WASHINGTON—President Obama on Tuesday said it was “imperative to redouble our efforts” to combat global warming, as European leaders pressed Washington to take action on climate change ahead of next month’s summit in Copenhagen.
Obama met top European leaders for an E.U.-U.S. summit here, shortly after German Chancellor Angela Merkel offered a heart-felt appeal for a climate protocol in a rare address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress.
“All of us agreed that it is imperative for us to redouble our efforts in the weeks between now and the Copenhagen meeting to assure that we create a framework for progress in dealing with [a] potential ecological disaster,” Obama said after talks with European Commission head Jose Manuel Barroso, E.U. foreign policy chief Javier Solana, and Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, who holds the E.U. presidency.
Merkel in her appeal compared the battle against climate change to the struggle to bring down the Berlin Wall two decades ago this week. She also backed Western calls for emerging nations to do more. “I’m convinced that once we in Europe and America show ourselves ready to adopt binding agreements, we will also be able to persuade China and India to join in,” she said.
But even as she and Obama—praised by Barroso for having “changed the climate on climate negotiations”—stressed the need for a more concerted effort to solidify a framework agreement at Copenhagen, U.S. Republican lawmakers shunned a meeting on an Obama-backed bill to set the first U.S. requirements on curbing carbon emissions blamed for global warming.
Asked what impact Merkel’s speech might have on the U.S. debate, Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the top Republican on the committee looking at the climate legislation, said: “None whatsoever.”
Democrat Ben Nelson (Neb.) was similarly blunt, answering the same question with a simple “no.”
Earlier Tuesday, Barroso said he was “worried by the lack of progress in negotiations” ahead of the Dec. 7-18 climate meeting, and acknowledged a binding pact would not be ready by then. The summit in the Danish capital has been set up to seal a treaty to succeed the landmark Kyoto Protocol, whose obligations to cut carbon emissions expire in 2012.
“Of course we are not going to have a full-fledged binding treaty, Kyoto-type, by Copenhagen,” Barroso told reporters. “This is obvious. There is no time for that.”
Barroso said a meeting next year in Mexico could finalize a treaty, but said Copenhagen needed to come up with the framework of the deal, and that the world’s largest economy in particular should take a lead role.
“What we are asking is the United States to show leadership in this, such an important issue,” Barroso said.
He warned against a protracted process of negotiations akin to the stalled Doha round of global trade liberalization talks. “I think it is important not to give up before, because if we start ... now to speak about Plan B in Copenhagen we’ll probably end in Plan F for failure. Let’s not do to Copenhagen what has been happening with trade in Doha, where systematically every year we are postponing.”
Sweden’s Reinfeldt said the United States should at least agree on targets for cutting emissions and on financing for developing nations. “I said that we need to have a clear commitment on targets and on financing coming from the United States,” Reinfeldt told AFP after talks with key senators. “We can understand if it’s not possible to have everything in place exactly now. But we want a full agreement in Copenhagen and we are able to work through details in the months that come after Copenhagen.”
He spoke as pre-summit negotiations were underway in Barcelona, Spain, where divisions again ran deep between key developed nations and emerging economies.
An E.U. summit last week agreed that developing nations will need 100 billion euros ($146 billion) per year by 2020 to tackle climate change, but failed to nail down how much it would give.
The U.S. role in Copenhagen is overshadowed by the debate in Congress. The House of Representatives in June narrowly passed a plan to curb carbon emissions, but the bill—already criticized by other developed nations as not ambitious enough—is bogged down in the Senate.
Some Republicans, like former president Bush, argue that action on climate change would be too costly to the economy and demand further commitments by emerging nations.
Comments
View as Flat
Gene Preston Posted 4:34 pm
03 Nov 2009
In addition to that, the rooftop solar program is not working because rooftop solar does not produce enough energy to make the effort worth while. Here is an example of a solar community that seems to be a workable model: http://egpreston.com/costofsolar.pdf and here is an analysis that shows centralized solar is twice as cost effective: http://egpreston.com/costofcentralsolar.pdf. Also, the CCS program will be a failure if the cost of CCS is as expensive as $100 per tonne (2204 lbs) which some now think it will be, because that cost adds another 16 cents per kWh to the cost of coal, which makes the coal technology far too expensive. Therefore you are basically left with wind solar and nuclear. Wind and solar will require massive amounts of transmission infrastructure to improve reliability as vast weather systems move across the US. These lines can be avoided by implementing small nuclear plants at existing coal plant locations. Also the IFR group has a plan for eliminating nuclear waste. You need to have Dr Chu investigate IFR technologies. Sincerely Dr Eugene Preston, http://egpreston.com .
Permalink
stk Posted 5:38 pm
03 Nov 2009
The two things Hansen suggests in Chapter 9 are: (a) start building fast reactors (b) refuse to support cap-and-trade, and instead insist on fee-and-dividend.
The case for fast reactors is summarized here:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/390139/ifr/IFRintro.doc
One of the key advantages is fast reactors have the potential (if the prices are as low as GE thinks they will be) to replace the burners in a coal plant while decreasing costs. That's key. Fast reactors appear to be the first technology we have that give the owners of coal plants a compelling economic reason to switch. I know of no other technology that can replace the baseload power at lower cost than coal. That is THE key to winning the war here. If we can't get rid of virtually all coal emissions worldwide, we're toast, no matter what else we do.
The case for fee-and-dividend is summarized here:
http://tinyurl.com/ygs4la4
Permalink
Billhook Posted 6:23 pm
03 Nov 2009
Isn't that a little brazen even for that most shameless of lobbies ?
The article is about the need for agreement of a framework at Copenhagen around which a treaty might be be negotiated next year -
What it fails to mention is the growing interest among EU and other parties for a "coalition of the willing" to move ahead together, with laggard states being left to play catch-up once they realize their error.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink