|
|
|
|
Advertisement
What does the House's passage of the Waxman-Markey climate bill mean for international negotiations? Will a detailed agreement be reached in Copenhagen, Denmark this December? During today's OnPoint, Michael Zammit Cutajar, chairman of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change's Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, explains how the United States' legislative progress will affect the Copenhagen meeting. He discusses the importance of engagement between China and the United States and explains whether the goals for the Copenhagen meeting have changed as a result of the economic downturn.
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to the show. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is Michael Zammit Cutajar, chairman of the UNFCCC's ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action. Mr. Zammit Cutajar, thank you for coming on the show.
Michael Zammit Cutajar: Morning, pleased to be here.
Monica Trauzzi: You're in town speaking with U.S. policymakers ahead of the UNFCCC's meeting in Copenhagen in December. What's the key message that you're bringing to be states about expectations for the U.S. delegation at the meeting?
Michael Zammit Cutajar: Actually, I'm coming here to learn more about what is happening to get a sense of congressional opinion, especially in the Senate that's been my main point of contact, but also with the State Department negotiators, exchanging views with the negotiators about how the process might go forward to Copenhagen and getting a sense from the Hill as to what are the prospects for Senate legislation passing before Copenhagen, which makes a big difference to the scenario. The message is that we want an ambitious U.S. position. The U.S. position is dependent on the legislature, so that's where the focus of our attention is. I'm very impressed by the long-term vision that comes out of the Waxman-Markey Act, the 40-year vision to 2050, but there's pressure for performance benchmark in the medium term and that is perhaps where my attention is now focused.
Monica Trauzzi: So, as you mentioned, the Waxman-Markey bill recently passed the House, the legislation is now making its way through the Senate. It's going to be a tougher hill to climb in the Senate to get those 60 votes for passage. So, is the House legislation enough for the U.S. delegation to bring to the meeting in order to please the community?
Michael Zammit Cutajar: It's early to say that. At this point everybody is asking everybody else to do more. There are certain benchmarks which are out there, 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels is a formula you hear very often and nobody is really near that yet. The U.S. certainly isn't. The U.S. would then say don't focus so much on that one year, but look at the pathway towards 2050, say look at the decade of the 20s. That conversation is still going on, so I couldn't say now that this is enough or not enough. People are sparring, watching each other, listening to each other. What came out of the recent meetings in L'Aquila is a pointer, a positive pointer, but also showing where the work still remains to be done. So that was a very interesting stage in the discussions.
Monica Trauzzi: Yes, many people were disappointed with the outcome of that meeting.
Michael Zammit Cutajar: Yes, you can read it in different ways of course. There's certain positive elements in the -- if you look at the Major Economies Forum, which is perhaps the more relevant -- G-8 is a group of industrialized countries. But what characterizes this negotiation now is that everybody is involved and everybody has to be onboard, all the major players at any rate. So, if you look at that, the one number that comes out is a limit on global warming which is asserted by scientists, 2 degrees centigrade, no numbers as to how to get there and the G8 was more forthcoming. Whether or not there will be a new agreement in Copenhagen, a new treaty or the reinforcement of existing treaties, that was not clear from the major economies discussion, though there was a sense from the G8 where they would like to be, a new treaty. So, all these things are shaping up. I mean we don't even know -- I don't know what piece of paper I'm supposed to be drafting for December, what the form is, what the legal form is, but we have a sense about what the content should be. So the focus is now on that.
Monica Trauzzi: So, what is the ideal spot for the U.S. to be in, in the legislative process heading into Copenhagen?
Michael Zammit Cutajar: My sense, and I'm really a novice in reading the U.S. tea leaves, is that now that we have a very good sense of direction, let me go back a step and say that things have really changed in this country. The fact that there is this first half of the legislation through is a very strong signal to the world, a signal of commitment. As I said, people would like it to be more, but that's where it is in the present circumstances. I think it would be very good for the Copenhagen process if there were a similar signal, hopefully a stronger one from the Senate in time. It's not the be all and end all. I can imagine readings which people say maybe it might even be better if the Senate did it early next year, but I'm not expert enough to say that. My gut feeling is that if both houses had pronounced, the U.S. would be in a much better position to negotiate with the rest of the world in December.
Monica Trauzzi: All that aside, many experts believe that expectations have been lowered for this Copenhagen meeting, especially because of the economic crisis that's facing the international community. Are you at all changing your plans for this meeting, having that in the background, knowing that a possible treaty may not be in sight this year?
Michael Zammit Cutajar: No, we are aiming at a sound political outcome. We are aiming at something in Copenhagen that will make the rest of the world stand up and say, "Things have changed. We're on a new track, on a new track with all the players onboard. When I say all the players, please remember that apart from the economic heavyweights there's a lot of other players in this game, poor and vulnerable countries that need support for adaptation, that is part of the deal, finance for adaptation. But if you look at the prospects that are still out there, there's a reason to scale back. What there is, is always a question about how far one can go into the detail of what needs to be done, but I think we are still aiming at the big numbers, the mitigation numbers, the finance numbers, and the essence of the rules of the game for getting to those numbers.
Monica Trauzzi: So, will a detailed agreement be reached in Copenhagen?
Michael Zammit Cutajar: How detailed I don't know, an agreement will be reached, whether it is a treaty, that I cannot tell you today.
Monica Trauzzi: Obviously, engagement with China, between China and the U.S. is very important and energy Secretary Steven Ch recently visited China to discuss energy and climate issues. It is progress being made between the two countries?
Michael Zammit Cutajar: From what I hear it's a constructive engagement. I see it very positively. Some people have expressed fears that there might be a tendency to a bilateral deal, leaving the rest of the world aside. I don't believe that. On the other hand, I think that an understanding between China and the U.S. is essential for the bigger deal to take shape and to gel and to have a real bite in it. So, without understanding politically, here and in Beijing, we don't have a deal. So that's very important. I see the bilateralism as a contribution to the bigger understanding.
Monica Trauzzi: Final question here, the Bali Action Plan, the progress that was made at last year's meeting, has it been in some senses forgotten?
Michael Zammit Cutajar: Not at all.
Monica Trauzzi: Or do you still see the international community really paying attention to the path that was laid out there?
Michael Zammit Cutajar: It's very important to remember the Bali Action Plan. Obviously, like any set of words, it's open to interpretations, but there's certain key elements in there which one neglects out one's own peril. One of the points which is sensitive is the fact that the Bali Action Plan makes separate provision for action by developed countries and developing countries and attempts to put people in the same boat, meet resistance. The Major Economies Forum finessed it very nicely. They said we are all major economies, both developed and developing. These sort of nuances are important. The Bali Action Plan sets an agenda, puts a focus for example on forestry and reducing deforestation. That's a very important part of the picture. It talks about technology, talks about adaptation. So that is the guideline. The Bally Action Plan does not tell us how this package will be wrapped up. Some people say a set of decisions, some people say a new treaty, so it's there, but it's not enough to define the outcome.
Monica Trauzzi: OK, a lot to watch over the next couple of months.
Michael Zammit Cutajar: A great deal, a great deal.
Monica Trauzzi: Good luck to you in your work.
Michael Zammit Cutajar: Thank you very much.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you for coming on the show and thank you for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
[End of Audio]
Advertisement
watch video
email video
