Big Warlock
09-22-2009, 01:21 PM
US-EU rift clouds climate summit
By Fiona Harvey in London, Joshua Chaffin in Brussels and Edward Luce in Washington
Published: September 21 2009 19:46 | Last updated: September 21 2009 22:08
A growing rift between the US and Europe is overshadowing Tuesday’s United Nations climate change summit in New York, further damping hopes for a breakthrough at the Copenhagen talks in December.
Connie Hedegaard, the Danish environment minister, lowered expectations, saying: “Things are looking difficult and too slow, that is the fact.”
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Airline industry plans 50% cut in emissions - Sep-22Prepared remarks: Obama on climate change - Sep-22Money Supply: Why reducing carbon dioxide will be so difficult - Sep-22Energy Source: Now China is the good guy on climate change - Sep-22In Depth: Copenhagen climate summit - Sep-21EU sees US as biggest obstacle on climate - Sep-21The downgrading of expectations comes as relations between the US and Europe, which started the year of talks as allies, near breakdown.
In Brussels, European Union officials have grown increasingly frustrated at the US stance, saying it has fallen short on both its level of ambition to reduce emissions and on offering aid to developing nations.
“So far, we thought the basic problem was the Chinese and the Indians. But now I think the problem appears to lie most clearly with the US,” a European Commission official said. Talks were “not going well”.
European officials say the Obama administration lacks focus because its top talent is wrapped up in the all-consuming debate over healthcare.
Prompted by remarks last week by Harry Reid, the US Senate majority leader, that cap and trade legislation might be pushed back to next year, John Bruton, the EU ambassador to the US, blamed the Senate for holding up the global agenda.
“Sometimes in this country, the greatest deliberative body in the world [the Senate] acts as though it is the only deliberative body in the world and that we should all wait until it gets healthcare passed,” he said.
“There is a global timetable and the US Senate is fully aware of it ... The world cannot wait on the Senate’s timetable.”
US officials say their European counterparts fail to understand US political processes that require the administration to have a clear go-ahead from Congress before concluding any international agreements.
Todd Stern, US envoy for climate change, said: “It may be that some people on the other side of the pond don’t understand the system that well, but that’s the way ... [it] works, and we’re pushing ahead.”
US figures point out that its targets on emissions cuts require a similar level of effort as those of the EU, and that the cap and trade bill under consideration in Congress would provide financing comparable to that from Europe.
Separately, Yvo de Boer, the UN climate change chief, took a dig at the US. Predicting that Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, would use his speech in New York to announce significant emissions reduction measures, he said it was “quite ironic” Mr Hu would do so “in a country that is firmly convinced that China is doing nothing to address climate change”.
The row has prompted fears that governments will try to save face at Copenhagen by agreeing to a watered down deal or a “political declaration” rather than an outright agreement.
“This is dangerous ground,” said Tom Burke, founding director of E3G, an environmental thinktank. “It’s not a good sign – it means the gaps are too big to be settled in the 80 days to Copenhagen. The danger is that if [an agreement] does not have a date, it means you may not get a ratifiable treaty.”
Sir David King, former scientific adviser to the UK government, said it would be better to postpone negotiations to next year rather than risk a weak deal.
“I would rather see a 12-month moratorium on the agreement so that you can have a better agreement, with President Obama freed up from the Congress and Senate processes.”
His stance was echoed by Lord Stern, author of a landmark review of the economics of climate change, who told the FT he was still optimistic that an agreement could be reached but: “I would much prefer a framework that had to be filled in [next year] than something agreed with weak targets that would be difficult to unravel.”
By Fiona Harvey in London, Joshua Chaffin in Brussels and Edward Luce in Washington
Published: September 21 2009 19:46 | Last updated: September 21 2009 22:08
A growing rift between the US and Europe is overshadowing Tuesday’s United Nations climate change summit in New York, further damping hopes for a breakthrough at the Copenhagen talks in December.
Connie Hedegaard, the Danish environment minister, lowered expectations, saying: “Things are looking difficult and too slow, that is the fact.”
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Airline industry plans 50% cut in emissions - Sep-22Prepared remarks: Obama on climate change - Sep-22Money Supply: Why reducing carbon dioxide will be so difficult - Sep-22Energy Source: Now China is the good guy on climate change - Sep-22In Depth: Copenhagen climate summit - Sep-21EU sees US as biggest obstacle on climate - Sep-21The downgrading of expectations comes as relations between the US and Europe, which started the year of talks as allies, near breakdown.
In Brussels, European Union officials have grown increasingly frustrated at the US stance, saying it has fallen short on both its level of ambition to reduce emissions and on offering aid to developing nations.
“So far, we thought the basic problem was the Chinese and the Indians. But now I think the problem appears to lie most clearly with the US,” a European Commission official said. Talks were “not going well”.
European officials say the Obama administration lacks focus because its top talent is wrapped up in the all-consuming debate over healthcare.
Prompted by remarks last week by Harry Reid, the US Senate majority leader, that cap and trade legislation might be pushed back to next year, John Bruton, the EU ambassador to the US, blamed the Senate for holding up the global agenda.
“Sometimes in this country, the greatest deliberative body in the world [the Senate] acts as though it is the only deliberative body in the world and that we should all wait until it gets healthcare passed,” he said.
“There is a global timetable and the US Senate is fully aware of it ... The world cannot wait on the Senate’s timetable.”
US officials say their European counterparts fail to understand US political processes that require the administration to have a clear go-ahead from Congress before concluding any international agreements.
Todd Stern, US envoy for climate change, said: “It may be that some people on the other side of the pond don’t understand the system that well, but that’s the way ... [it] works, and we’re pushing ahead.”
US figures point out that its targets on emissions cuts require a similar level of effort as those of the EU, and that the cap and trade bill under consideration in Congress would provide financing comparable to that from Europe.
Separately, Yvo de Boer, the UN climate change chief, took a dig at the US. Predicting that Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, would use his speech in New York to announce significant emissions reduction measures, he said it was “quite ironic” Mr Hu would do so “in a country that is firmly convinced that China is doing nothing to address climate change”.
The row has prompted fears that governments will try to save face at Copenhagen by agreeing to a watered down deal or a “political declaration” rather than an outright agreement.
“This is dangerous ground,” said Tom Burke, founding director of E3G, an environmental thinktank. “It’s not a good sign – it means the gaps are too big to be settled in the 80 days to Copenhagen. The danger is that if [an agreement] does not have a date, it means you may not get a ratifiable treaty.”
Sir David King, former scientific adviser to the UK government, said it would be better to postpone negotiations to next year rather than risk a weak deal.
“I would rather see a 12-month moratorium on the agreement so that you can have a better agreement, with President Obama freed up from the Congress and Senate processes.”
His stance was echoed by Lord Stern, author of a landmark review of the economics of climate change, who told the FT he was still optimistic that an agreement could be reached but: “I would much prefer a framework that had to be filled in [next year] than something agreed with weak targets that would be difficult to unravel.”