This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/world/europe/paris-climate-conference.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
U.S. Proposes Raising Spending on Climate-Change Adaptation Climate Negotiators Face Hurdles on Key Issues as Deadline Looms
(about 5 hours later)
LE BOURGET, France — In an effort to help smooth the passage of a sweeping new climate accord here this week, Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Wednesday a proposal to double its grant-based public finance for climate-change adaptation by 2020 to $860 million, from $430 million. LE BOURGET, France — Less than two days before their deadline to conclude a sweeping new climate accord, negotiators from nearly 200 countries have yet to resolve major issues, such as how and when pledged cuts to carbon emissions would be verified.
Mr. Kerry’s announcement came as the momentum toward a deal appeared to have hit a momentary snag. Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister who is presiding over the talks, delayed by two hours a self-imposed 1 p.m. deadline to release a new draft of the international agreement that negotiators here have been haggling over for more than a week. Mr. Kerry oversees the American negotiating team, which is led by Todd D. Stern, the United States special envoy for climate change. Lead negotiators said they were confident that a deal could still be reached — and perhaps in time to meet the Friday deadline. But some outside observers who have been monitoring the talks said that the compromises necessary to bring it across the finish line could weaken the deal so much as to make it nearly toothless.
President Obama spoke by phone from Washington this week with President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, a sign of high-level negotiations behind the scenes. At the heart of the proposed deal are a set of pledges from 186 countries, representing over 90 percent of the global economy, to cut their emissions. But a draft text published on Wednesday did not include any details on how those emissions cuts would be monitored and verified.
Mr. Kerry, in his first big speech at the conference, spoke in animated tones that seemed as much addressed to Americans who reject established climate science as to the delegates here. Meanwhile, even if enacted, those pledges would cut emissions about only half as much as necessary to curb greenhouse gases to the level needed to prevent the atmosphere warming by 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. At that point, scientists say, catastrophic effects would kick in, such as devastating floods, droughts, food shortages and intense storms.
“I know there are still a few who insist that climate change is one big hoax, even a political conspiracy,” Mr. Kerry said. “These people are so out of touch with science that they believe rising sea levels don’t matter, because in their view the extra water is going to just spill over the sides of a flat earth. They’re wrong, obviously.” A group of countries led by the United States, Europe and small island nations, known as the “High Ambition” coalition, have pushed for provisions that would require countries to submit to verification of their cuts by an outside body, and to return to the table every five years with more stringent pledges.
He added: “For those who may still question the 97 percent of peer-reviewed studies on climate change, let me just underscore: You don’t need to be a scientist to know that the earth is round, that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, and that gravity is the reason that objects fall to the ground.” Developing nations like China and India have strongly resisted such provisions — particularly the demand to ratchet up their emissions commitment. Some nations have expressed concerns that the verification demand would infringe on their sovereignty and lock them into actions that could become untenable.
The issue of money has been a crucial sticking point in the talks, as developing countries demand that richer countries open up their wallets to help pay for them to adapt to the ravages of climate change, such as increased floods and droughts. While the draft released on Wednesday discussed all those issues, it left blank the key details.
“We need to press forward for ambition,” said Todd Stern, the lead negotiator for the United States. “The text that came out is a step forward. We need clear, strong cycles for countries to communicate either an update or revision of their targets, and we need that to start early.”
He added, “We need a strong transparency article so we know what’s going on with those 186 pledges.”
India, the world’s third largest carbon polluter, has resisted the demand that it return to the table in five years with more ambitious plans for cutting emissions.
“There needs to be flexibility,” said Ashok Lavasa, secretary of India’s Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. “Countries that can put forth every five years can do so. But without a technology breakthrough, other countries will need 10 years.”
Tony deBrum, the climate change envoy for the low-lying Marshall Islands, a country that is vulnerable to the devastation of sea level rise due to climate change, said, “We will not accept a minimalist or low-ambition package.” However, he added, “I’m encouraged to see many of the elements we have argued for are there but we have a long way to go.”
In an effort to help smooth the passage of an accord, Secretary of State John Kerry threw more money into the fund to help poor countries adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate. He announced on Wednesday a proposal to double the amount of pledged grants by 2020 to $860 million, from $430 million.
The issue of money has been a crucial sticking point in the talks, as developing countries demand that richer countries open their wallets to help pay for them to adapt to the ravages of climate change, such as increased floods and droughts.
Secretary Kerry, who has been attending the international climate change talks since the first summit meeting in Rio de Janiero in 1992, plans to remain here all week to help facilitate the deal.
Observers said the announcement appeared explicitly intended to give a boost to the stalled climate talks.Observers said the announcement appeared explicitly intended to give a boost to the stalled climate talks.
China and India are resisting a push by the United States to create an aggressive outside monitoring system for emissions, and to require countries to come back to the table every five years with more stringent pollution reduction plans.China and India are resisting a push by the United States to create an aggressive outside monitoring system for emissions, and to require countries to come back to the table every five years with more stringent pollution reduction plans.
“This impasse has slowed progress to a crawl, with the U.S. lacking leverage and China and India seemingly content to wait out the process,” Paul Bledsoe, a former climate adviser in the Clinton administration who is attending the talks, said by email. “The decision to double U.S. adaptation funding itself is a strategic play to head off loss and damage calls by developing nations. This is why Kerry is pushing these lines right now.”“This impasse has slowed progress to a crawl, with the U.S. lacking leverage and China and India seemingly content to wait out the process,” Paul Bledsoe, a former climate adviser in the Clinton administration who is attending the talks, said by email. “The decision to double U.S. adaptation funding itself is a strategic play to head off loss and damage calls by developing nations. This is why Kerry is pushing these lines right now.”
Others agreed that the pledge could give a boost to the stalled talks. “The doubling of public commitments for adaptation is a very helpful development as we head into the final days in Paris,” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, a research organization. “We are entering crunch time.” Others agreed that the pledge could help move things along. “The doubling of public commitments for adaptation is a very helpful development as we head into the final days in Paris,” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, a research organization. “We are entering crunch time.”
The pledge comes on top of an announcement last week about the creation of a large new public-private coalition that would increase spending by 20 governments on clean energy research and development to $10 billion annually from $5 billion, over five years. That agreement also includes an investment on such research of $2 billion over eight years from a group of 28 investors. No matter the shape of the deal that emerges, it is certain to require governments which have already committed to substantial emissions cuts to begin looking at how they can do still more.
At the last major United Nations climate conference, in Copenhagen in 2009, Mr. Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Clinton, sought to push the talks forward with a surprise announcement that rich countries would mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 to help poorer countries mitigate and adapt to the ravages of climate change. “We’re going to get a deal,” said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainability, a research organization. “It’ll be good enough to drink the champagne. And the next day we’ll wake up with hangovers and realize we have a lot more work to do.’
The new money announced by Mr. Kerry would be meant to count toward that $100 billion — but the relatively small amount would not come close to meeting the demands of developing nations.
At the time Mrs. Clinton made the pledge, the idea was that the $100 billion would come from a mix of public funds and private investment. But developing countries, led by India, have demanded that richer countries, particularly the United States, commit to spending that money from public coffers.
Such a proposal is unlikely to pass in Congress. Last year, President Obama pledged that the United States would spend $3 billion over five years to help meet that goal, but already, Republicans in Congress are looking to block the first $500 million installment of that payment.
The money Mr. Kerry pledged would also be subject to congressional approval — some of it would be requested through the State Department’s program for foreign aid, the Agency for International Development, while other portions would move through the Treasury budget. But the new money would represent a trifecta of unpopular issues in the Republican-majority Congress: new government spending, climate change and foreign aid.
“In vulnerable countries where the U.S. has a clear direct strategic interest, this is helping insure against the increasing threats posed by change patterns — so they don’t lead to destabilization and direct costs and consequences,” said an adviser to Mr. Kerry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before the announcement because it had not yet been made public.
“When there are terrible events in the world driven by climate change, the U.S. steps in because that is our rightful role,” the adviser added. “We spend a large amount of money cleaning up after disasters. Smart targeted investments in adaptation can pay off.”
But it is unclear whether Mr. Kerry’s announcement will help ease the current standoffs over financing in the negotiations. In 2009, despite Mrs. Clinton’s announcement of a far bigger sum, the Copenhagen talks dissolved in acrimony and did not yield a legally binding agreement.
Mr. Kerry made a fierce call for action: “Unless the global community takes bold steps now to transition away from a high-carbon economy,” he said, “we are facing unthinkable harm to our habitat, our infrastructure, our food production, our water supplies and, potentially, to life itself.”
“Make no mistake,” he added. “If a global community cannot come together and refuses to rise to this challenge, if we continue to allow calculated obstruction to derail the urgency of this moment, we will be liable for a collective moral failure of historic consequence.”