It’s always been hard to get a clear view of the intentions of the 193 countries embroiled for nearly 20 years in climate negotiations, which is one reason I captured some video of a CBS radio correspondent in the cacophonous and cavernous press hall in Copenhagen last December. (I’m trying to recall his name; please remind me in a comment!) Somehow, his use of a shroud to muffle the noise of colleagues as he recorded his dispatches reflected the challenges facing anyone trying to get to bedrock on climate diplomacy.
This is why it’s important to read today’s report from John Vidal of The Guardian, in which he describes what appears to be a document outlining the communication and negotiation strategy of President Obama’s climate-diplomacy team. The document, dated March 11, essentially provides talking points for administration officials to use in the months leading to the next big climate-treaty conference in Cancun, Mexico, in December. A central point is a defense of the primacy of the Copenhagen Accord, the short summary of commitments, both in emissions goals and financial steps, negotiated by a core group of rich and poor countries in December.
The document — which administration officials have neither acknowledged or rejected as authentic — has elements guaranteed to inflame folks ranging from Rush Limbaugh (the mention of efforts to “produce a global regime to combat climate change”) to environmental groups pushing for concrete commitments on restricting greenhouse gases (a phrase implying that increasing perception of United States engagement is the goal). Overall, it reinforces the difficulty of moving beyond aspirational language on emissions and qualified language on flows of tens of billions of dollars in climate-related assistance.
I have a query in to the State Department to get input, if not on the document at least on the climate team’s plans for the eight months leading up to the December climate conference in Mexico. I’ll post afresh when that’s in. Here’s the bottom line from the Guardian story, and my bottom line on what’s coming this year, and beyond. From The Guardian:
Top of the list of objectives is to: “Reinforce the perception that the U.S. is constructively engaged in U.N. negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change.” It also talks of “managing expectations” of the outcome of the Cancun meeting and bypassing traditional media outlets by using podcasts and “intimate meetings” with the chief US negotiator to disarm the US’s harsher critics.
But the key phrase is in paragraph three where the author writes: “Create a clear understanding of the CA’s [Copenhagen Accord’s] standing and the importance of operationalizing ALL elements.” Read more….
The rest is well worth reading — from the media strategy to the keystone point, made repeatedly in Copenhagen by the United States, that from here on in there are two kinds of developing countries and that “advanced developing countries” (meaning China) “must be part of any meaningful solution to climate change including taking responsibilities under a legally binding treaty.”
My keystone point, which I outlined earlier this year and will expand on here soon, is this:
After 20 years of unfulfilled aspirational pledges (the original Framework Convention on Climate Change), seemingly dead-end detours (the Kyoto Protocol) and relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, the world may be better off shifting from climate-centric diplomacy to a slate of efforts aimed at advancing the human condition in ways that limit climate-related risks.
I don’t mean the end of the Framework Convention. The conclaves produce meaningful face-to-face intercontinental dialogue and some flows of money and assistance that can expand clean-energy menus and limit climate vulnerability and deforestation in poor places. Commitments like those laid down in the months preceding the Copenhagen talks could well nudge many fast-developing countries and established greenhouse giants away from business as usual on energy and emissions.
But when I talk to students and others about forging a smooth path toward roughly 9 billion people seeking decent lives, and the underlying need for an aggressive and sustained energy quest, I always say don’t look to those hallways full of gray suits — the fossils, as activists call them — for the breakthroughs.