Montreal. Quebec, Canada, November 30, 2005

The great thing about the US position on Kyoto is that under the present administration in Washington
it is completely transparent and consistent. Senior US Climate Negotiator and US Department of State Special Representative, Dr. Harlan L. Watson, is expressing the position just as it is - no sugar coating please:

“Kyoto Parties are legally obligated to commence discussions here in Montreal on a second commitment period, which for them would presumably begin in 2013. We respect that obligation and expect that they will meet their commitment to do so. However, the United States is opposed to any such discussions under the Framework Convention.

We are involved in climate discussions on an ongoing basis through many government and non-government venues, including the G8 and bilateral and regional discussions with other countries.

These engagements provide many opportunities for countries to join together to discuss climate policy, often focusing on practical steps to address climate change such as accelerating the development and deployment of advanced energy technologies.

Within the Framework Convention, we have had numerous informal conversations about approaches and have welcomed our ability to participate in and learn from the discussions that have taken place during official COP roundtables and the Seminar of Government Experts in Bonn last May.

However, formalized discussions under the Framework Convention - which is the current proposal by some Parties - are in fact negotiations. The U.S. position remains consistent: we see no change in current conditions that would result in a negotiated agreement consistent with the U.S. approach.

The United States seeks to focus attention on progress toward the shared objectives of the Framework Convention rather than to detour positive approaches toward a new round of negotiations based upon the Kyoto process. We are not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol and we do not support such an approach for future commitments.

U.S. climate policy is founded upon the conviction that actions bring results. We believe that it is best to address this complex issue through a range of programs and technology initiatives that address climate change issues through partnerships based upon both near-term and longer-term sustainable development and clean energy objectives.”

What above means is that the US is here in order to prevent the conference to moving on in what concerns the letter of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC. According to what was agreed at the time, and even according to what the US signed before it decided not to follow up on Kyoto, the main task of this meeting is to start the track for coming up with a negotiated second period for agreed upon actions under the KP. The US contends it is not part of the KP, is here because it is part of the UNFCCC, but has no intention to allow the UNFCCC to set a regime for the second period of the KP. Do you call this a presence bent on interference? If so, do not be surprised by hearing the truth.

Forget Climate Change at this Climate Change Conference and think:

• “Alleviation of Poverty

• Rule of Law
• Investment in People
• Stable Economic Institutions”,

  clearly very laudable goals, but what about hurricanes, biodiversity, rising water levels, melting glaciers..,
  those we guess, the US thinks that private enterprise will take care of these problems.

  Now, if you ever thought the US is stingy - the figures the US presents are that it spent $2 billion this year on climate change and $3 billion to accelerate the commercialization of cleaner energy technologies.
  $11 billion are earmarked as incentives for wind, geothermal and solar power, clean vehicles, clean coal technology, emissions-free nuclear power, and renewable bio-fuels. The details of these figures are not forthcoming in Montreal, but we know about the nuclear and coal interests being happy; good enough for those interested in genuine renewables to be unhappy. The Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum initiated by the US is a good place to lose our future. Prominent members of this brotherhood are the three Canadian Provinces - Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, as well as Saudi Arabia - that love to inject CO2 in order to help stimulate oil production - a win-win for the oil folks and very little promise for the rest of us. Further, the US led International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy pleases the nuclear folks as there is nearly no funding whatsoever for work on producing hydrogen by other means.

  The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, incorporating, the US, Australia and Japan with China, India and the Republic of Korea, well publicized but yet to have its first substantial reunion, is being tooted as the grouping that will enable development of technologies and feed them to these large economic unities. ECO, the Montreal Climate Negotiations NGO Newsletter does not think so. In effect, the US got the first two “Fossil of the Day” awards because the Environmental NGOs believe the US delegation is here not to help but rather to hold back.

  At the Press Conferences, Dr. Watson and the press person, Ms Susan Povenmier look rather like two caged tigers defending themselves in a very unfavorable environment. This is a pity because I know Dr. Harlan Watson for years, and I know he is basically a nice person. The job just did him in, seemingly.

  You know, once there were two Watsons, like now there are two Dobrianskys. The other Watson, Dr. Robert Watson, Chief Scientist at the World Bank, an Americanized Britt, was the brain behind International Climate Science and founder of the IPCC. He was not reappointed to his job because of the Washington Administration dislike of his campaigns. Washington just does not believe in climate science that does not provide ways to enrich the oil industry. That Dr. Watson, who is now in charge of the Millennium Development Science at the World Bank, was in Montreal as a guest of the Conference relating to Biodiversity and in a joint meeting, outside the venue of the UNFCCC meeting, but in a joint session with the UNFCCC, he made what was probably the most interesting presentation this last week - he showed how climate change impacts the environment - the effects he showed should be the most relevant motives for actions of the COP and the COP/MOP. I wish our Watson could have found the time to watch that presentation so he could have attempted to relate these effects to official Washington.

  Does this reporting mean that the US is all wrong - no. It just means that by interfering with solid work, and being part of a line up that includes besides Australia also the likes of Saudi Arabia, parts of Canada, Kuwait, and the reality of Iran, Libya …, it seems like Washington is rather leader of an international oil interest group - strange as it may be. A further anecdote to this comment was observed on a map “distributed by the US - titled: “Canadian Provinces Key Players in DOE’s Regional Sequestration Partnerships”. This map shows how British Columbia is in partnership with the US West Coast States and the three Provinces to the East of British Columbia are partners with the US Plains States. All this because similarity in resources were translated as similarity in interests that may be rather at the base of Canada’s present political problems. This map fits in nicely to what we wrote previously when analyzing the conditions under which this COP is navigating.