Here Todd Stern yesterday defending the US mitigation numbers in a press conference:
Posted on 16. Dec, 2009 by adoptanegotiator in U.S.A., bits
I wanted – just before we get into questions, I thought I might take a
minute to make a few comments about the U.S. mitigation commitment.
The – I frequently talk about or am asked about issues of
comparabilities between the U.S. and other developed countries. And I
frequently say that our numbers are quite comparable by any number of
measures. But I thought I would actually treat you today to a few of
the numbers for a minute that I think actually do make that point.
And I would say that it’s – it’s only in the hermetically-sealed world
of global climate change negotiations that a baseline year of 1990 to
measure the reduction of emissions from now to 2020 would be treated
as sacrosanct.So, let me just start with – for a second again with what our number
is. We have put in a proposal of a reduction that’s around 17% below
2005 levels in 2020. And with those numbers ramping up rapidly to
about 30% below 2005 by 2025 and 42% by 2030. And even compared to
1990, by the way, those numbers in 2025 and 2030 would be 18% and 33%.
By that measure – but only by that measure – the U.S. is
substantially – the U.S. reduction is substantially less than the EU,
for example. And by the way, I have nothing but respect for what the
EU has done and continues to do on climate change, so this is in no
sense a criticism of the EU. It’s just an explanation of what the
U.S. is doing. So if you compare our reduction levels against the
2005 – obviously more recent number and one that’s more relevant to
what President Obama could do, coming into office – the U.S. 17%
stacks up against a reduction by the EU of about 13%. This is based
on an EU 20% reduction against 1990. That’s sort of a basic number
right now. So if you translated that to 2005, there would be about a
13% reduction, so less than what the U.S. is putting down.If you look at a second measure, which is our reduction from where we
are now, compared to business as usual, the U.S. offers a 17%
reduction and the EU’s about 12%. Japan and Australia would be, I
think, 10% for Japan and 20% for Australia. Per capita reduction, –
even against 1990, the U.S. proposal would be a 29% reduction, the EU
a 25% reduction.The carbon intensity – that’s a number that China’s using, by the way,
in its own numbers – the carbon intensity for the U.S. is a number
that’s just about exactly in line with the carbon intensity reduction
for the EU and other developed countries.And then lastly, if you look at the change in atmospheric
concentrations, the U.S. offer would reduce atmospheric concentrations
by about three times more than those put forward by other Annex 1
countries, even if you equalize or account for the different starting
points, in terms of who had larger emissions to begin with.So, in five out of six – by five out of six measures, the U.S. is
equal to or higher than the EU or many of our other developed country
partners. So again, no criticism meant on them. But I have fielded
questions all year long from many of my counterparts about why isn’t
the U.S. doing more, and as I say, the U.S. is doing a lot. The only
measure by which it looks like the U.S. isn’t doing as much is 1990.So anyway, just thought I would brighten your day with a few
statistics. And then I’m happy to take questions.