PRESS CONFERENCE on climate change

 

The process of taking long-term action on climate change was basically getting stuck, with very diverse interests on the topic motivated, not only by environmental concerns, but by issues of energy and energy security, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change said today.

Given the divergence of views, there had been relatively little progress towards shaping climate change policy after the Kyoto Protocol had reached the end of its first phase in 2012, Yvo de Boer said at headquarters today, following his meeting yesterday with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon just ahead of Mr. Ban’s meeting in Washington, D.C. today with United States President George W. Bush.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted on 11 December 1997 at the third session of the parties to the Convention, and it entered force on 16 February 2005.  Aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, the Protocol is an internationally and legally binding addition to the nearly universal 1994 Convention, which enjoys a 189 States parties.  Based on the view that the climate system is a shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the treaty sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change.

Under its terms, Governments share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best practices; launch national strategies for addressing the emissions and adapting to expected impacts; and cooperate in preparing for adaptation to climate change impacts.  According to the Convention’s website (http://unfccc.int), 168 countries and one regional economic integration organization, the European Economic Community, have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

Providing information today on the tone and substance of his meeting with Mr. Ban, Mr. de Boer said the Secretary-General had emphasized that science was clearly showing the consequences of climate change. Mr. Ban had stressed that climate change had very serious consequences for humanity, including in the social and economic domains, saying that the consequences would be particularly severe for developing countries.  Mr. Ban had also said it was very clear to him that the cost of action now was much lower than the potent cost of inaction later on.

In addition, the Secretary-General had confirmed that climate change was a priority for him, and he had confirmed his intention to continue to take leadership on the issue and to help to generate political will, Mr. de Boer further noted.  Mr. Ban had also assured the treaty’s Executive Secretary of the complete support of his Office and asked for further input on how to take the process forward.  He had emphasized that he was having several important meetings over the coming days and weeks, where he would address the question, including with President Bush today, during which the issue could well be on agenda.

Responding to questions, Mr. de Boer said that countries in the developing world were confronting a host of problems.  They were already feeling the impacts of climate change, confronting sea level rise, increasing numbers of storms, sea water intrusion, less snow fall in mountain areas and consequently less rainwater in spring, droughts and fewer crops.  Newspapers all over the world were talking about climate change, and he had been struck to hear a representative from Uganda addressing the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) not too long ago about a problem in the Great Lakes region of Africa where problems of climate change could potentially lead to the displacement of tens of millions of people.

Also confronting problems associated with climate change, especially sea level rise, were small island States, mainly in the Pacific, and even oil producing countries, which were very concerned that a major source of revenue for them would be harmed by future climate change action, he added.

Replying to another question, he said that the United States and Australia had “basically backed away” from the Kyoto Protocol because they thought it was a “bad instrument”.  Large developing countries, such as China, India and Brazil, whose overriding concern was economic growth and poverty eradication, were afraid they would be called on to undertake gas emissions reduction targets in future.  That would hurt their economic growth and block them in eradicating poverty.

On the other hand, the European Union was very keen to move ahead, he noted.  Just last week, the European Commission had announced that it would be willing unilaterally to reduce its emissions by 20 per cent against 1990 levels and that it would do more if other countries followed.  However, certain countries, including in the European Union, were not on track “at all” to meeting their targets under the Kyoto Protocol. The Union as a whole was on track, but individual countries were having problems.

Despite that, he said he did not see countries backing away, and the debate was enjoying a high profile.  For example, the issue had recently been debated in Canada and Australia.  The opposition leader in Canada had said he was very committed to climate change measures should he win the election.

He reviewed several recent climate change initiatives, including by the Group of 8 industrialized countries, in the framework of the Gleneagles Plan of Action.  While those had been very encouraging, they had not included the “major emitters”, nor were the interests of developing countries, especially the poorest, addressed.  That was why he felt it was so important to bring the question back to the United Nations process and back to the United Nations Framework Convention, where the interests of all parties could be addressed and a solution found for post-2012, which represented the diversity of views.  He sincerely believed it was possible to design a regime that took into account all of those interests.

In terms of what the United Nations could do to help, he said that through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization, it could help countries predict the consequences of climate change and adapt to them by protecting against sea-level rise, more effectively gathering rain water, changing their agricultural practices to ensure that they could produce more food with less rain, and so forth.  A climate change regime could get resources in place to deliver on such efforts, he added.

He said, replying to another question, that taking a position and fighting for it was important, but so was bridge-building.  Noting the International Energy Agency’s calculation that it would take $20 trillion to meet the energy demands of a growing world over the next 20 to 25 years, either that would be invested in a “dirty way” with a lot of consequences to climate change, or it would be invested in a “clean way” with fewer consequences.  It could be invested in a clean way with an international agreement that had carbon financing at its core.

While the United States had “turned its back on the Kyoto Protocol”, it was acting on climate change, he said in response to a further query.  It was investing much in technology transfers, and President Bush had indicated in his meeting with Germany’s Prime Minister that the “stale debates of the past” should be left behind, and everyone should move forward on the question of climate change.

Thus, he thought the United States was acting on the question of climate change and was willing to talk about how to act further on the issue.  It was just not interested in participating in Kyoto. It was very important not to confuse Kyoto with a lack of interest in the question of climate change, he stressed.

There was no question about abandoning Kyoto, which had put in place a multimillion dollar carbon market and was delivering real resource transfers from the North to the South, so “it would be silly to let that go”, he continued.  At same time, given how long it had taken to negotiate and ratify that instrument, it was time now to begin by launching a mandate for the period to follow.

He said that his perfect system for that complicated topic would be a staged approach, involving the following principles:  identifying the boundaries for negotiations in a way that made everyone feel that their issues were safeguarded; finding a global solution to that global problem; involving the major developing countries like China, India and Brazil and putting in place incentives since their overriding concern was economic growth and poverty eradication; ensuring that industrialized countries continued to take the lead by adopting ambitious targets since they had caused the bulk of the problem; letting the carbon market dominate the approach, in order to make the cost in the North of implementing the targets as inexpensive as possible; and ensuring technology transfers to and investments in developing countries.

Concurring that a fundamental concern for oil producing countries was an ambitious climate change regime that would impinge on their oil exports, he said those countries should be versed in the benefits of economic diversification and the possibility of producing oil with less greenhouse gas emissions, as well as how to embark on carbon capture and storage as part of oil refinery.  They could also be encouraged to produce hydrogen as an alternative fuel.  Those steps, among others, could offer oil producers a perspective that made the demand for less oil less threatening, he said.

He did not see an energy future without nuclear energy, he said to another question.  The challenge for nuclear energy was to move forward with a fourth generation of nuclear reactors, which did not have the kinds of problems in terms of safety and waste of the current generation of reactors.

Of the 100 most powerful economies, 52 were companies and not countries, he said to a question about the importance of partnership with business, adding that Governments could not expect to design solutions to climate change on their own.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record