WASHINGTON — 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 Newspapers.
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;
—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 news 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, which 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.”
Via McClatchy-Tribune News Service.
