1、北美自由贸易区各国对 UNFCCC 的看法美国Todd SternSpecial Envoy for Climate Change Bonn, GermanyMarch 29, 2009SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: I would like to say a few words before taking your questions. Im very pleased to be here in Bonn representing the U.S. in my capacity as the Special Envoy of the President for Climate Ch
2、ange. I am glad to have Jonathan Pershing with me and our whole team here. I look forward to joining the opening plenary session this afternoon and to making the first intervention on behalf of the United States.My team and I came here determined to make up for lost time. America is now once again s
3、trongly committed to developing a global response to climate change. We do not doubt the science, we do not doubt the urgency, and we do not doubt the enormity of the challenge before us. President Obama and his Administration are fully committed to action, both at home where that action is well und
4、erway already and abroad. During the past two days in Bonn, we have had productive discussions with representatives from many countries, both developed and developing.Let me say, in the course of our conversations here and in the course of conversations that I have had over the past six weeks - we h
5、ave been doing a lot of listening, a lot of sharing of ideas with many of my counterparts - I am more convinced than ever that it is important that we be guided in these negotiations by a combination of science and pragmatism. Our job in these negotiations is to define a path forward that will be su
6、pported by the people that we serve so that our agreements can actually take effect with all countries participating, and can then start to make a difference.The task in these negotiations is quite difficult, but if we can, all of us, open our minds and think creatively, I think we can and will succ
7、eed. What has been particularly heartening and encouraging in the consultations that I have been having the last number of weeks is hearing about - and being able to focus on a bit - the impressive and innovative things that people are doing, countries are doing, all around the world, including coun
8、tries in the developed and developing world. The transformation of the global economy from a high carbon to a low carbon base is ultimately going to have to happen at the national level and indeed at the local level in some cases, so it is important that we have international agreement that is desig
9、ned to support and bolster those efforts.Let me also just say a quick word about the economic situation that we are in. This bears on the work that we are doing here on energy and climate. The path to a low carbon economy is also the path of long term, robust sustainable growth, which is why Preside
10、nt Obama is extremely focused in shaping and forming the stimulus package and having a large clean energy, green component of that plan- some $80 billion in funding and loans for clean energy development that he included in his plan - that he was extremely focused on putting in there. That is also w
11、hy he is committed to more than tripling the traditional level, the current level of U.S. investment in R we are going to host it in Washington. We expect that the next two, probably one in May, one in June, will be hosted someplace else, but that has not been determined yet. This isnt a negotiating
12、 forum but we hope that it will be an opportunity to have the kind of discussion among leaders and their representatives in the course of the preparatory sessions that can hopefully facilitate agreement in Copenhagen. And it will also be a forum for other kinds of discussions to pursue clean energy
13、partnerships and the like; an important place I would hope to help move discussions along for Copenhagen, but obviously not to replace the Copenhagen discussions. With that, I will be happy to take questions.QUESTION: Has America not left it too late for Copenhagen, to have a meaningful settlement?
14、And are you going to be unveiling any fresh proposals over the next two weeks?SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: America hasnt done anything about leaving it too late. The Bali Action Plan set the timeframe of the end of 2009, which gave the rest of the world two years and basically gives us nine months. But we a
15、ccept that. We are going to work within that timeframe. And we are committed to getting a good, strong, robust deal done in Copenhagen. So we are certainly intending to go forward but I dont think it would be accurate to say that the United States has been dawdling here. The new administration just
16、got in.We will be working with all of our counterparts to try and fashion an agreement that includes what we all know to be the critical elements, which would involve mitigation and financing, technology, adaptation, and the like. We are working quite intensively at home to develop what will be our
17、approach, and that we will then certainly start discussing with other Parties. I would say that probably at some point later in April - again we have been in place a short time; I have been at the State Department probably six or seven weeks at this point - and so we have a quite intensive, quite hi
18、gh octane process going to develop policy.In addition to having gotten there recently, we didnt want to just walk in and come up with our own policy in a vacuum. I have probably met at this point with 20 or 25 countries in the course of the time that I have been there. And we quite deliberately want
19、ed to reach out, consult, hear what others had to say, in the developed world, in the developing world, in Asia, in Europe, in South America, all over the place. And actually I am looking forward tonight to a dinner we are having with representatives of a number of the more vulnerable countries and
20、states from Africa, which also have an important voice. So we are trying to listen to everybody, think about our own ideas, and in the relatively near term, I think we will be having some ideas that we will look to share with you.QUESTION: There is very high expectation with this new American delega
21、tion coming here and joining the process. I think you know that. Maybe you have something to say about it. At the same time, there are already some concerns, actually two concerns. The one is the level of ambition announced by President Obama that sounds a little low for what is demanded by the scie
22、ntists.SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: We dont actually agree that what President Obama has talked about is low at all. Its important to understand what he has proposed and also to pause maybe for a moment on the issue that goes under the general heading in these negotiations of comparability. President Obama
23、is proposing to reduce U.S. emissions by something in the order of about 16-17 percent from where we are right now, about 15 percent from 2005 levels, and about 80 plus percent by 2050. That is a significant reduction. I am well aware that there is a historical affection for the year 1990; and that
24、in 1990 terms, the President has proposed to be at that level, the 1990 level, by 2020. But it is a 16 or 17 percent reduction from where we are right now. So the notion that this is sort of a zero level of stabilization is, we think, not accurate.It depends on how you look at comparability. If you
25、look at that 1990 level baseline, then you appear to have this 25 percent gap between what the EU, for example, is proposing and what the President has proposed. There are a lot of different ways to look at this. If you look at what the reduction against the “business as usual” level would be for th
26、e United States between now and 2020, it would be about 30 percent, probably just about what the European reduction would be. If you look at what the cost would be to the United States, in terms of what the likely prices of allowances would be, as against European, probably about the same. If you lo
27、ok, like I said, against a 2005 baseline, the 25 percent gap shrinks to about 10 percent. So it really does depend on how you look at this thing.And the last point I would make, is we really do not think, and we dont think that science thinks, that the best way to look at this is simply by focusing
28、on the 2020 year. What the President is talking about is a pathway that would go all the way to 2050, with a very significant reduction, as I said, at 80 plus percent levels. And we think that that is not low at all, rather quite robust and actually quite consistent with what other, including the mo
29、st ambitious countries are also talking about.QUESTION: The second concern was about Congress, how far the Congress will be ready to go by the end of the year and the fear that you may have a disconnection between the administration and the Congress, and reproduce the mistake of Kyoto that was signe
30、d abroad and never ratified at home. So how will you manage to make sure that the Congress will be ready in December for an international agreement in Copenhagen?SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Well, I cant guarantee when Congress is going to be ready. I am hopeful The centerpiece of the Presidents domestic pr
31、ogram is the so-called cap and trade legislation. I am hopeful that legislation can get done this year before Copenhagen but I have no idea whether it will Maybe yes; maybe no. It is extremely far-reaching and ambitious legislation, so its impossible for me to predict.If it isnt ready by the time of
32、 Copenhagen, then well have to try and structure the agreement to accommodate that fact. I mean the one thing that is a working assumption for us, and it connects to the point that you just made about Kyoto, is that we need to be guided in the international setting by what the ultimate legislation,
33、domestic legislation, that Congress and the President are able to arrive at. If you follow this at all in the U.S. press, you will know that this is going to be a very challenging, very difficult exercise to get this legislation done. I am confident that we will get it done but its not going to be e
34、asy. Its going to take a lot of effort.There is going to be a lot of negotiation, among a lot of different parties. It is not just partisan, by the way. It is regional as much as it is partisan, because there are all sorts of different interests and concerns that come into play. But at the end of th
35、at negotiating effort domestically, there will be a bill and there will be a number. And I do not think that it is realistic to believe that we will then be able to go into an international setting and get a higher number than that - and take it back to the same Congress, and get even more votes tha
36、n we got for the domestic legislation. I dont think thats going to happen. So if its not done by December, then there will have to be ways that we structure the agreement to accommodate that fact. I dont want to negotiate the agreement in this setting. There are different ways to think about doing t
37、hat but it is absolutely one of the challenging aspects of this exercise for the United States.QUESTION: I havent this could be my fault of course but I havent seen a lot said about financing an international deal. Is there any thought on the part of the administration to reserve part of the revenue
38、 from the cap and trade for international costs?TODD STERN: You havent seen it publicly because we have been diligently working on this privately. In all seriousness, the financing issue is extremely important in our judgment. I think that it is extremely important in the discussions that you will s
39、ee going on here and throughout the course of the year. So, yes, we are very focused on it. There are a number of different aspects of the financing question that are interesting and complicated. Those include: what the ultimate amount of money is; where is it going to come from; is it going to come
40、 from appropriated funds; is it going to come from carbon markets; is it going to come from some element of using allowances that are distributed, whether internationally or domestically; is it going to come from the use of policy measures, like loan guarantees that might help unlock private sector
41、funding? There are a lot of different ways and places it could come from.There are a variety of different kinds of institutional arrangements that could be involved. You could be talking about a centralized fund. You could be talking about using the existing different kinds of resources that are lod
42、ged in different institutions. And there are important issues that have to do with governance. Developing countries have a very legitimate interest in wanting to have a say and some influence on how resources are used, and I think a very legitimate interest in there being transparency and not too mu
43、ch bureaucracy in the way funds are able to flow. And developed countries, the donor side if you will, has a very legitimate interest in there being accountability and in making sure that when funds are provided they get used to best advantage.All of those issues are I think going to be the subject
44、of a very significant negotiation. We have been working quite actively internally, in Treasury, the State Department, the White House, etc., to put together our notion of a proposal. And we are in the middle of doing that. I think we will start discussing that with other countries, probably pretty s
45、oon.QUESTION: I am curious what you think is the most essential and critical issue that will be discussed here in Bonn and what you think, at the end of the ten days or so, will make this particular session a success. Can you come out and say, whats been successful, what was done well, how are we mo
46、ving forward in the process?SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Contextually in the Bonn discussions? Well, Ill make a stab at that. I think to some extent my answer is broader than Bonn but liable to be true in Bonn also. Jonathan may have some other thoughts.I think that the most fundamental issues in this negot
47、iation in general have to do with how to think about, capture and express the actions and the level of the undertakings to be taken by major developing countries as well as the developed countries. We already know the developed countries have already traditionally been in the mode of making commitme
48、nts and undertakings. Now we are obviously adding the United States to that package. And I think we also need to add, in a different way, in a differentiated way to be sure, the major developing countries. And again I say that in a way that harkens back to my comments in my prepared remarks about th
49、e centrality of science here. I am fond of saying, if you do the math you simply cannot be anywhere near where science tells us we need to be You cannot directionally be where you need to go on the science if you dont have China above all, but also other major developing countries taking real steps. I think how that is captured, how that is understood and expressed, quantified, committed to, etcetera is going to be extremely important.The other thing that I think is very related to that is the question that the gentleman from AP just asked
