Press Conference by Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team Chief

With the United Nations Conference on Climate Change set to begin next Monday in Copenhagen, there were several signs of optimism that the meeting’s outcome would be successful, Janos Pasztor, Director of the Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team, said during a Headquarters press conference.

He stressed that the focus in Copenhagen would be to get the content of a very ambitious agreement with all the key elements:  ambitious mid-term emissions reduction targets from industrialized countries; supported national mitigation actions from the developing countries that limited the growth of their emissions away from business as usual; financing and technology; a governance mechanism, and an adaptation framework.

Importantly, by triggering fast-track funding -– or the $10 billion “ Copenhagen launch fund” -- a Copenhagen agreement would have an immediate effect on the implementation of those issues.  A package that included all of these elements would also be a clear mandate to Governments around the world to reach agreement on a legally binding package as soon as possible before 2012.  In that regard, he noted, Governments were talking about six to 12 months at most after Copenhagen.

For more than two years, the Secretary-General had been urging Heads of State to “own” the climate change issue as a strategic priority for their nations and the world, he noted.  More than 100 world leaders were expected at the Conference, demonstrating that that call to action had gained unprecedented traction.

He said that the Secretary-General welcomed United States President Barack Obama's announcement of the United States emissions reduction target, as well as the news that the United States President would participate in the Conference, he said.  The Secretary-General believed full engagement by the United States in the multilateral process, along with its announced target and other domestic efforts on climate change, was a potential “game changer” for global action.

The Secretary-General was also encouraged, he said, by recent announcements from both India and China regarding their efforts to reduce their emissions through energy intensity.  Yesterday, India announced that by 2020 it would reduce its emission intensity by 20 to 25 per cent from 2005 levels.  With respect to China, he noted that China had already embarked on an aggressive national climate change plan.  Mr. Pasztor said that China’s recent announcement on reducing emissions meant it would take responsibility for reducing a quarter of the total emissions reductions required globally.  The Secretary-General was also encouraged by the participation of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Copenhagen.

He further noted that Brazil, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, South Africa and Mexico, among others, had also announced ambitious plans to lower carbon emissions in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks.  The outcome of the Commonwealth Summit last weekend concluded with the Port of Spain Declaration, in which 52 Heads of State and Government had said that they were approaching Copenhagen with ambition, optimism and determination.

Notwithstanding those positives signs, it was clear the world needed to move quickly.  Present trends indicated that the world community was “well off course” in terms of global emission rise, and could, in face, be looking at a 6 degree temperature rise this century, should we continue business as usual.  Thus, the need for an ambitious Copenhagen agreement could not be stressed strongly enough, he said.  Towards that goal, every year of delay in reducing emissions -- in line with the 2 degrees Celsius target -- costs $500 billion, according to the recent World Energy Outlook report by the International Energy Agency.

Asked if the most important component of the outcome agreement would be on cap and trade, he said the content agreed to at Copenhagen would be converted to the legally binding package in the next phase after the Conference.  The further the agreement in Copenhagen could go, the faster the legally binding agreement would be solidified.  Just how far the agreement would go in terms of the various mechanisms, including cap and trade, remained to be seen.

Pressed for his reaction on the targets and emissions reductions pledges that had been made, he recalled that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), reductions by developed countries should be in the range of 25 to 40 per cent.  Obviously, some industrialized countries -- like Norway -- had reached those goals.  But as a whole, the developed countries needed to improve, and the Secretary-General had consistently stressed that the ambition levels should be raised to reach the recommended range.

The same IPCC report said developing countries should reduce emissions growth to 20 to 30 per cent below their “business as usual”.  While there was discussion on baselines, the numbers proposed by such countries as China, Brazil, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea were more or less within the range.

Responding to a question on the validity of criticisms that agriculture had not been adequately included in the Copenhagen negotiations, he said he agreed that agriculture as such was not a point of discussion.  But elements within agriculture –- like land use -- was on the agenda, and many other agricultural issues would be addressed.

To several questions on the involvement of the private sector and certain corporations, such as the Gulf PetroChemicals Industry Company, which claimed to be an official partner of the Conference, he said there were no such corporate partners.  There were often all kinds of exhibitions, including of the private sector, at big United Nations conferences, but no one had paid a fee to participate.

Asked about the prospects for a financing scheme from the private sector in the agenda, he underlined the need for such a scheme on both a short- and long-term basis, as well as the need for both public and private money.  Indeed, since most investment went through the private sector, it was imperative to ensure that it went in the direction of climate-friendly technologies and systems.  Because they would not “turn green” by themselves, however, legislation and financial support would be required, and the agreement would need some elements to that end.

He went on to say that the international financial institutions would certainly be involved in this, but direct investment by the private sector would also be important, since the majority of investment went by that route.

Fielding several questions on recent comments by James Hansen, of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, including that a carbon tax was the only effective way to curb emissions and that, with its focus on cap and trade, Copenhagen was a waste of time, he said that was one view and while many countries shared it, others viewed it differently.

What the United Nations had always said was that there was no simple, silver-bullet solution to climate change, he pointed out.  The tools that were available, however, should be used, and if a cap-and–trade system worked well in a country, it should be implemented.  The same was true of a carbon-tax system or of the use of both systems at the same time.

Pressed to explain why the United Nations was pursuing a cap-and-trade strategy in Copenhagen, rather than a carbon-tax plan, he said there was no need for a carbon-tax strategy at the global level, since there was no global taxation system.  But for the cap-and-trade system to work internationally, there had to be an international arrangement, and that was driving the discussion.

Asked further about examples where a cap and trade worked to effectively reduce emissions, he pointed to the European Union’s system over the last few years.  He also clarified that Governments themselves were pushing to continue the system set up by the Kyoto Protocol.  While some countries had not met their obligations under Kyoto, many had, and the Protocol had made a “radical” change.

He stressed that the Protocol was not meant to resolve all climate change issues, but had been a first step.  As such, it had done well, particularly in changing the emissions patterns of developed country parties, which had mainly remained stable.  Yet, because many countries were not part of Kyoto, global emissions had grown, and it was now time to come to an agreement in which all countries were included one way or another.

Regarding Hansen’s critique that the real test of political willingness to cut global warming was support for the continued use of coal, he said the Secretary-General had spoken out in favour of low-carbon energy systems quite systematically.  But it was not simply a matter of telling countries “do this and don’t do that”.  If a country was dependent on coal, its use could not be stopped overnight.  The question was how to put that country on a path to move away from coal or use coal in the most efficient way possible.

When the question of the hacked e-mail accounts from a British climate research unit was raised, he underscored that IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri had said that, while the IPCC would do a more systematic investigation, the basic science of climate change had not changed.  Moreover, he had seen no effect during pre-Conference negotiations where no one raised the issue at all on either side.

Asked for a picture of United Nations efforts post-Copenhagen, he said the Secretary-General was keen to make sure the United Nations system was able to continue its role in supporting national Governments in negotiations and in supporting the implementation of any agreement.

To a question on recent comments by Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi that he had little confidence the developed countries would deliver in Copenhagen and the possibility that the African countries would walk out, Mr. Pasztor said the Secretary-General had been talking to the Prime Minister every week by videoconference for the last five weeks.  In those extensive discussions, Prime Minister Meles had repeatedly said those countries would support the Danish presidency’s approach.  But the content had to be ambitious.  The Secretary-General was in full agreement and was working to ensure it was as ambitious as possible.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record