Wikileaks Shed Light on US Position in Copenhagen

For those interested in understanding the realpolitik behind Copenhagen and the continuing talks in Cancun,  I recommend the reporting of the UK Guardian newspaper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord

Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.

The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial “Copenhagen accord“, the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

Recent US Election Not a Bad Thing, Say Some

Back on the home front, I’ve been trying to find a more optimstic view of the recent US elections with regard to climate change and the clean energy revolution.   I believe if the US makes any progress on reducing carbon emissions it will be because Americans see it in their own economic interest, rather than because of any sense of obligation whatsoever to the UN or international community.

Here are a couple worth sharing:

http://blog.cleantechies.com/2010/12/01/election-does-not-spell-cleantech-doom/

By David Gold, Access Venture Partners

With the recent “shellacking” (as President Obama referred to the election results) of the
Democratically controlled Congress, much of the buzz in the cleantech space has been
doom and gloom. Is cleantech doomed to a new dark age? I do not believe so.

Energy policy is one area where there is an overlap of goals between the parties. Members
of both parties largely agree that energy is critical to our economic and national security.
And most Republicans do not dismiss out of hand the risks of global warming.

I suspect that energy policy will be a topic where this Congress will get something done especially with the President’s increased desire to work across party lines. It won’t be exactly what the president wants and it won’t be exactly what the Republicans want. It will be an old-fashion compromise that may actually result in some policies and that will have greater long-term impact on cleantech than most of the short-term handout programs
that were put in place under the largely ineffective cleantech stimulus bill.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/why-the-election-could-be-good-for-green-tech/

By Michael Kannellos, Editor of Greentech Media

Presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner (R.-Ohio) knows he has to accomplish something other than yammer about creeping socialism. Incessant complaining and a failure to follow through helped undo the last Republican revolution. Whether his allies like it or not, statesman-like compromise is on the agenda.

Clean energy, luckily, remains one of the few issues that enjoys bipartisan support. It also plays well in most regions of the country. Forget the rejection of Prop 23, an anti-greenhouse gas regulation initiative proposed in California, for a moment. Voters in Missouri — the heart of coal country — in 2008 voted for an initiative that required utilities in the state to get 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, according to Rosalind Jackson at Vote Solar. The initiative came about after the legislature failed to act. Voters in Colorado and Washington have both passed renewable standards.

Many now understand the connections between renewable energy and national security and job growth. Two years ago, green jobs were synonymous with Van Jones. Now, they are synonymous with under-employed contractors getting licenses to perform energy retrofits and solar installations.

Whether or not these two optimistic predictions come true, I believe two facts will shape any positive future moves in the US: 1) job creation and energy security are the ONLY effective mainstream frames for clean energy policy; 2) private sector-led investment will respond best and most sustainably to simple price signals on carbon emissions rather than one-off grant and loan packages.

Continue reading David Gold’s piece for some of his ideas, including national renewable energy standards, a gas tax, tax credits for energy efficiency, and government procurement policies.

Politics in US Not Helpful to COP Process

The US delegation in Cancun is working with a VERY tough political situation back home.

As reported today, House Speaker-to-be John Boehner is disbanding the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, saying it “was created by Democrats simply to provide political cover to pass their job-killing national energy tax.”. This, despite the fact that top-ranking Republican on the committee, Wisconsin’s James Sensenbrenner, had asked his party leaders not to kill it.  “While I was initially skeptical of the select committee’s mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate,” he said.

Bipartisan debate (as opposed to endless posturing) is a good, rare thing in Washington and is the only way our country will make progress on this critical, challenging issue.

http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/gop-leaders-disband-house-global-warming-committee/19740991

Edward Fendley from US Delegation

By Karsten

I just spoke with Edward Fendley, one of dozens of State Department representatives here at COP16.   He was sitting alone at the US table in the UNFCCC plenary hall this morning (day 2) so I introduced myself.  

I described what I see as the potential for increased engagement between the UN process and the private sector. 

He said he thought the US’s position at COP16 was based soundly on the administration’s current positions, but asked what I thought the private sector priorities would be if shared in a “consultation” with the State Department. I shared our point of view that “countries don’t emit–companies and people do” and described the importance of a single, verifiable global price on carbon as the primary means by which to change companies’ behaviors.  He asked if there was anything else, and I said I thought the price on carbon would be a good start. 

He seemed open to “consultation” with the private sector, but not immediately convinced that there is a missing gap. 

I asked what he thought the prospects were of a price on carbon in the US and he said he could offer no opinion on that, but that it didn’t seem as though US voters elected people who made that a priority.