RSS feedPrint

  • CHATTING WITH MARKEY AND GORE OVER CANAPES

    12/18/2009
    10:18 am
    Also posted on grist.org

    As negotiations reached a rapid boil at the Bella Center last night, and expectations for a positive outcome at COP15 simultaneously soared and sank, some U.S. leaders took a brief reprieve in the neighborhood of Rydhave—a wealthy enclave of Copenhagen about 25 minutes outside of the city center. Gathered at the personal residence of U.S. Ambassador Laurie Fulton were the members of the congressional delegation led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (including climate advocates like Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, and foes such as Marsha Blackburn. Also present was surprise guest climate megastar—Al Gore.

    Here, amid warm family introductions, quips, canapes, and frosty cocktails, the mood was light. But back at the Bella Center, things were fraught. Climate negotiators had been buoyed early in the day by Hillary Clinton’s promise of $100 billion by 2020 to help developing nations cope with the impacts of climate change—a game-changer that reportedly caused Chinese negotiators to ease ever so slightly off their resistance to negotiating terms of transparency.

    But that positive development was offset by a leaked UN report showing that current emissions pledges at the conference still added up to a 3-degree Celsius rise, 50 percent higher than the stated 2C goal. The Guardian, which first exposed the leak, reported: “A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government – as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction.”

    Swallowing a sip of wine, I wander over to Congressman Markey without my recorder (not a recorder-friendly type of affair). Markey is a bright light bulb of a guy. I ask him the question of the moment: “Is a weak deal better than no deal?” He smiles, shaking his head and says (I paraphrase from memory) ...

    Markey: We aren’t going to get a weak deal. We’re going to get a strong deal. End of story.

    Q. Let’s just say hypothetically—that we had to choose between a weak deal and no deal?

    Markey turns to greet a colleague.

    Q. Just considering all possible outcomes—would a weak deal be better than no deal?

    Markey: I won’t talk hypothetically. It’s fatalist. It’s defeatist—this agreement is going to be strong.

    Spurned, I drift over to Gore and pose the same question. Gore was friendly, engaged, and offered his insights for the better part of 10 minutes. A few highlights of the chat—again paraphrased from memory:

    Gore: Well, we know the deal is going to be weak. So whether’s worse than no deal at all depends on how weak it is.

    Q. What’s too weak?

    Gore: If it’s just pledges and reporting it’s too weak. There has to be transparency, there has to be verification. There has to be the foundation of a good financing plan. It needs to include a commitment to meet again soon—June or July—to commit to something that’s legally binding.

    Q. How do you define transparency? Is it the same thing as MRVs (short for “Measurable, Reportable, Verifiable”)?

    Gore: Yes, transparency is my language for MRVs. And China, as you know, doesn’t want it.

    Q. Do you think if transparency were defined in an unthreatening way—as non-invasive, something that doesn’t pose a threat to China’s sovereignty—that China would be more amenable?

    Gore: Perhaps.

    Q. How are you feeling about all this? You’ve been through a lot of these negotiations—are things where they’re supposed to be right now?

    Slight wince.

    Gore: It’s different this time. Things aren’t as far along—largely because we don’t have the moral urgency of talks in the past that were legally binding. Since this is about setting a framework, it just hasn’t been demanding the same level of urgency. It’s anybody’s guess what will happen—we’re on the bubble right now.

  • JOHN KERRY ON WHETHER A WEAK CLIMATE DEAL IS BETTER THAN NO DEAL AT ALL

    12/18/2009
    9:48 am
    Also posted on Grist.org

    COPENHAGEN—As climate negotiators hash out the eleventh-hour details of an operational accord, one question looms over the discussions: Is a weak deal better than no deal at all?

    I put that question and others to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in a sit-down interview yesterday. The chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee admitted that all bets are off on a getting climate bill out of the U.S. Senate if we can’t reach some kind of agreement in Copenhagen. “No deal at all would kill an effort in the Senate,” said Kerry.

    Here’s a video excerpt from the interview. Here's what else Kerry had to say about the Senate, Copenhagen and why he’s fighting so hard for a climate accord.


    Q. You’ve been through so many climate deliberations. How is this different and what does it feel like to be here?

    A. This is a little bit slower and behind where they normally are at this point in time. But I think tonight things are going to start to come together. I think there’s going to be progress. I’m very very hopeful and being positive.


    Q. The Senate is getting a big rap for being an obstacle to progress here. Do you deserve that criticism?

    A. I think the senate had some very real concerns several years ago. Requiring a certain number of countries to reduce emissions while other countries would be outside of the agreement. In fact, today here in Copenhagen, we are all discussing the part of the agreement and that’s a big shift. And it’s a very important one, and hopefully if they come to an agreement in Copenhagen it can have an important impact on the attitude of the Senate.


    Q. Can you elaborate on that? How can it help or hurt the progress on Senate legislation this spring?

    A. It can help enormously because a lot of senators appropriately are worried that if we require [emissions] reductions in America, what happens if China, India, and other countries just fill them up with their own replacement emissions? People want to know that if we’re going to do this, other people are doing it too. Everybody has to be part of the solution. And that’s a real shift in thinking. I think people realize the science is moving very rapidly. While it would have been better to have begun this eight, 10 years ago, 17 years ago, we are where we are. And now everybody has got to be part of the solution.


    Q. Wasn’t it true that in Kyoto, the president was one step ahead, or several steps ahead of Congress and that hurt the situation rather than helped it? Do you think it polarized Congress?

    A. Not if it’s done correctly. If there is an agreement here and it doesn’t have adequate sharing of information, measurement, what people are doing, verification, it would be a non starter. If people come out of Copenhagen and there’s a realistic verification measurement and everybody is joining in on this effort in realistic ways according to their abilities, I think that will encourage people to have a more open mind about how we are going to proceed forward.


    Q. Will a weak deal be worse than no deal at all?

    A. Boy, that’s a tough question. I guess it would depend on what [the deal] looks like. No deal at all would kill an effort in the Senate. It would be very, very difficult to move forward in the United States Senate if people here can’t agree on being part of something.


    Q. Define the terms of what would be a decent agreement.

    A. Well, if people have come together agreeing to specific reductions in their emissions; agreeing to an exchange of information and cooperative effort where we can measure what people are doing in a real way; where there is an adequate sharing of cost and finance mechanism for some of the less developed countries that have great difficulties doing things without help; and where there is a forestation component, where we are helping preserve forests and minimize the degradation of forests; and then a time to meet again to finish this up. Those would be, that would be a big deal. I think if we get that, that would be great.


    Q. Al Gore called for an April 22, 2010 deadline for the Senate. Is that viable?

    A. It’s possible. You know the majority leader has already said that he hopes to bring this to the Senate floor in the early spring and that would fit in the schedule. But you know you can’t get specific. You just got to have a target for time, and we’re going to do the best we can to try to get this done.


    Q. Is it fair to characterize this process as possibly the single most important act of diplomacy of the century?

    A. Well, so far it’s a young century. In the nine years we’ve had, yeah it probably is.


    Q. How much should rich countries be paying poor countries to adapt to and mitigate climate change, and how should that transfer of funds be structured?

    A. I don’t think it’s a question just of rich countries paying poor countries. It’s a question of what kinds of development bank, what kinds of structures are going to be created within the carbon trading system center to provide some revenues. It doesn’t have to come out of the budget of the country. There will be a lot of private sector money that’s going to be going into this for investment purposes. So we shouldn’t look at this as just spending the money of the budget. This is a whole financing mechanism that’s much bigger, more complicated than that. But I think there will be a need to provide assistance to very poor countries where we don’t want them building a coal fired power plant but that’s their only option. We need to help move them into new technologies in new ways.


    Q. And that’s a very exciting proposition. This idea that we can pour money into the development of clean economies all over the world and profit from it, benefit from it.

    A. Well, it’s important but we benefit too. And frankly, we’ll create jobs in the United States. Because if our companies are able to sell the technologies, we’re involved in helping some of those countries move to cleaner, more efficient fuels, we can create good jobs in America.


    Q. Last question: What does this mean to you personally? You’ve put a lot on the line, a lot of political capital to fight for legislation in the Senate against all odds. Why are you fighting so hard?

    A. I’m fighting so hard because this is literally about survival of the planet and life on the planet. People shouldn’t take this lightly. When scientists tell us that if the earth’s temperature warms more than two degrees C, it will be catastrophic, you better listen to them. And every bit of evidence that they have predicted would happen has happened. So you’ve got to take this seriously. I do. I think as a public official, if Dick Cheney can say we should go to war on a one percent chance that a terrorist might attack you, then when you have a near 100 percent chance that you’re going to have disastrous consequences from climate, we ought to go to the moral equivalent of war and do something about it. And that’s why I’m in this: I think its about life and about saving lives. It’s about preventing the spread of disease. It’s about preventing the destruction of natural resources. It’s about providing jobs to people. It’s about better health. It’s about America’s energy independence. You can run down a long list of things that are at stake here. I don’t think the stakes get much bigger than that.

  • TIM WIRTH SAYS IMPERFECT DEAL AT COPENHAGEN BETTER THAN NO DEAL

    12/17/2009
    9:34 am
    Reporting from Copenhagen (also posted on grist.org)

    Timothy Wirth, head of the United Nations Foundation, has a long-term perspective on climate negotiations—and he says people who contend that no deal is better than an imperfect deal are “flat wrong.” While serving as undersecretary of state for global affairs during the Clinton administration, Wirth led the U.S. delegation to Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, where the Kyoto Protocol was signed. Wirth previously served as a U.S. representative and senator from Colorado.

    I spoke with him on Wednesday, click here to see the video -- here are highlights in text:

    Q. What makes this climate conference different from previous ones?

    A. It’s very different because there are 110 heads of state coming, and when you have a head of state coming, he or she has to learn the issue, they have to really know the substance of what they’re doing.

    And second, they have to come and deliver something—they can’t just show up. And each of these heads of state then has to see as other heads of state [deliver something]. They reinforce each other and momentum gets going. In many ways, it’s like if you go to a political convention and the state of Wyoming votes for so-and-so and the state of Arkansas votes for so-and-so and you get momentum going. That’s the way political consensus builds and that’s what will happen here.

    Q. What’s your feeling about the progress so far?

    A. I think we’re making very real progress. A year ago, the U.S. had taken no national action at all and had no political commitment. Now, the U.S. has changed very dramatically. What happens in Copenhagen will accelerate the speed with which the U.S. moves.

    Q. What are the most important components of a meaningful agreement that you want to see by Friday?

    A. The agreement will have percentage reductions. In the U.S., we‘ll be somewhere in the 17 percent range [below 2005 levels by 2020]—my guess is a little bit higher than that by the time the president gets here.

    There will be a financing provision, which is extremely important—how do we deal with the developing world.

    There will be a provision related to monitoring and evaluation—the way it’ll get resolved I think is cooperation between the U.S. and China.

    There will be a technology-transfer section.

    Those will be four of the major elements in an agreement, each of which is absolutely doable, and we’ll have an agreement by Friday and it will be a pretty good one.

    Q. What do you want to hear from Obama?

    A. I want to hear whatever Obama wants to say. [Laughs.] I’m really pleased that he’s coming. I think he understands this issue. And what we really want to see is not only his commitment, but the kind of leadership that he gives to our government. I think that his leadership is extremely important to mobilize the White House at the senior levels, to mobilize his economic team at a senior level, and to organize our diplomatic efforts with China.

    Q. Protestors have been making the case that a weak deal is worse than no deal at all. What’s your position on that?

    A. To go on a very difficult, long journey, you have to take a first step. And what’s happened is the United States has taken a major set of first steps—that’s extremely important. Having the world get together the way it has here in Copenhagen in my opinion has been a great success—it was even before Copenhagen met, because so many heads of state have been involved and have had to learn this issue. And finally, the fact that this has mobilized relationships between the United States and China, the United States and India, is extremely important.

    So those who say that no deal is better than what is going on here are flat wrong. They really don’t know anything about how government works and they’ve never taken a long trip. Maybe they’ve just gone next door to see the neighbor and watch television.

    Q. In Kyoto, U.S. leaders were a step ahead of Congress, and that can polarize an already contentious political climate. Is there a concern that if President Obama is a step ahead of Congress, that could hurt our efforts in the spring to move climate legislation through?

    A. I think that there is a real concern that the administration does not want to get too far out in front of where it thinks the Congress is. It has to be very careful about that and very respectful of the fact that we have three branches of government. Most people around the world don’t understand that we have something different from a parliamentary system. So the president has to be careful about how far he goes, he has to bring members along. Unfortunately, because of the health-care debate, there are no senators here in these negotiations to talk to people and hear people—I think that’s going to make it a little bit more difficult for Obama to get the votes in the spring.

    In the Senate you have to get 60 votes, out of a field of probably 70 possible votes. That’s going to take a piece of legislative jujitsu. [Sen. John] Kerry is well on his way toward really understanding that. [The Senate climate bill] will probably look a lot different from the Waxman-Markey bill [in the House]—it will have different characteristics.

    Remember that the president of the United States has enormous regulatory authorities at the EPA, and Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, has begun to exercise those authorities. The president has to tell people as well that he’s prepared to use that.