As the world gets ready to act on climate
change, U.S. is missing
Nov 22 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Renee Schoof McClatchy
Newspapers
With just over two weeks to go before global climate negotiations in
Denmark, the United States has yet to decide whether it can meet
international expectations and offer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by a certain amount in the next decade.
The success or failure of the talks in Copenhagen could hinge on whether
the United States offers a concrete plan. Failure would mean a loss of
momentum toward a treaty to reduce carbon emissions that includes all
countries, which already has been delayed to next year. Moreover, other
countries are unlikely to move forward to cut emissions if the United
States doesn't pledge to make mandatory reductions.
Todd Stern, the U.S. negotiator, said that the U.S. hasn't decided
whether it will say how much it intends to reduce emissions.
"If we do, it will be contingent on the enactment of our legislation,"
he said in an interview with McClatchy.
All other industrialized nations have unveiled their emissions reduction
plans. Some other large emerging markets have done so, as well,
including South Korea and Brazil. Many other countries, however, are
waiting to see the United States' long-term plans before they agree to
make firm offers and commit to them under the force of an international
accord.
President Barack Obama, during his visit to China, said he supported a
Danish plan to reach a strong agreement in Copenhagen on all the key
points. Among them are:
-- What the industrialized countries will do to cut emissions by 2020
-- What China and other developing countries will do to reduce their
emissions
-- How countries will prove they make the cuts they promise, and
-- How industrialized nations will help poorer countries jumpstart clean
energy and cope with the climate changes that are likely to occur
Stern said some kind of financial aid is likely if an agreement is
reached, possibly a lump sum by the industrialized nations to help
defray the costs to developing countries.
"It's all under discussion," he said.
Obama said that the U.S. and China agreed, "that each of us would take
significant mitigation actions . . . and stand behind these
commitments."
It remains to be seen, however, how strong a commitment Obama has in
mind. Neither the U.S. nor China has said what it plans to do.
The Senate has delayed a climate and energy bill until spring. The
legislation includes a system to put a limit on emissions that declines
each year and to allow large polluters such as power plants and
refineries to buy and sell pollution permits.
Stern said the United States wants to see China propose a "significant
domestic program" that would make "very significant reductions of
emissions." China also has been the country that is most reluctant to
agree to provide definitive evidence that the promised emissions
reductions are actually being made, he said.
The U.S. hopes for an agreement that would take effect immediately, so
that financing and technological support for clean energy development
could start and countries would begin to reduce emissions.
"At Copenhagen, governments must reach an agreement on all the essential
elements of a comprehensive, fair and effective deal on climate change
that both ensures long-term commitments and launches immediate action,"
Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official, said on a United
Nations Web site.
In press conferences this month, he's called on the United States to
offer specific emission cuts by 2020 and to agree to aid for developing
countries.
Without a target of how much the U.S. will reduce emissions, the
Copenhagen talks could fail, said Jennifer Morgan, the director of
climate and energy at the World Resources Institute. The U.S. target
could be provisional, based on what Congress decides, or it could be a
range, she said.
It also would help the talks if Obama made a clear statement that he
wanted Congress to complete the climate bill by spring, she said.
Elizabeth Bast, the international programs director at Friends of the
Earth, said her environmental group was disappointed by the Obama
administration's lack of an ambitious emissions reduction target and a
financing plan.
Meanwhile, the White House hasn't decided whether Obama will go to
Copenhagen. Dozens of other world leaders plan to attend.
James Hansen, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Studies, who alerted Congress about the dangers of global warming in
1988, argues that political rhetoric isn't being matched by effective
action.
When it comes to climate, Hansen writes in an upcoming book, "President
Obama does not get it. He and his key advisers are subject to heavy
pressures and so far their approach has been, 'Let's compromise.' "
David Brown, a lobbyist in Washington for the Exelon Corp., one of the
nation's largest power companies, said, "It appears as though the White
House is seriously considering stepping up and making some commitments
based on what they can do as an executive branch, but I don't think
we'll get the final deal out of Copenhagen. I think that will wait for
the Senate to wrap up action."
Nigel Purvis, a former U.S. climate negotiator who heads a consulting
firm, Climate Advisers, said at a hearing in Washington last Tuesday
that the U.S. team faces a serious challenge.
"It needs to be forthcoming enough to keep international negotiations
moving forward, while at the same time not getting to far ahead of the
Senate and the Congress as a whole, which needs more time to consider
energy and climate legislation."
Carter Roberts, the president and chief executive officer of the World
Wildlife Fund, said there was "enormous opportunity in Copenhagen
because the developing world is ready to play ball."
(c) 2009,
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
|