Sec Clinton Cop

8/14/2019 Sec Clinton Cop

1/10


2/10

So in addition to the robust actions that the ObamaAdministration has taken at home -- from the historicinvestment in clean energy included in the Recovery Actto the new efficiency standards for cars, trucks, and

appliances -- we have pursued an unprecedented effortto engage partners around the world in the fight againstclimate change. And we produced real results. President Obama launched the Major Economies Forumon Energy and Climate which brought together keydeveloped and developing countries. He alsospearheaded an agreement, first among the G20 andthen the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation nations, tophase out fossil fuel subsidies.

And after a year of diplomacy, we have come toCopenhagen ready to take the steps necessary toachieve a comprehensive and operational newagreement that will provide a foundation for long-term,sustainable economic growth. Our U.S. delegationincludes not just the President of the United States, butsix members of his Cabinet.

We have now reached the critical juncture in thesenegotiations. I understand that the talks have beendifficult. I know that our team, along with many others,are working hard and around the clock to forge a deal.And we will continue doing all that we can do. But thetime is at hand for all countries to reach for commonground and take an historic step that we can all be

proud of. There is a way forward based on a number of coreelements: decisive national actions, an operationalaccord that internationalizes those actions, assistancefor nations that are the most vulnerable and leastprepared to meet the effects of climate change, and


3/10

standards of transparency that provide credibility to theentire process. The world community should accept noless.

And the United States is ready to embrace this path.

First, we have announced our intention to cut ouremissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levelsin 2020 and ultimately in line with final climate andenergy legislation. In light of the Presidents goals, theexpected pathway in pending legislation would extendthose cuts to 30 percent by 2025, 42 percent by 2030,and more than 80 percent by 2050.

Second, we also recognize that an agreement mustprovide generous financial and technological support fordeveloping countries, particularly the poorest and mostvulnerable, to help them reduce emissions and adapt toclimate change. Thats why we joined an effort tomobilize fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10billion in 2012 to support the adaptation and mitigationefforts of countries in need.

And today Id like to announce that, in the context of astrong accord in which all major economies stand behindmeaningful mitigation actions and provide fulltransparency as to their implementation, the UnitedStates is prepared to work with other countries toward agoal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 toaddress the climate change needs of developing

countries. We expect this funding will come from a widevariety of sources, public and private, bilateral andmultilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

This will include a significant focus on forestry andadaptation, particularly, again I repeat, for the poorestand most vulnerable among us.


4/10

So there should be no doubt about the commitment of the United States to reaching a successful agreementhere in Copenhagen and meeting this great globalchallenge together.

But ultimately this must be a common effort. We allknow there are real challenges that remain in the hoursleft to these negotiations. And it is no secret that wehave lost precious time in these past days. In the timewe have left here, it can no longer be about us versusthem this group of nations pitted against that group.We all face the same challenge together.

I have often quoted a Chinese proverb which says thatwhen you are in a common boat, you have to cross theriver peacefully together. Well, we are in a commonboat. All of the major economies have an obligation tocommit to meaningful mitigation actions and standbehind them in a transparent way. And all of us have anobligation to engage constructively and creativelytoward a workable solution. We need to avoidnegotiating approaches that undermine rather thanadvance progress toward our objective.

I am deeply concerned about the consequences fordeveloping countries - from Bangladesh to the Maldives,from the Caribbean to West Africa and the Pacific Islands- if we cannot secure the kind of strong operationalaccord Ive described today. We know what theconsequences will be for the farmer in Bangladesh or the

herder in Africa or the family being battered byhurricanes in Central America. Without that accord,there wont be the kind of joint global action from all of the major economies we all want to see, and the effectsin the developing world could be catastrophic. We knowwhat will happen. Rising seas, lost farmland, droughtand so much else. Without the accord, the opportunity


5/10

to mobilize significant resources to assist developingcountries with mitigation and adaptation will be lost.

Over the next two days, we will be discussing these

issues further. This problem is not going away, evenwhen we leave Copenhagen. But neither is our resolve.We must try to overcome the obstacles that remain. Wemust not only seize this moment, but raise our oarstogether and row in the same direction toward ourcommon destination and destiny. And the United Statesis ready to do our part. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Well take a few questions. John Broder,from the New York Times.

QUESTION: The commitment toward a hundred billiondollar fund by 2020 is in line with, although at the lowerend of, what Great Britain and the EU have proposed.

You mentioned that it would include some alternativeforms of finance. Could you spell that out a little bit?And do you seriously believe that a hundred billiondollars is going to be enough, and going to be enough tomove this process to a conclusion tomorrow night? SERETARY CLINTON : Well, a hundred billion dollars ayear is a lot of money. Thats a commitment that is veryreal and can have tangible effects. There is a pipelinethat both has to be filled and then the funds disbursed.So we actually think a hundred billion dollars isappropriate, usable and will be effective. There are a

number of different ideas about how we can pursue thefinancing to achieve the annual one hundred billiondollars commitment. I dont want to go into that here,because, you know, there are many different ideas. Theimportant point for the next two days is not to talk abouthow we would fund money that we havent yet agreed tofund, but to make the agreement that that is what were


6/10

going to do. Because I want to underscore what I said:in the absence of an operational agreement that meetsthe requirements that I outlined, there will not be thatkind of financial commitment, at least from the United

States.

QUESTION : (Inaudible), TV2 Denmark. Two questions.Number one, as you may have heard, there has beensort of a stalemate in the negotiations. Who will nowdrive the negotiations forward? And number two,theres been rumors that President Obama may notcome tomorrow. Will he come, actually? SECRETARY CLINTON : Well, as to the first question,we all have to drive the negotiations forward. Im heretoday, not only to make this announcement, which is asignificant commitment from President Obama and theUnited States, but to underscore the importance of engaging in a very constructive and active way over thenext hours. Were running out of time. Its unfortunatethat there has been problems with the process,difficulties with certain parties being willing to come tothe table, all kinds of discussions and disagreements,sometimes about the past rather than about the future.But the underlying reality is, we have to do everythingwe can to reach this agreement. Because in theabsence of a new agreement that binds everyone totheir relative commitments and responsibilities, wherethe developed countries take on these obligations andwhere the developing countries work on their own

mitigation and adaptation measures, with atransparency mechanism, there will not be the kind of concerted, global action that we so desperately need.

The President is planning to come tomorrow. Obviouslywe hope that there will be something to come for.


7/10

QUESTION: Thank you. Margaret Ryan with CleanSkies News. Are you saying if China - we have reportsthis morning from Reuters, The Post and so on - wherethe Chinese officials are saying no, they will not commit

to the kind of transparency, incorporating theircommitments into an international treaty that the U.S. isasking. If they continue in that position, will the U.S.walk away from an agreement here? SECRETARY CLINTON: We think this agreement hasinterlocking pieces, all of which must go together. Andwe have set those out continuously. There have beennumerous instances in the past year where parties haveagreed to the elements of the agreement that we areseeking - at LAquila, the G8, the Major EconomiesForum, the bilateral meeting between President Obamaand President Hu Jintao in their statement in Beijing.

Time and time again leading up to these negotiations, allthe parties have committed themselves to pursuing anagreement that met the various standards, includingtransparency. It would be hard to imagine, speaking forthe United States, that there could be the level of financial commitment that I have just announced in theabsence of transparency from the second biggestemitter - and now I guess the first biggest emitter, andnow nearly, if not already, the second biggest economy. QUESTION: Thank you Madam Secretary. David Corn,of Mother Jones Magazine and PoliticsDaily.com. Canyou outline some of those requirements? You have just

mentioned China a little bit. What would be thestandards that you would expect China and other majordeveloping nations to meet in order for there to be adeal in which you could go ahead with this financialcommitment? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have presented and


8/10

discussed numerous approaches to transparency with anumber of countries and there are many ways toachieve transparency that would be credible andacceptable. But there has to be a willingness to move

toward transparency in whatever form we finallydetermine is appropriate. So, if there is not even acommitment to pursue transparency, thats kind of adealbreaker for us. In the absence of transparency of some sort - and I am not going to prescribe from thispodium exactly what it must be - but there has to be acommitment to transparency. Weve said itconsistently. As I just referenced, there have beenoccasions in this past year when all the major economieshave committed to transparency. Now that we aretrying to define what transparency means and how wewould both implement it and observe it, there is abacking away from transparency. And, you know, thatto us is something that undermines the whole effort thatwere engaged in. MODERATOR: We have time for one more.

QUESTION: My name is (inaudible) from the TokyoChunichi newspapers. I was wondering about the faststart financing because the EU has committed about 10billion dollars, Japan 15 billion. So what is the EUoffering on that sorry, the U.S. offering on that,obviously? SECRETARY CLINTON: We are committed to the fast

funding start, and we are going to do our proportion of it,right Todd? TODD STERN: Yes.

MODERATOR: Well take one more.


9/10

QUESTION: Im from the Norwegian BroadcastCorporation. I am just wondering, this should insteadof shall. What does the word mean when you take itback to the U.S?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well it depends upon whatyoure referring to. If youre referring to transparency,there shall be a transparency requirement. How it isdefined and implemented is something we should leaveup to the negotiations. QUESTION: I was wondering, the change in the textthat you the U.S. asked for a change in the text thatthey wanted a conditional should instead of a shallin terms of reduction. SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thats text negotiationthat the negotiators are doing. You know that theadvantage of being the Secretary of State is Im up hereat the large macro level, and they have to get down intothe nitty gritty and determine exactly what verb andmodifier needs to be used. But the point is that as wenegotiate text, we should be negotiating overtransparency. There should not be positions taken thattransparency is off the table for certain countries,because that is unacceptable in the overall internationalagreement we are trying to forge. Will you just add aword? TODD STERN: On that specific question; look, the

effort thats going on right now that Prime MinisterRasmussen has led, is to get an operational, politicalaccord leading up to, hopefully next year, a politicallybinding agreement. Shall is a word that is typicallyused in legal agreements and not in non-legally bindingagreements. So thats maybe more than you want toknow, but thats the textual answer.


10/10

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much.

###

Documents

Sec Clinton Cop