other companies. Otherwise it will not fire 100 sophisticated housekeepers who have serviced for it for more than 20 years at the risk of violating the employment law and suffering the criticism of the public.

Given profit is the only seek of each company, the layoff from Hyatt is reasonable. But the layoff will unavoidably bring negative effects to Hyatt. First it will definitely affect the company’s fame at least in the great Boston Area. People cannot accept such a big chain company fired the sophisticated workers only for saving $7 per hour. Especially, the fired employees have been hurt. They get so angry. The plea for boycotting Hyatt has also got the support from other politicians and business owners. Second, the business in this area will be affected. “The National Employment Lawyers Association canceled its contract with the Hyatt Regency Boston and is searching for another Boston hotel to host its October seminar.” So I don’t think this is a good way for Hyatt to fire these housekeepers.

Of course, I don’t support Patrick’s decision. As a sitting Governor, his decision will influence the judgment of many innocent people who don’t know the truth, because he is a State politician with much power. His calling for a boycott will possibly lead the employment to a worse direction. In addition, his behavior will probably be regarded as his private aim – for votes. So the criticism to Patrick’s decision from different people is predictable.

Based on the above analyses, I neither agree with the Patrick’s decision or the Hyatt’s coldhearted layoff. Patrick should take advantage of his personal influence and administrative power to look for more employment chances for these fired housekeepers. Hyatt should do some positive things to amend the bad effect due to the layoff. All in all, the government and the private companies must be in good cooperation to avoid more unemployment.