U.S. pushes for compromise in Copenhagen climate talks 4

SINGAPORE—The United States called Wednesday for a compromise at next month’s global climate talks in Copenhagen and vowed to support a fund to help developing countries cope with emissions cuts.

“We cannot let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of progress,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a news conference in Singapore ahead of a weekend Pacific Rim summit to be attended by President Obama.

Clinton at 100th Anniversary of the Boundary Waters Treaty.Photo courtesy US Mission Canada via Flickr Clinton said she had “fruitful discussions” on climate issues earlier Wednesday with counterparts from the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, which includes China, Russia, and Japan.

The Dec. 7-18 Copenhagen talks are aimed at achieving a global deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions and ease the impact of climate change before the 2012 expiry of the Kyoto Protocol, which excludes the United States.

Obama has brought the United States back into the climate discussions after his predecessor George W. Bush refused to sign the Kyoto pact.

“If we all exert maximum effort and embrace the right blend of pragmatism and principle, I believe we can secure a strong outcome at Copenhagen,” Clinton told the news conference.

Beyond Copenhagen, “we are committed to reaching the goal of a global, legally binding climate agreement, and will continue working vigorously with the international community towards that end.”

Earlier, in prepared remarks to a closed-door gathering of APEC foreign ministers, Clinton said the group’s members account for 60 percent of global emissions and their efforts to cut them can have a “transformative impact”.

She called for a trade-off between raising global living standards and strong action on climate change, and acknowledged the United States’ “historical responsibility” for climate change, according to the official text.

Clinton reiterated U.S. support for a fund aimed at helping developing countries reduce emissions, but gave no details.

“We are prepared to support a Global Climate Fund that will support adaptation and mitigation efforts and a matching entity to help developing countries match needs with available resources,” she said.

European Union leaders agreed last month that developing nations will need 100 billion euros ($150 billion) by 2020 to tackle climate change but failed to nail down the group’s share.

Finance ministers from the G20, which includes the United States and E.U., were also unable to make headway on how to finance the climate fund when they met in Scotland last week.

There has been a long-running dispute between industrialized and developing countries over their role in the fight to slash global emissions.

Countries like China and India blame western nations for producing most of the emissions in their drive to industrialization and feel that drastic emission caps would hamper their own development.

Obama, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, and 18 other APEC leaders are expected to call for sharp cuts in global emissions at the end of their summit on Sunday.

“We believe that global emissions will need to peak over the next few years and be reduced to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries,” a draft declaration said.


Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. neosapiens Posted 3:44 pm
    11 Nov 2009

    Foreign aid efforts have a checkered history. Setting up a fund that will actually have sufficient accountability to be effective--and that can overcome conservative objections to parting with large sums of money--will be very tricky. Recipients will be insulted by the requirements for oversight, and donors will be reluctant to give without strings. Corruption, waste and inept use of funds are legitimate concerns. Whatever mechanism is set up also needs to reward the most effective efforts and the most transparent applications of the funds. There will also be some who will argue that the donor's funds are better used (and more easily controlled) if deployed in their own country's decarbonization efforts rather than contributed to a global fund.
    1. ohiopapa's avatar

      ohiopapa Posted 6:54 am
      12 Nov 2009

      while I agree the donor's funds may be better used and controlled in one's own country, I think deploying them elsewhere may be a smart political decision, because it buys a certain amount of goodwill globally, as well as encourages other countries to work cooperatively.
      1. jestbill Posted 5:30 pm
        17 Nov 2009

        It's interesting that these discussions are usually based on a "zero-sum" foundation. Is it really true that funds sent to a foreign country reduce those spent at home? (Not those "available," those spent.)

        It's tax money going overseas, private money being spent here.
        Different.
  2. ohiopapa's avatar

    ohiopapa Posted 6:57 am
    12 Nov 2009

    So the compromise of the article title must be the "trade-off between raising global living standards and strong action on climate change". An odd statement, as the effects of climate change are expected to hit hardest those countries with the lowest standards of living.
    There is a direct link between stopping/slowing climate change and raising the developing world's standards of living (and ours).

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement