Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America
Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America
Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America
|
|
Posted: 08 Jun 2009 09:49 AM PDT The tracking has gotten so intense that Jonathan Pershing has fled the country. More accurately, Pershing left to participate in bilateral talks with the Chinese government in Beijing, my offers to suggest good restaurants rebuffed. Along with Todd Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change, and a number of others, the team will be confronting one of the major stumbling blocks left for Copenhagen. The US is demanding binding emission limits for China. This is because: 1. Real progress in curbing global emissions requires ensuring that China, the world’s largest emitter in absolute terms (but of course not per-capita), comes within any new framework. 2. Congress doesn’t like the political implications of the US making commitments that aren’t mirrored by China, so for the administration to get something through congress, they’ve got to push China for binding targets, among other things. China, in return, is demanding ambitious targets out of the US. They’d also like money from the US like other developing countries, but that’s of dubious likelihood. While Jonathan is out of the country, Trigg Talley is leading the delegation.  Trigg Talley, delegation leader during Pershing's absence Major issues for the US to deal with: 1. Most NGOs consider amount of money the US is offering for adaptation for developing countries totally inadequate. Word on the street is that the administration really thinks they can get away with this negligible sum. Our response: it’s not a reasonable amount of financing, and it’s not politically feasible here. Pershing needs to go back to the Hill and tell them the current level of financing is not enough. 2. The US is trying to count money spent on international offset projects as part of the financing picture – but this is double-counting, as these projects are being used for US mitigation targets. This money flowing in is less predictable and not channeled to the right places. Don’t double-count international offsets. They’re not part of the finance package. 3. US mitigation targets are weak, though World Resources Institute analysis that everyone’s talking about says the targets are better than they look at first blush. Getting better US targets is going to require serious congressional pressure, from the president or the populace or both. Other interesting note on US participation: Climate refugees. Jonathan Pershing stated on the plenary floor the US is uncomfortable with language “climate refugees” being in the text, because of the possible legal implications of the word refugee. It likely makes sense for countries to be obliged to treat climate refugees like refugees – even more so because we will have made them refugees by our emissions. Keep up the domestic pressure.       |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Inbox too full?  |
|
| If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America, c/o Google, 20 W Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America
|
Oh Canada, We Stand on Guard for… (What exactly?) Posted: 09 Jun 2009 11:51 AM PDT Word in the street is that Canada is waiting for the US to take leadership so that we can model our climate change plans after theirs. Makes sense, in a way, as they are one of our biggest trading partners. Here’s a brief comparison, thanks to Matthew Bramley of The Pembina Institute. It speaks for itself. Enjoy!
|
      |
Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America
|
Posted: 11 Jun 2009 09:09 AM PDT
By the second-to-last day at the Bonn talks, a few tensions have emerged.
First, there’s an interesting tension between transparency and secrecy.
On the one hand, we at the Adopt-a-Negotiator project are firmly committed to transparency. We really believe that by sharing information and engaging citizens, we can have a positive impact on an important policy process.
At the same time, sometimes there can be a need for more closed proceedings. A member of an environmental NGO told us that while she wants to push for as much transparency as possible, if everything was completely open, “nothing would get done,” because governments could never frankly exchange views.
I struggle with this, and though I believe there is room for some work that is not open to the media, the whole proceedings need more transparency. After all, decisions are being made that will affect literally all of our lives.
Another tension we sense in the US negotiating team is scale of ambition vs. political pragmatism and role definitions. Many, though not all, of the members of the US team (and though led by State, there are are also great people from other agencies – EPA and US Agency for International Development, to name a few) believe deeply we need to take serious action on climate change.
For those on the team who think we need more aggressive action than what the US is currently offering, there are a few things holding them back. The roles of the negotiators are defined here – they are not free agents. They are here to support US government policy developed at a high level. This operates both professionally, because breaking from the mandate is simply not tolerated, and personally, with the viewpoint that their proper role is to support American success at the talks. This means they can only push so far, and in specific ways on narrow issues.
In addition, because unlike in most other countries, for us to make treaties with legally binding requirements, congress must pass legislation. This means that negotiators at the highest level (i.e. Stern and Pershing) can only develop fairly specific policy – much has to come from domestic legislation (probably Waxman/Markey).
Of course, the higher in the hierarchy the negotiator is, the more he or she can push back in policy discussions with the administration, who can then intervene with congress. For example, if Jonathan Pershing and Todd Stern decide that the US is simply not offering enough for realistic chances of getting a deal, they will tell Obama, and he will talk with congressional leaders.
The other major limiting factor is the perception of what is politically pragmatic. As I mentioned before, Pershing took the lead on Kyoto, only to watch it fail at home. So there is very serious attention paid to what will play at home with voters. This means, for example, that serious money for China to be used in adaptation or for energy technologies is essentially out of the question.
These are some of the constraints we’re dealing with here. Thoughts on how to manage them?
By the second-to-last day at the Bonn talks, a few tensions have emerged. First, there’s an interesting tension between transparency and secrecy. On the one hand, we at the Adopt-a-Negotiator project are firmly committed to transparency. We really believe that by sharing information and engaging citizens, we can have a positive impact on an important policy process. At the same time, sometimes there can be a need for more closed proceedings. A member of an environmental NGO told us that while she wants to push for as much transparency as possible, if everything was completely open, “nothing would get done,” because governments could never frankly exchange views. I struggle with this, and though I believe there is room for some work that is not open to the media, the whole proceedings need more transparency. After all, decisions are being made that will affect literally all of our lives. Another tension we sense in the US negotiating team is scale of ambition vs. political pragmatism and role definitions. Many, though not all, of the members of the US team (and though led by State, there are are also great people from other agencies – EPA and US Agency for International Development, to name a few) believe deeply we need to take serious action on climate change. For those on the team who think we need more aggressive action than what the US is currently offering, there are a few things holding them back. The roles of the negotiators are defined here - they are not free agents. They are here to support US government policy developed at a high level. This operates both professionally, because breaking from the mandate is simply not tolerated, and personally, with the viewpoint that their proper role is to support American success at the talks. This means they can only push so far, and in specific ways on narrow issues. In addition, because unlike in most other countries, for us to make treaties with legally binding requirements, congress must pass legislation. This means that negotiators at the highest level (i.e. Stern and Pershing) can only develop fairly specific policy – much has to come from domestic legislation (probably Waxman/Markey). Of course, the higher in the hierarchy the negotiator is, the more he or she can push back in policy discussions with the administration, who can then intervene with congress. For example, if Jonathan Pershing and Todd Stern decide that the US is simply not offering enough for realistic chances of getting a deal, they will tell Obama, and he will talk with congressional leaders. The other major limiting factor is the perception of what is politically pragmatic. As I mentioned before, Pershing took the lead on Kyoto, only to watch it fail at home. So there is very serious attention paid to what will play at home with voters. This means, for example, that serious money for China to be used in adaptation or for energy technologies is essentially out of the question. These are some of the constraints we’re dealing with here. Thoughts on how to manage them? |
      |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Inbox too full? |
|
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 |
Adopt A Negotiator » United States of America
|
Posted: 12 Jun 2009 01:54 AM PDT The United States is no longer demanding a binding emissions cap for China, Todd Stern announced this week. Instead, the US is looking for continuing actions along the lines of the actions they have been taking, which I’ve been told are viewed by the administration as comparable effort in a number of areas, from vehicle performance standards to renewable energy portfolio standards. The administration wants to be able to tell American people that China gave as much as it got – particularly, they want to show that American business will not be damaged by an agreement. If Chinese sectors important for trade are making no strides in reducing emissions, the political fallout will be that the agreement is making the US less economically competitive. This dropped demand by the US may smooth the path to an agreement between the US and China. |
      |