2:00 PM EST
MODERATOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Foreign Press Center. This afternoon we have with us Mr. Jim Connaughton, who is the Chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, and Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, who is the Under Secretary for Global Affairs. They will talk today about the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change. We'll begin with a few remarks from Mr. Connaughton. We are on the record. Please, when you ask a question, state your name and your news organization. Thank you very much.
Sir.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: Thanks, and good afternoon, everybody. I'm Jim Connaughton. I'm the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. I will be the President's personal representative at the upcoming meeting of the major economies. Under Secretary Dobriansky will be one of the senior members of our delegation. We'll be joined by Deputy National Security Adviser Dan Price, who deals with international economic affairs. And we'll be joined by Assistant Secretary Karen Harbert from the Department of Energy.
Let me give a little context first, and then I'd like to just briefly walk through the agenda of the meeting, because that's probably the best way to give you a sense of what we're working to accomplish.
On the context -- several years ago in the run-up to the Gleneagles meeting, the President, Tony Blair and a number of the other G-8 leaders began to think through how we can organize a future discussion to make progress on the issue of climate change and the issues of energy security and sustainable development after 2012, after the Kyoto protocol ends. We had all been visibly implementing national strategies, very advanced in Europe, very advanced in the United States and Japan and several other countries. And we were really trying to get our heads together on how to construct a path forward that engages all of the major economies.
Why is that important? As we look to the future, the international panel on climate change has indicated that most of the increase in future emissions will come from the major developing countries. As we slow the growth of emissions in the developed countries, we're getting a big increase from the developing countries. And so it was understood that as we share an energy security agenda as well, that we need to find a way where we can all work together. That led to the Gleneagles dialogue. Two years of discussions in the UN, just so we understood what each country is doing, and we are now at the point where we're ready to move forward. And then the question becomes: What are the best processes to use to move forward?
The President offered last May to convene a group of the major economies to see if we could focus on the issues of highest relevance to this group. How do we mitigate for greenhouse gas emissions, how do we work to reduce them? How do we work together to improve our energy security portfolios, so these are -- and in key places how do we work to combat air pollution? So the idea was to bring everyone together around a common agenda that could then be used and brought into the United Nations process to help be a contribution to ultimately a global agreement under the UN, and we have committed to do this by the end of 2009. Not all countries have committed to that date yet, but the G-8 countries have.
And so the agenda that we'll be proceeding with next week is an effort to see if we can begin to get a shape, if we can get an architecture for the elements of a new agreement. The discussion will actually begin on Monday. Secretary Rice will give remarks on behalf of the United States during the day, during the sessions that are being convened by the United Nations. And then President Bush will attend a dinner of leaders. We are told about 20 global leaders, which is hosted by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. We think that meeting will give a -- set of discussions. We'll have a very positive direction for us when we meet at the end of next week, and we'll be taking up an agenda that will focus on five main areas.
First, we'll begin discussions and reaching a consensus on a long-term global goal for reducing emissions. We have not done this collectively before. This will be a lengthy discussion. So we'll start the discussion next week, but it will not conclude next week. It will take some time to work through that.
Second, we will share the current portfolio of national strategies, the strategies for addressing energy security and reducing greenhouse gases through about 2012. We will then share, for those countries that have them, what we're doing beyond 2012. The EU, the U.S. and Canada and a few other countries have already begun to define post-2012 goals and programs. We'll then spend some time discussing the most important future areas of increase in emissions and discuss the pathways for trying to address those increases. So this will involve low carbon fossil power generation. It will involve vehicles and transportation; vehicles and fuels, essentially the transportation system; forestry, especially the big problem of deforestation and the promotion of sustainable forest practices; and then how we can dramatically expand and accelerate markets for existing technologies, the efficiency, nuclear, wind, solar and other renewables.
We will then have a discussion of expanded financing. Right now our Indonesian hosts are going to convene the treasury ministers, the finance ministers, in December and we want to see if among the major economies we can begin to define, you know, a broad financing agenda to help contribute to the UN discussions. And then perhaps one of the easier elements is there seems to be good agreement already on the need to harmonize our emissions accounting systems. We have good measurement systems at the national level that the UN currently uses, but at the company-by-company level, countries use different approaches and we want to see if we can come up with a more harmonized system of accounting that will support any policies that we develop.
I think I'll stop there and I'll see if Under Secretary Dobriansky has anything to say that I left out.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: Okay. Well, I wanted just to clarify one point you mentioned. On the UN Framework Convention on climate change meeting, which will be in Bali, Indonesia, at the end of this year, the Indonesians have proposed the bringing together of finance ministers in advance of the actual ministerial -- they have the first week and the second week. And the proposal is to bring the finance ministers at the beginning of the second week to be discussing financing as it relates to climate change issues. And then the actual ministerial of the Bali meeting will take place the second half of that week.
Secondly, I would just add that in terms of the two-day meeting that we also will have the participation of a number of our cabinet members. We have Secretary Gutierrez of the Department of Commerce. We have the head of our Environmental Protection Agency, who will also be addressing and speaking to the group as well as our Acting Secretary of Agriculture and also the Secretary of Energy.
These integrated issues will form the basis of many of the topics and the specific agenda items that Chairman Connaughton had referred to. I'll stop there.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Questions, please.
QUESTION: Hi. My name is Sridhar Krishnaswami from the Press Trust of India. When you are having countries like India and China at this major meeting, are there any initial expectations that you have of a country like India when they come to a meeting like this at all?
MR. CONNAUGHTON: I think the -- we operate under the UN principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. And the expectation for this meeting is that each country will be bringing to the table their own sets of strategies for dealing with the issues of energy security and climate change and some of their development objectives. It is -- you know, we fully expect -- India has been very clear about their priorities. And so what we want to do is understand and respect the Indian national priorities and see where they align with some of the objectives that the other countries are pursuing.
For example, the area of biofuels is an area in which there's great promise in a country like India and a place like China; certainly America is the Saudi Arabia of biomass. There's an opportunity for us to see if we can align our national strategies to accelerate the commercial availability of second-generation biofuels, for example. We need to figure out, can we create a work stream that will help us achieve that shared set of objectives?
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: I'd make several comments. First, it might also be worth noting, and it relates to not only India and China, but all the participants. There are 17 representatives at the major economies meeting. And in totality, when you look at the major economies represented, this comprises some 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and also some 85 percent of GDP, if you will, or economic output in this case.
Secondly, I think the meeting really will afford an opportunity to actually flesh through in detail the kinds of national approaches that are being taken to look at what are the commonalities, what are the differences and to try to bridge those in developing a post-2012 framework. And in this sense, India, China, all the countries represented around the table can and will play, we hope, a major role in this effort.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: Ricardo Balthazar from Valor Economico, Brazil. Many countries, like Brazil, and the European Union have expressed some skepticism about American (inaudible). What do you expect to achieve with this meeting that could not be achieved by the UN process already?
MR. CONNAUGHTON: Well, let me begin first. I think the predicate for your question is not quite accurate. All of the countries at the leader level have actually welcomed this initiative. And the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has welcomed this initiative. I am aware of some critics of the initiative, but I'm not aware of national governmental critics of the initiative. And the criticisms come typically from individuals who are not informed about what we're trying to achieve, which is the important part of your question.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: Also, may I just add to that quick point?
MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yeah.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: Also as the chairman mentioned, the initiative was embraced in the G-8 document and it also was embraced most recently in the APEC meetings, as well.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yeah. So we had 29 countries. The purpose of this meeting is to accomplish one set of discussions that will be important to reaching a global agreement under the UN, and we're bringing a high level to it. These issues of mitigating greenhouse gases and their central importance of energy and the central importance to the economy of the major economies requires a focused discussion among those countries. The goal of this is to have that now, well in advance of the Bali meetings, so that we can begin to work toward a shared contribution to the Bali meetings.
Then we will take our guidance from the Bali meeting and reconvene to see how, with the support of the leaders, the leaders really pushing the agenda, we can shape the elements of a new global agreement. And so we have these meetings all the time in the UN process. You know, there are 189 countries, but you often then break into smaller groups to work through issues. Many of you have seen this in the context of Doha, where smaller groupings of countries have come together to try to break through some issues. This is a classic example of that. I think the difference at this point of time is this is an unprecedented level of involvement and it's an unprecedented level of leader organization of this. And I think that's what will give us a higher prospect of success.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: I think the other element is also what I mentioned earlier that if you look at and take the totality of the countries that you're talking about, the 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as 85 percent of economic output to which is significant in bringing the representatives together to try to develop an understanding of those key elements of a post-2012 framework.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: But, I mean, there is a broader agenda. The UN process is looking at adaptation that clearly affects many countries beyond the major economies and then that is a discussion that will be had and organized on a much larger group level by the UN. This is dealing with one piece of the total UN agenda. And again, we'll be contributing into the UN, taking advice back and then seeing if we can advance the dialogue faster.
QUESTION: Markus Ziener, Handelsblatt, Germany. I understand that the United States is still opposing having six sets of benchmarks and limitations on greenhouse emissions. So could you please explain why is it better to have nonbinding goals, instead of having enforced and sanctioned goals?
MR. CONNAUGHTON: Again, I think the question is more general and probably, in that respect, not quite reflective of what's occurring. The U.S. has strongly backed goals and targets. In your packages, we've given you a list of the programs we've put in place since 2001 in the U.S. at the national level. And we've given you a list of new initiatives that the President himself has proposed this year. We do believe targets are useful. They can be done in the context of regulation. They can be done in the context of incentive programs and we do them very much in the context of public/private partnerships. There are instances where we have opposed certain proposals for targets and we will continue to oppose those. And there are other places where we're looking at targets. So for example, we are going to -- we are committed in principle to reaching agreement on a long-term global goal for reducing emissions. Now, that will be a challenge for most of the countries to reach agreement on that number -- on that timeline. But we are committed to trying to do that. We in the past have rejected efforts by one region to impose a target on another region.
The President strongly believes we will make greatest progress with a bottom-up approach, where each nation defines its own portfolio strategies, each nation sets the tools by which it will reach those goals: the regulatory tools, the financial tools, the technology-based tools. And then where appropriate, we will set a common agenda on particular aspects. We just saw in the APEC meeting that we were able to get 21 APEC countries to commit to a goal of improving energy intensity by at least 25 percent by 2030. So there's an example where we came up with a very practical sector-specific goal that had a foundation to it. We will continue to resist arbitrary target-setting processes. We will continue to resist that and we prefer to deal with the issues on a sector-by-sector basis, but have a clear plan for achieving them.
QUESTION: Hello, Geoff Elliott from The Australian newspaper. Just wondering, obviously, there are more players involved in this meeting next week, but how will it be different from APEC? I mean, was APEC -- did APEC establish a beachhead for you on some of these issues, as the one you just mentioned, the energy efficiency issue? So, you know, how will it look different? Can you just give us some leads there? And also, just a second question is how will GNEP come into play next week? You've got nuclear powers involved in this meeting next week. Does GNEP play a role or where are we at with that? Thank you.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: The G-8 was first in welcoming the initiative, which is really the product of two years of discussions within the G-8.
QUESTION: So -- I was mentioning GNEP, the --
MR. CONNAUGHTON: No, no, no. And then you asked about APEC.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: So I'm dealing with the first part of your question.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: APEC was a welcome contribution because it has major economies in it. It has major emerging economies, like China, Indonesia and South Korea in it -- South Korea has now joined the group of major economies -- and then a number of developing countries. So that gave this initiative an even bigger lift because there were many countries in APEC who were not significant contributors to greenhouse gases, but saw the importance and usefulness of this initiative, so that -- we really felt that that gave us even further impetus, further force to the effort.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: May I just add one?
MR. CONNAUGHTON: Yeah.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: Also one dimension of APEC that was very significant and of which the Australians launched. In fact, they held a forest and climate meeting of which some 70 countries participated, actually a month earlier. It was rather groundbreaking in terms of the scale and the scope of the discussion, and clearly the strong embracement about the desire and the need to address an area of which there's 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions derived from -- from land use mismanagement and deforestation. That was also, I think, a very important element of APEC.
In the Major Economies Meeting, there will be a discussion of this in one of the panels of the public/private sector. But I would pick out that the element here that's been important is it really lays a very important foundation as we go to the meeting in Bali for the UN Framework Convention. This is one of the areas in which there's a great desire to try to develop a more robust agenda and work program in this area. And I think that the APEC meeting teed it up. We have a component of it in our Major Economies Meeting, but that will really help us as we go forward to the Bali meeting.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: On GNEP, which is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, that is one of a dozen or more major multilateral initiatives in specific technology areas. We have one on hydrogen, we have one on carbon sequestration. There's a series of those. These have proven to be very effective ways to organize our technical activity and some of our policy activity. So GNEP is an important example of the kind of initiative we want to carry forward in a new approach. I do want to explain and differentiate. This series of Major Economies Meetings is a working meeting to construct the architecture for a new global agreement.
So the purpose of this is not to create groups and organize and run groups in all of these subjects; the purpose is to give definition to all of the elements of a future, you know, agreement or set of agreements that will then be carried out under the UN in close coordination with other bodies that the UN may identify to carry some of this work forward. And I think that's what's probably been least well understood.
Between now and next year, we are not going to solve all the problems of the world in one fell swoop. Between now and next year what we can do is provide leader-level guidance of each of the areas of work where we need to, you know, move even more strongly. Nuclear power is certainly one of them. We cannot achieve a significant emission reduction into the future, unless we substantially increase the global utilization of zero-emission nuclear power. You cannot get from here to there, without a lot of nuclear power being added to the mix. We need more renewables, we need second-generation biofuels, we need efficiency, we need all of it, and nuclear is an important piece of it.
MODERATOR: I think this will have to be the last question.
QUESTION: Tsukasa Arita with Kyodo News, Japan. I have two quick questions. Are you going to issue any kind of statement or some kind of chairman's summary, actually, at the end of this meeting? And second question is why -- could you tell us why the President will not attend UN (inaudible) meeting, just only dinner?
MR. CONNAUGHTON: First, there'll be a series of information we develop from the meeting. As I indicated this is the first of several meetings. I do not want to say at this time what form of paper will be created. Typically, at the end of a meeting like this you have some kind of statement of conclusions, but this will be the first of several meetings, so you should not expect, you know, leader-level negotiated communication of some kind. It would really be guidance for how we carry the process forward. So what exactly the form that will take, you know, stay tuned. The -- as to the President, the -- Secretary Rice will be giving the five-minute presentation. As you may or may not know, the UN has created a series of time slots for countries to make statements about climate change. And so Secretary Rice will be making that statement for the United States. And many other foreign ministers will be doing the same. You know, there are a number of countries whose leaders will not be making those five-minute statements. The meeting that is very important for the President is a dinner that evening, where there'll be a free and open exchange where the leaders are actually interacting with each other and giving some sense of direction to the meetings we will have later in the week. That is the very important meeting for the President to attend because it will be a free and open exchange. During the day, it's not expected that there will be any exchanges between the leaders. They will be making presentations of their own national positions as to what they're doing and Secretary Rice is very good at that.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: In fact, just to add on that, as you may know, there are four sequential, or I should say, sequential panels that they have.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: Concurrent.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: Or -- excuse me, concurrent. Thank you.
MR. CONNAUGHTON: They're at the same time.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: Concurrent. Thank you. That's the word -- concurrent -- panels: one on adaptation, one on mitigation, one on financing, and one on technology. And Secretary Rice will be speaking in the technology panel, which I think is panel three, at the UN.
MODERATOR: I'd like to thank our participants and I thank you, ladies and gentlemen. That's all we have time for right now. And we will hope to see you at the meeting.
UNDER SECRETARY DOBRIANSKY: Thank you.
