More

Todd Stern: U.S. Goals Are Modest For South Africa Climate Talks

Durban South Africa Climate

DONNA BRYSON   02/21/11 06:04 AM ET   AP

JOHANNESBURG — The U.S. does not expect this year's climate change conference in South Africa to yield a binding international agreement to stop global warming, the top U.S. negotiator said Monday.

But Todd Stern, on the first of what he said would be several visits to South Africa before the Durban talks open in late November, said he does expect progress on several fronts, including some of particular concern to Africa, the continent expected to be hardest hit by climate change.

Stern told reporters high expectations were part of the reason many feared the 2009 Copenhagen round of climate change talks showed there was no hope for producing a legally binding successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto provisions capping greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries expire in 2012.

South Africa hosts the second round since Copenhagen. Talks in Mexico last year ended with modest agreements, and a sense progress could be made despite the problems exposed at Copenhagen, where developed and developing nations clashed bitterly.

"I do think it's important that expectations get set in a way that is realistic," Stern said. "You do things in a non-legally binding context, but a quite real context. You try to move forward on that basis."

Stern said he expected the focus in Durban to be on turning agreements made in Mexico into realities, including plans for a fund and a research center to develop nonpolluting technologies that could help impoverished African countries cope with climate change. Stern also said Durban could see progress on saving Africa's forests and ensuring funds keep flowing to African and other vulnerable countries, including low-lying island nations that face being flooded out of existence.

In a rift that became particularly clear in Copenhagen, poorer nations complain that the industrialized world that grew rich off polluting industries should make legally binding commitments to deeper cuts in the emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The poor countries also demand that the rich pay to help developing nations buy clean technology and cope with the droughts, floods and other disruptions associated with global warming. Developing nations also say they cannot be denied polluting technologies, at least in the short to medium term.

Developing countries balk at legal restrictions that could hurt their economies, particularly when poorer countries like China and India, who have become some of the world's biggest polluters, also are resisting legal restrictions.

"A legally binding agreement would be a good thing at a time when the major players are prepared to be legally bound, which I don't think is the case yet," Stern said. "We're not prepared to enter into a legal agreement that leaves China, India ... on the sidelines."

In the U.S., Stern and President Barack Obama face a Congress that is more hostile to environmental regulation after the Republicans prevailed in recent elections. Stern said Monday that he could not predict whether the U.S. would pass legislation addressing climate change before Durban, but said it remained a priority for Obama.

In his State of the Union address in January, Obama called for 80 percent of U.S. electricity to come from clean sources by 2035. Stern said ramping up clean energy could help create jobs, making it appealing to both Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

South Africa also has identified clean energy as an industry that could create jobs in a country where more than a quarter of the work force is unemployed. Stern said the economics of fighting climate change was high on his agenda in his talks in South Africa.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

JOHANNESBURG — The U.S. does not expect this year's climate change conference in South Africa to yield a binding international agreement to stop global warming, the top U.S. negotiator said Monday. ...
JOHANNESBURG — The U.S. does not expect this year's climate change conference in South Africa to yield a binding international agreement to stop global warming, the top U.S. negotiator said Monday. ...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 64
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
10:06 AM on 03/31/2011
The idea that we know how to, or could, 'stop global warming' is something out of a fairy tale. I wish it had stayed there instead of being spotted by those who wished, and still wish, to destroy industrial civilisation. There are several difficulties involved: first in some locations, there have been no overall warming to speak of in the temperature records, while others show some at a rate and of an amount which is not out of the ordinary, second that's generally true - nothing out of the ordinary has been happening to weather anywhere, third we are a very early, indeed primitive, stage of comprending the complex networks of interacting factors on a huge range of space and time scales - and we really have not a predictive clue about how changes in one factor, even it we could contrive it, would pan out as all the others responded. So the best first action at the forthcoming climate conference is to do nothing at all, The best second action is to disband the whole charade of the IPCC and free people (but please not the same people!!!) up to do something more useful in the face of actual, not hypothetical, problems and opportunities. We might call it the 'Dawn of Reason'.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonmaster
05:46 AM on 03/15/2011
There will not be any real progress with climate change in the USA till probably after 2025 or 2030.

By then C02 will have reached 425-430ppm- which actually in the zone of 'dangerous climate change' sustained over time this amount of C02 will prove a recipe for disaster. C02 is rising over 2ppm a year and increasing.

By the late 2020s more extreme weather, will begin to plague many parts of the globe. Nonetheless those who still feel we can continue to have unsustainable growth at all costs- will seek to block and reduction in coal emissions.

With Nuclear power a big question mark, considering the disaster in Japan, and solar and wind power in their infancy and unable to produce the large amount of energy needed at low cost- coal is likely going to be burned till the year 2050.

We are heading for a civilization wide disaster.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
07:36 PM on 03/07/2011
Helmut Schmidt, the respected former Chancellor of Germany, has told an audience at the Max-Plank-Gesellschaft that a full inquiry needs to be held into the credibility of advice on global warming that stems from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Set up in 1988 in order to deliver policy advice to governments regarding global warming, ever since 2005 the IPCC has been become mired in controversy over the integrity and accuracy of its procedures. Most recently, in early 2010, a number of scandals erupted over the selective use of published literature by the IPCC, and also its practice of relying upon documents from environmental lobby groups rather than refereed scientific papers.

In his speech, Helmut Shmidt said:

In addition to all the aforementioned problems caused by humans, we are also concerned, at the same time, by the phenomenon of global warming and its alleged consequences. We know that there have always been naturally occurring ice ages and warm periods; what we don't know is how significant the human-induced contribution to present and future global warming is and will be.

The climate policy adopted by many governments is still in its infancy. The publications provided by an international group of scientists (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) have encountered skepticism, especially since some of their researchers have shown themselves to be fraudsters (Betrüger). In any case, some governments' publicly stated targets are far less scientific, but rather politically endorsed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris 1
09:33 PM on 02/22/2011
One reason is the phony "consensus" that doesn't quantify and proof co2 impact;

"One has only to cut away the alarmist rhetoric and the media distractions, one has only to focus on the central question in the climate-change debate, and at once the fact that there is no scientific consensus about climate change is laid bare. The central question is this: By how much will global temperature increase in response to any foreseeable increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide? On that question, which the bureaucrats call the “climate sensitivity question”, there is no consensus whatsoever among the scientific community. We have seen how Hansen’s initial attempt at prediction, albeit using one of the largest computer models of the climate on the planet, turned out to contain an unfortunate element of exaggeration. It is inevitably the extreme scenarios that attract the attention of politicians and the media. "

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensuswhatconsensusamongclimatescientiststhedebateisnotover.html

Aside from research whoring of warmists, the political agenda setting to the IPCC statist views when it gets serious no one objective is buying the co2 fairytale. It's evolved from eco-fringe sources at the end of the day.

Learn to accept this.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
09:52 AM on 02/23/2011
I'm glad you like Christopher Monckton.

He's one of my favorite writers of fiction.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
06:55 PM on 02/23/2011
Monckton is a journalist and has no academic background in science at all.
fredgladys
Your Micro-bio is empty, I know, stop nagging.
08:03 PM on 02/22/2011
Excerpt from another story on HP today
"The Republican-controlled House has voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases that scientists say cause global warming."
US doing anything constructive on global warming, a 'snowball in hell' seems appropriate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragonmaster
08:00 PM on 02/22/2011
Stop listening to corrupt politicians and belive oil and coal companies regarding climate change? Are you dumber then I thought? Yes.

I do not listen to Gore- but climate scientists like Dr Hansen and others from NASA, NOAA and the National Academy of sciences.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Ourstorian
Free your mind and your ass will follow!
04:48 PM on 02/22/2011
The only goal the US has is to obstruct any serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions and lose our standing as the world's number one polluter. It's the one of the few things left where we can chant "WE'RE NUMBER ONE!"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trepasky
Sanity is neither free nor easy
08:27 AM on 02/22/2011
There is obviously money involved, otherwise there would not be so much contention about the changes underway.
The climate is changing. Is it caused by humans? Probably. Should we be concerned? Yes.
What should we do? That depends upon who you are and how wealthy you are.
If you are a business that contributes to the likely cause of climate change through the release of co2 and methane, then it is in the best interests of your profit to deny any change. You may also choose to 'buy' political influence to ensure that your businesses are not forced to be sensitive to the reality of human life. (Koch brothers comes to mind).
If you are wealthy, then you probably also make some of your wealthy by investing in businesses that are implicated in the cause (see above). The best choice is to 'buy' political influence. Be sure to have your 'safe house' ready for you and your children, for when you have to move.
If you are the GOP then you have your cash register open for those who wish to purchase influence. Step #1 eliminate the EPA power to regulate co2, in process. Step #2 declare Global Climate Change a hoax by using the media like Fake News, in process.

For the rest of us, well we will have to 'make do' because we do not have enough money to purchase the political influence. Not too worry however, as many have said "God won't let us destroy the Earth"
photo
tooncesrocks
my micro bio is empty
06:35 AM on 02/22/2011
Seeing as how good ol' USA has been singlehandedly responsible for sabotaging every climate meeting since the dawn of time, it's not only a rubbish article... but it's offensive to even let a single american political operative even talk about the subject.
10:36 PM on 02/21/2011
"U.S. Goals Are Modest For South Africa Climate Talks" Pshaw, try nonexistent? Developing nations will not commit to anything so long as the US continues to waste time.
Heck, our House of Representatives just voted to take away the power of the EPA to regulate GHG emissions. I am sure that will really convince many nations about our commitment to the cause. It is like having a morbidly obese personal trainer telling you that you had better watch what you eat and get in shape as he downs a two liter of coke!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
11:53 PM on 02/21/2011
An EIA report shows coal usage in North America & Europe was flat or went down between 2000-2007! Pre-recession even! Coal usage for the planet grew over 50% in the same period with almost all that increase in the fast developing nations in Asia.

Ok let's same we give the fast developing nations a pass for GHG emissions. The flip side of GHG emissions to the climate change coin is rain forest destruction! Nations like China have destroyed over 67% of their rain forest in the last 30 some odd years! My intent is not to single China out other fast developing nations are just as guilty!

What's a worse crime against future generations destroying rain forest, destroying natural carbon sinks, hastening climate change, destroying species or adding some CO2 to the atmosphere? Think about it before you come back with a knee jerk reaction!

Let's face it Climate Change goals are not compatible with Free Trade!

Let's close our markets with environmental tariffs, go green here, use the money from the tariffs to fund out reach programs to help the poorest nations, and start building levies to protect our coast!
photo
tooncesrocks
my micro bio is empty
06:43 AM on 02/22/2011
you know... everything you said is complete nonsense... you can talk about other countries all you want... you can point fingers and say they're not doing it so why should we... but you, my friend and those like you in positions of power will be responsible for destroying the planet earth.

the only experts in this world are climate SCIENTISTS... and the body of the work they have produced is so strong... that to hang onto the tenuous threads of misinformation produced by the political bodies of the world and their corporate bought "scientists" is the folly of mindless pathetic and dare I say stupid lemmings.

either you have to be openly lying, completely scientifically illiterate, or so miserably undereducated that you are incapable of understanding what science is and what scientists do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
09:25 PM on 02/21/2011
Emerging Black Swans in the energy arena may cost-competitively supersede fossil fuels much faster than might be imagined.

See "COLD FUSION" at www.aesopinstitute.org for a bit about one of them.

See BLACK SWANS on the same site for introductions to a couple of others.

24/7 development may prove more effective than conferences.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ContructiveDemocrat
09:14 PM on 02/21/2011
What are these "talks" why can't we just take action?
10:39 PM on 02/21/2011
because talking is easy and not substantive. we will react about 5 years after it has become a full-fledged catastrophe
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:53 AM on 02/22/2011
Because action would go against the business interests of the fossil fuel corporations who grease DC.
08:48 PM on 02/21/2011
canceling the meeting would reduce the carbon foot print why aren't these meeting done via teleconferencing?? Why do we need warm bodies to talk about a topic that no one will agree to/
05:30 PM on 02/21/2011
We must reevaluate science of climate change, free it from politic, from political slogan: "debate is over."
It will help to understand, how stupid Kyoto, Copenhagen, Mexico and South Africa recomendation to fight climate change by reducing CO2 emission.
Properties of water actually cooling the atmosphere, despite water vapor is GHG.
Properties of water are the best tools to reduce amount of carbon dioxide, if it is problem.
Changes in convection forces between continents and ocean, which are the real problems for extreme weather and climate change, are result of human activities.
These activities are proportional to our energy needs, which create proportional increase in carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is easy to put as coefficient in model for climate change.
We must to understand and stop it stupidity to blame only carbon dioxide, to help scientists receive their degrees.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:35 AM on 02/22/2011
Ramble on! It sounds like you have a lot to tell to all those incompetent climate researchers.
02:39 PM on 02/22/2011
Read answer below.
photo
tooncesrocks
my micro bio is empty
06:48 AM on 02/22/2011
dear mioffe, uninformed opinion does not science make.
02:39 PM on 02/22/2011
Imagine earth without continents with only one equally deep oceans.
What climate condition will be in this case?
Google outcoming longwave radiation, and try to answer on questions:
Why in desert area in North Africa and Middle East it radiation is bigger?
Why oceans radiate more on the same latitude, than continents(without Q#1)?
12:26 PM on 02/24/2011
tooncesrocks
"1st... it would be wet'
Google, please, Malden island. It located close to equator in midle of Pacific, far away from all continents. There is drought.