\nprocess and expectations for negotiations this year. While there was
\nsome complaining about the Copenhagen Accord from some quarters, the
\ncomplaining was timid compared with my expectations. That was positive
\nso countries could focus more on what could realistically be achieved
\nin Cancun (the expectations for the year) and how to get there (the
\nprocess).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
So where do things stand on the process and expectations for the year?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Process—how are things organized and what “text” do we use?<\/strong> Countries are grappling with two questions related to the process of the negotiations this year.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Could you streamline the negotiations by creating a more formal “smaller group” negotiating session? One proposal would have created a 40 country negotiating group that <\/p>\n How would you integrate the Copenhagen Accord into the other negotiating texts that were produced throughout the year and were presented with lots of <\/p>\n So given these divisions countries agreed to let the Chair produce a <\/p>\n Expectations for the year—“all or nothing” (comprehensive) or make progress on what can be agreed? <\/strong>As I discussed here<\/a>, <\/p>\n This wasn’t expected to be resolved in Bonn, but there were some <\/p>\n Stay tuned on how this debate unfolds this year as it will be <\/p>\n ————————<\/p>\n <\/p>\n All of this effort towards Cancun depends on whether the U.S. passes a <\/p>\n I feel like a broken record, but please leader’s in the Senate now <\/p>\n Others are acting whether or not the U.S. does (as I discussed here<\/a>), so it is time for the U.S. to get in the game for real.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n U.N. climate talks in Bonn wrap up after fresh fights<\/a><\/p>\n U.N. climate talks in Bonn are off to a rocky start<\/a><\/p>\n Major economies to hold climate talks in U.S. this month<\/a><\/p>\n
\nwould sit around the table and be the only ones speaking in the formal
\nplenary. These countries would get input from the other countries not
\n“sitting around the table” as they would be representing some regional
\nor other country grouping (e.g., the least developed countries,
\nAlliance of Small Island States, etc). This would create a format
\nwhere not all 194 countries provided input at every moment in the
\nprocess. Such a smaller setting is critical to achieving progress in
\nglobal warming negotiations but lost a lot of trust in Copenhagen (as I
\ndiscussed here<\/a>).<\/p>\n
\n[brackets]—disagreements—in Copenhagen? Since the Accord was
\n“taken note of” by all 194 countries and only some 110 of the 194
\ncountries have “associated with the Accord” (as I discussed here<\/a>)
\nthere is pushback from some countries to inclusion of the Accord
\nagreements into the process in a more formal manner—notably the ALBA<\/a> countries (led by Venezuela with Bolivia and Cuba also weighing-in for this group) countries and League of Arab States<\/a> (led by Saudi Arabia with Egypt as their spokesperson). Saudi Arabia
\nhas a long track record of blocking progress in the global warming
\nnegotiations (as Andy Revkin discusses here<\/a>) so this was no surprise.<\/p>\n
\ntext “under her own responsibility” and present it before the next
\nmeeting of this process—back here in Bonn this coming June. There
\nwas a huge debate about whether she could draw upon the Copenhagen
\nAccord to inform the development of this text (I tweeted the play by
\nplay on this at jschmidtnrdc<\/a>). It was painful and there were times that it looked like we weren’t
\ngoing to agree, but the Chair basically said I’m going to produce
\nwhatever text I think appropriate no matter what texts you allow me to
\nlook at. So that framework was agreed and she’ll produce a draft
\nnegotiating text which will help the world focus on the implementation
\nof key building blocks. Luckily many countries aren’t waiting for this
\ntext before implementing actions to address global warming as I
\ndiscussed here<\/a>. <\/p>\n
\nthere is huge value in agreeing to the details on individual pieces—such as deforestation reductions, transparency, and finance—at the
\nmeeting in Cancun this December. I would call this the “agree to what
\ncan be agreed” method. I’m skeptical that we can agree to everything
\nin Cancun and also to the legal form of the future agreement, which is
\nwhy I argued to implement key building blocks<\/a> necessary for international agreement and to focus on actions in Cancun. Under the alternative framework—“all or nothing”—agreement on one piece is only allowed if everything else is agreed
\n(this stalled getting agreement on deforestation and adaptation in
\nCopenhagen and we can’t afford that again).<\/p>\n
\nemerging themes. The U.S. argued that the Copenhagen Accord reflected a
\nbalanced set of agreements and were all woven together—you can’t
\neliminate one without the others also falling apart.<\/p>\n
\ncritical to determining whether Cancun can be used to rebuild trust and
\nto begin the critical work of implementation. Too much dependence on
\n“all or nothing” will likely result in stalemate as some individual
\npieces are unlikely to progress as far as others this year. I think
\nthis comes down critically to ensuring that there are decisions to
\nimplement the transparency (a key for the U.S.) and finance (a key for
\ndeveloping countries) provisions of the Copenhagen Accord. So those
\ntwo interwoven issues need to be agreed with greater detail in Cancun
\nin order to provide confidence to the U.S. to move on finance and for the
\ndeveloping countries to move on transparency. Once those two groups
\nfeel comfortable that these issues are resolved, the other “building
\nblocks” of the international effort—reducing emissions from
\ndeforestation and adaptation—can be resolved this year.<\/p>\n
\ncomprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation this year. Without the U.S. driving forward with implementing solutions to global
\nwarming it will be hard to have any positive outcome in Cancun this
\nyear.<\/p>\n
\nis the time to act. You have ample reasons to find solutions that put
\nthe U.S. on a path to creating clean energy jobs, reduce our dependence
\non foreign oil, and reduce our global warming pollution.<\/p>\n