Several environmentalists suggested that the European nations attending last week's White House-sponsored meeting on climate change would refuse to attend any future sessions unless the Bush Administration agreed to mandatory limits on US greenhouse gas emissions.
Turns out the US did not agree and the Europeans did not trash the meeting. In fact, Mogens Peter Carl, the European Commission Director General for Environment, told a concluding press conference Friday that France has offered to host the next meeting some time next year. The US objective is to reach a consensus on a "global goal," in time for a meeting of heads of state US wants to convene next summer.
"We have rolled up our sleeves and really joined the debate," James L. Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said at his press conference Friday.
Carl also expressed satisfaction about the US "re-engagement in the international negotiating process," adding, "They do want to contribute positively."
But for all the talk of re-engagement and positive contributions, the choice of words used by US and EC officials at the meeting or in press conferences suggests how much ground still needs to be covered as the parties march on the road to Bali for UN climate negotiations in December. (The press was allowed to cover only the opening welcoming statements by US officials and President George W. Bush at the State Department, where the conference was held; and the press briefings, of course).
Connaughton called it a "very vigorous discussion," at the US press briefing; Paula Dobriansky, under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs, referred to a "very robust discussion," on a long term goal. A spokesman at the EC, in a departure from the diplomat-speak practiced by the US officials, characterized the discussions as "heated."
Mogens Peter Carl, who maintained his diplomatic sangfroid when meeting with reporters, took the Bush Administration to task, albeit without naming names but by clear inference, in his remarks to the meeting.
In his "speaking notes," Carl noted that the EU has pledged to reduce its emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and would agree to a reduction of 30% provided other developed countries do the same. Ultimately, the commitment has to be for a 50% reduction by 2050, he said.
"Aspirational" goals (a US formulation meaning something to aspire to without a firm commitment), have been inadequate, Carl said. "So, we would now have to pay the consequences of 'informed inaction,' i.e, we now have to move faster and towards deeper cuts."
Since developed countries "are responsible for 80% of present greenhouse gas levels, we must accept that it is our responsibility to make the hardest choices in terms of absolute reduction commitments," Carl said. "We must know at Bali if this vision and goal is shared by other developed countries."
The Bush administration has been very clear about where it stands on mandatory controls on emissions, but Connaughton sidestepped a question about whether the US is 100% opposed to "hard caps." He said reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2050 presents an "enormous challenge and will be a very rich discussion."
Leave a comment