Not much to choose between Bush and Obama... apparently (COP 14)

03 Dec 2008 – Geoff Lye

I have footage I took on video of the rout of the US delegation in Bali which I should have put on YouTube. The brilliant, Harvard educated Kevin Conrad speaking for Papua New Guinea made a final plea for the US to back down from their intransigence as the conference ran over time. The hall applauded his intervention and the US delegation went into a huddle, bruised by the humiliation of (undiplomatic) boos from the assembled nations and observers when they vetoed a final motion a few minutes before. The US relented – and the relatively minor change (minor in practice, but major in principle) was carried.

Given the impending change in US administration, I was keen to see how the US delegation was handling the transition. On the US desk was a young woman, part of the delegation (but a sub-contractor: they outsource many things including their email management – see Yahoo reference above). Having grilled her relentlessly over the credibility of her briefing (‘we are here to keep all options open for the incoming administration’), she looked highly relieved to be joined by the head of the US press corp. Presented with the same challenge, she was completely on brief (‘we are here to keep all options open for the incoming administration’). I was assured that a transcript of the previous day’s press briefing by the US delegation would be on-line within two hours. Having spotted the Yahoo connection I was worried it might not have made it to me and emailed for the latest status. To be fair, I received a reply 15 hours later and got my transcript two hours after that. At this point, I have to be honest: I went to the stand again and the same two delegates were there and seemed genuinely pleased to see me. In fact, all of the US delegates I have spoken to are really open and friendly and (though they cannot say it) seem relieved that the change in President no longer requires them to defend the indefensible.

Any observations on the transcript of the press conference are, therefore, no reflection on the current US team.

Clear positives:

1. The US have taken an active role in methane mitigation.
2. The US have also been active in connecting the Montreal Protocol into the climate debate since ‘ozone friendlier’ substances have high global warming potential.

No change:

1. “…we need all Parties to the Convention involved, particularly major developing economies.”
2. “It is unclear here whether we’ll be able to get an agreement on a long-term goal. That remains to be seen.”

And on their differences with Obama: “..and so once again, I would say, don’t look so much at the differences domestically, I’m saying on the international scene, there’s broad-based agreement. With that, I think we’ll wrap up.”

The next 10 days will be interesting to see how consistent these messages are.

On re-reading the script, there is another positive for the US. They lay claim, rightly, to introducing the need for adaptation at the Delhi conference in 2002. I was at that meeting and reported after it that the US were hell-bent on shifting from mitigation to adaptation (in other words, keep emitting and spend our money – as promoted by Bjorn Lomberg and others – on coping with rather than avoiding climate change). History shows that adaptation was a significant missing component of the Kyoto Protocol and America’s insistence has moved it up the agenda. Those most threatened by the effects of climate change may have cause to give grudging appreciation to the country most responsible for the change itself.