At the UN a good journalist, not the ever-wish of the UN – the kind that just reports on the UN Press releases, can have fun indeed and throw some light on what goes on in the world.

We bring here the essence of the EU charade as seen by Matthew Russell Lee in his reporting of March 18 and February 4, 2010.

Matthew looks at the personal involvements of the IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn who might run against President Sarcozy – thus making an internal rivalry of France into one of the centrifugal powers active in the EU. So it is this rather then a German – French rivalry that puts in motion the threat of IMF undoing the EU with its involvement in the crisis named Greece. Could you imagine California going to the IMF, or as a matter of fact, Rhode Island or even Puerto Rico?

—————–

With Euro Tanking On Reports of Greece Turning to IMF, of Half Answers, on Dodd Bill and Sri Lanka

By Matthew Russell Lee, UNITED NATIONS, March 18, updated.

Strauss-Kahn, ready to “intervene” in Greece, could leave IMF – “hypothetically”

As Angela Merkel speaks darkly about ejecting from the Euro zone non compliant countries like Greece, that country’s renewed threat of turning for help to the International Monetary Fund has the market selling off the Euro.

Near the end of the IMF’s fortnightly press briefing on Thursday morning, spokesperson Caroline Atkinson, beyond saying the IMF has not had a request for financial assistance, declined to describe various aspects of Greece’s relations with the IMF. Her boss, Dominique Strauss Kahn, previously bragged that the IMF would “intervene” in Greece upon request.

France’s finance minister Lagarde, belatedly added to the UN’s climate finance group after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was confronted with the fact he’d named men to all 19 positions on the panel, has said the EU can still be Greece’s interlocutor and helper, not the IMF.

Her president Sarkozy has a personal motive to oppose IMF help to Greece: Strauss Kahn is polling ahead of him for the next French election.

Inner City Press submitted to the IMF during its briefing, but without answer yet, questions about financial reform and the Fund’s apparently stalled consideration of a third tranche to Sri Lanka. It was mostly Greece on Thursday, with few answers from the IMF.

Update: later these two answers came in from the IMF:

Re Senator Dodd’s bill, overall, we support the thrust toward comprehensive reforms that would address the gaps in financial regulation illustrated by the crisis. Strong and prompt implementation would both help to secure financial stability going forward.

Re Sri Lanka, not much update. As you know, staff will visit Colombo after the parliamentary elections and the formation of the new cabinet, to discuss with the government its plan for a 2010 budget.

Best regards,
Yoshiko Kamata
Media Relations, IMF

IMF’s Strauss-Kahn Coy on Opposing Sarkozy and Intervening in Greece, IMF and Greek Denials, Yemen Deferrals

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 4, updated — The managing director of the International Monetary Fund Dominique Strauss-Kahn bragged Thursday to radio station RTL in his native France that he might leave the IMF early — and perhaps challenge Nicolas Sarkozy for the French presidency — and that if asked by Greece, the IMF could “intervene” in the country.

Questions about both comments were dodged later on Thursday by the spokesperson for Strauss-Kahn and the IMF, Caroline Atkinson. Strauss-Kahn is quoted that “As it stands… I am planning to see out my mandate. But if you ask me whether in certain circumstances I could reconsider this question, the answer is yes, I could reconsider this question.”

This is consciously leaving open the door to reconsider and leave. But Ms. Aktinson emphasized only his “planning to see out my mandate” and called everything else “hypothetical.”

On Greece, Strauss-Kahn said regally, “I have a mission on the ground to provide technical advice requested by the Greek government. And if we’re asked to intervene, we will.” He added, “I understand that the Europeans don’t want this for the moment.”

Inner City Press on Thursday morning asked Dimitris Droutsas, Alternate Foreign Minister of Greece, to describe his government’s thinking about IMF help. Mr. Droutsas responded on the record, “Categorically may I state, any idea of the IMF… there is no idea about that.”

Still, at Thursday’s IMF biweekly briefing, Ms. Aktinson emphasized the “the IMF” — not just Strauss-Kahn — “had a technical team in Athens because the Greeks are very interested in getting any help from us on the technical implementation of the plan.”

Later on February 4 Droutsas told Inner City Press, on camera, that he was unaware of any IMF team having been in Athens. Video here, last question. One wag wondered, has the IMF become like the CIA, or Xe / Blackwater, whose presence is alleged and denied?

But the IMF under Strauss-Kahn brags about being present. As with the wider UN, the rush to be relevant.

It was surprising, then, that when Inner City Press asked Ms. Aktinson about Yemen — using as the lead in a quote by UK Foreign Secretary (Ivan Lewis) that “we address the economic problems that face Yemen, especially through the IMF program” — Ms. Atkinson said she didn’t have information about Yemen and would have to respond later to Inner City Press. But as February 4 hit midnight, no information was provided. Yemen is in the news, and one would expect the omnipresent Strauss-Kahn to be all over it. We’ll see.

Ms. Atkinson gave a pro-IMF spin in responding to Inner City Press’ question about the IMF’s new loan to Haiti, but we’ll be writing about that later, along with the IMF’s Yemen response.

———————

Merkel says errant states should be kicked out of eurozone.

Angela Merkel says the eurozone’s current rules are not sufficient.

ANDREW WILLIS

17.03.2010 @ 17:45 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the eurozone must be able to expel members that repeatedly break the club’s fiscal rules in the future.

In a speech to the German parliament on Wednesday (17 March), the chancellor stressed that such an option would only be used “as a last resort”, but added that the EU’s current Stability and Growth Pact rules are no longer sufficient to deal with the euro area’s difficulties.

“In the future, we need an entry in the [Lisbon] Treaty that would make it possible, as a last resort, to exclude a country from the eurozone if the conditions are not fulfilled again and again over the long term,” Ms Merkel said. “Otherwise co-operation is impossible.”

Market doubts over Greece’s ability to meet refinancing needs in the coming months have plunged the euro area into its greatest crisis in its 11-year history, with the possibility of a sovereign debt default weighing heavily on the euro currency.

With a deficit of 12.7 percent of GDP last year, Athens is grossly in breach of the three-percent limit laid down by stability and growth pact. Other member states have proved little better however, raising the prospect of contagion spreading to other EU countries with weak finances such as Portugal or Spain.

Ms Merkel’s comment’s echo plans outlined by Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, earlier this month, under which a European IMF-style monetary fund would be set up to aid struggling eurozone countries, but backed up by much tougher fiscal rules including the possibility of expelling repeat offenders.

With German public opinion strongly against a Greek bail-out, to which Berlin would be a main contributor, a number of analysts have interpreted Mr Schauble’s plans as a means of avoiding such aid transfers in the future by making it easier for eurozone members to leave the single currency.

At least one senior euro area official greeted Ms Merkel’s statements with sympathy on Wednesday. “An alternative view of ’safeguarding financial stability’ in the eurozone, [a stated desire of EU leaders], is to look for mechanisms that would facilitate an orderly exit of a consistently ‘misbehaving’ member state,” the official told EUobserver.

Greek situation

With the likely need for a treaty change ruling out the quick establishment of such an exit mechanism, Ms Merkel said no member state should be “left on its own” in a crisis.

But she added that: “A quick act of solidarity is definitely not the right answer,” confirming the German line that no aid will be offered to Greece unless absolutely necessary.

That date may arrive at some point over the months of April and May when roughly €20 billion of Greek debt is set to mature. Athens has indicated that the interest rate of 6.3 percent, offered to investors during the country’s last bond issuance, is unsustainable.

On Tuesday, EU finance ministers agreed much of the detail of a mechanism to provide financial aid to Greece, but the political decision to announce the plans has yet to be taken.

A Greek spokesperson said on Wednesday that the country’s centre-left Pasok administration is looking for “clear support” next week from EU leaders at a summit in Brussels, adding that Athens could turn to the IMF if the EU support is not forthcoming.

“I believe the summit is when it will become evident whether the European partners want to support a country … or whether we have to resort to some other solution,” Mr George Petalotis said, report newswires.

Greece has used the threat of turning to the IMF as a means of putting pressure on euro area governments in the past, with EU officials previously indicating their desire to solve eurozone problems internally.

However, reports suggest a number of eurozone countries are softening their stance on potential IMF aid to Greece, with the international organisation already providing technical advice.

“It would be good if the IMF were a part of the package. Finland supports both technical and economic aid [from the IMF]“, Finnish finance minister Jyrki Katainen reportedly said this week.

———————

EU economic governance inevitable, Belgian PM says

Leterme: “It’s about Europe’s financial stability and it’s not an ideological debate about federalism.”

ANDREW RETTMAN

16.03.2010

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme has said that joint economic governance among some or all EU member states is an inevitable consequence of the creation of the euro.

Speaking in an interview with EUobserver about the prospects for setting up a future European Debt Agency (EDA) and a European Monetary Fund (EMF), Mr Leterme predicted that current resistance to the plans will melt away in the coming year.

“You can have doubts about the political will today …but the idea of strengthened economic government has been put on the table and will make progress. In the end, the EDA or something like it will become a reality. I’m convinced of this,” he said.

“It’s about Europe’s financial stability and it’s not an ideological debate about federalism. I myself am a federalist. But more integration and deeper integration are simply logical consequences of having a single currency.”

Mr Leterme floated the debt agency proposal in the press on 5 March.

The agency would be a new EU institution based at the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg. It would help EU governments to borrow money more cheaply by selling bonds guaranteed by all participating states and channeling funds to national treasuries, within a set of limits.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that if markets bought the bonds at an interest rate just 0.1 percent lower than today, the EU as a whole could save €6.6 billion.

The EMF plan was put forward by Germany and involves the creation of a new fund to grant emergency loans to countries at risk of sovereign default.

Both proposals would require EU states to give up fiscal decision-making powers and to co-ordinate national budgets at the EU level to a far greater extent than today. They could also require financially sound EU countries to prop up their insolvent cousins.

The EMF would most likely need a new EU treaty, which forbids eurozone bail-outs as things stand. But the EDA could be set up on the basis of Article 136 of the existing treaty on “the proper functioning of economic and monetary union,” Mr Leterme’s advisors say.

The Belgian leader may raise the debt agency plan at the EU summit on 25 March. It would be “interesting” for EU leaders to discuss it further at the informal, monthly summits proposed by EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy, he said.

The EDA could initially be set up outside EU structures if need be. “We can do a lot of things on an intergovernmental basis, a kind of coalition of the willing, a coalition of the willing of most of the eurozone countries,” Mr Leterme explained.

‘Doubt in their eyes’

The global financial crisis and the more recent Greek debt crisis have caused a shift in EU thinking.

Recalling an extraordinary EU summit in October 2008, which took place a few weeks after the collapse of the US investment bank, Lehman Brothers, the premier said: “We saw the doubt in the eyes of [French and German leaders] Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel. You could feel that they were thinking that sharing the risks, the common approach is not necessary because they were big enough as countries to save their own banking systems.”

But today, he said: “Even Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel realise that if this was to happen again and there was a problem for one of their banks, it would not be easy to avoid a common approach.”

Mr Leterme cautioned that on the one hand, pro-integration countries must strike while the iron is hot: “[The Greek crisis] creates a momentum which we have to seize.”

But on the other hand, the EDA requires a deep technical analysis best made away from the volatile emotions and media glare surrounding the Greek bail-out case. “The problem is that you should not do this at the moment when it is at the core of the public debate. You have to be able to do it in a more theoretical way, a scientific way,” he said.

EU Climate Chief delivers Treaty blow.

by Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent
8th March 2010
 http://crazationsice.blogspot.com/2010/0…

The world will almost certainly fail to draw up a new treaty on climate change this year, the minister in charge of last year’s Copenhagen summit has admitted, delivering a heavy blow to the barely flickering hopes for a swift global settlement.

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister who masterminded the summit of world leaders on global warming last year and is now the European commissioner for climate change, told the Financial Times negotiations were not progressing fast enough for a treaty to be signed soon.

She also gave warning that pushing too hard for a treaty this year could be counterproductive.

“To get every detail set in the next nine months looks very difficult,” she said. “Europe would love that to happen, and I would love that to happen . . . but my feeling is that it is going to be very difficult to get a treaty.”

Her pessimism echoed that of the outgoing United Nations climate change chief, Yvo de Boer. He told the FT as he resigned last month after four years of seeking an agreement that he could not see a treaty being signed this year.

The admission also comes against the backdrop of a resurgence of climate change scepticism, fuelled by a series of mistakes made by scientists that have encouraged many politicians to oppose emissions regulation.

Governments had been hoping to forge a final treaty at a global conference this December in Mexico, after failing to do so in Copenhagen.

However, Ms Hedegaard said this was more likely to happen at a follow-up meeting next year in South Africa.

That would still allow governments to meet their self-imposed deadline of forging a new agreement before the end of 2012, when the current provisions of the world’s only existing treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, the 1997 Kyoto protocol, expire.

Ms Hedegaard robustly defended the Copenhagen summit, which attracted loud criticism, especially for the chaotic way in which it finished.

She said that calling world leaders to the long-running negotiations had ensured rapid progress towards the end, when for the first time developed and developing countries mutually agreed limits on their emissions.

But she said there would not be another Copenhagen-style summit. “You can do such a thing one time,” she said.

The price of failure, if diplomats attempted to force an agreement this year, was too high, Ms Hedegaard said.

“People would say let’s skip that idea, let’s skip the UN thing,” she said.

She also defended climate scientists, saying the handful of flaws in the 2007 report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the e-mails in which scientists talked of concealing data did not affect the large body of scientific evidence amassed over decades.

The UN climate talks have been going on since 1992, when world governments signed the first legally binding treaty aimed at avoiding dangerous levels of climate change. The Kyoto protocol failed because it did not impose obligations on developing countries and was rejected by the US.

——————-

Connie Hedegaard: Statement of CONNIE HEDEGAARD, European Commissioner for Climate Action, on the creation of the Directorate-General CLIMATE “The DG CLIMATE has been created …
ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/hedegaard/index_en.htm

Yvo de Boer, the new free man, gives  to The Financial Times his first interview as elder statesman – and we gleaned three elements in his statement as his very balanced views after 20 years of experience with the climate international problematics.

(1) The Copenhagen non-binding outcome has nevertheless provided us with a good basis for a treaty.

It Copenhagen accord has for the first time drown from from both – rich and poor countries pledges to limit their  GHG emissions, and promised financial assistance from the developed to the developing world to do so. (we did in effect earlier today post already such an agreement between Japan and Kenya.)

(2) There is no practical hope that a binding treaty that has both form and content – can be signed at the meeting of December 2010 in Mexico. (Mr. de Boer has removed the smiley face that the UNSG has imposed on him these last two years)

(3) While governments provide the necessary policy framework for addressing climate change, the real solutions must come from business. As such there are two stages in the process:

(a) Governments must use Taxes or a Cap & Trade methodology to limit emissions.  No corporation can justify the investment required to reduce their carbon intensity without confidence that carbon emissions will become and remain much costlier than today, with few loopholes for those unwilling to pay. Only government can provide that predictability. As we see it today – the EU failed in its effort because of the permit system that allowed for too many permits to float around, and for the US – even the bill that is stalled in Congress is useless as it was emasculated by emission permits giveaways to favored sectors. (what he is saying is what we say all the time – government is there in order to govern – without this nothing logical will evolve from plain empty handed competition.)

(b) If governments dared to embark on real efforts to limit emissions – as long as it is more then just a token idea – the private sector would take it in its stride, it would even thrive, especially the low-carbon companies and sectors that would emerge to replace those unable to kick the carbon habit.

———

We knew already that Yvo de Boer will join KPMG consulting. We know that he is not the first to jump the public policy wagon for the private sector. Al Gore, former US Vice President and father of The Inconvenient Truth” has shown the way He is doing very well – thank you – in the corporate world. We know of people that were formerly with Greenpeace that make now a good living supporting renewable energy corporations.

What we did not know before this interview is that in the academic world, Mr. de Boer chose Yale University and the University of Utrecht that will benefit from his direct involvement.

———

Strange remarks we saw from some that did very little to help the climate cause earlier, but now look down at Mr. de Boer as if he were a traitor to that lost cause to which they did not put their honest heart earlier. Specifically we found the mention to Paul Bledsoe the policy director at the Washington – US National Commission on Energy Policy and former White House adviser.

He said: “This resignation is simply dispiriting – if someone as politically adept, dedicated and charismatic as Yvo de Boer can’t bring the UN process to heel, then the process is broken and has to be reformed.” That is true but disingenuous – why did he not work harder at creating the US government solution that could have been helpful to that UN process? After all, there were times that even the UN was trying to achieve climate goals. On the other hand, the fact that BP and ConocoPhillips walked out from a business pro-climate group this week, came about because they found that the White House will subsidize nuclear power so the price of energy stays low – but oil companies are not electric utilities to be subsidized under this plan – so why should they be part of a program that can only harm them. This was clearly a give-away to the nuclear lobby on the back of the oil lobby – and thus two out of the only three progressive oil companies, that dream of becoming energy companies, found it completely irrational of participating in the backing of an Administration that did not think through all aspects of the issues.

Now, just two nights ago, at a meeting at a top University here, I saw people from Academia and Businesses (the AB of the process) trying to spread the word about what they are doing, but did also not understand the basic policy logic on which they were trying to sell – but on this on a different posting. Here it will suffice to say that we will look forward at what Mr. de Boer will do for Yale University with the strong hope that from now on he will be ready to stand up for what he believes, without bowing to UN or business interests that will flock on him like vultures trying to push him in their preferred directions. We had our difficulty with his bowing to the UN bosses, but we expect to see no future problem in his AB role.

The case of accession of Macedonia is no laughing matter. It is still unknown how Greece’s current financial and economic troubles will have an impact on the Macedonian name dispute. Athens is currently under tremendous pressure from big eurozone countries such as Germany and France to cut back spending and provide accurate data on its deficit, while facing unprecedented scrutiny by the European Commission.

Some diplomats suggest that this offers a window of opportunity for clearing the name dispute and should be seized, while others say that because of the painful economic measures, Athens will be even less inclined to compromise on the name issue, a matter of national pride.

But neither are some gestures from the government in Skopje of any help, such as naming the airport and a major highway after Alexander the Great, a king of the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon – moves which prompted fierce criticism in Greece.

Brussels officials familiar with the matter say that if a solution is found, Macedonia’s membership could be coupled with Iceland’s, which has also applied to join the club. Their accession would happen after Croatia’s, which is the closest to EU membership at this stage.

“Once we open negotiations, people are in for a big surprise. Everybody thinks Iceland will have no problems in joining, but actually it is Macedonia who will be flying through the negotiating chapters. Apart from some classical problems with the judiciary and fight against corruption, Macedonia has harmonised its legislation and implemented a lot of EU requirements,” one EU source told this website.

As for Iceland, although it is part of the EU’s internal market, negotiations are likely to run into trouble over fisheries and other topics dear to the Nordic islanders. The current financial dispute with Great Britain and the Netherlands is also not looking good for the EU prospects of Reykjavik. And contrary to the situation with the Balkan country, some parts of the Icelandic political establishment are against EU membership.

For now, both Macedonian and Greek officials, despite the declared willingness to find a solution, have not yet inched closer to a result. The UN mediator on the issue, Matthew Nimetz, is due in Skopje next week. The UN is just the bigger international body to stir the EU soup.

OK, more important to us seems the Financial Times comment from Washington about “Baroso’s man goes to Washington.”

The comment is by Tony Barber who runs a Brussels blog and he addresses the EU appointment of Joao Vale de Almeida to be EU’s next Ambassador to the US.

The outgoing Ambassador is John Bruton who was a former Irish Prime Minister and well known to Congress and the White House when he got his appointment in 2004.

The incoming Ambassador is a Portuguese Eurocrat who worked for Mr. Baroso and is totally unknown to Washington. Indeed some in Washington have seen him as involved as a by-stander to the G8 and G20 meetings, but when faced with him, following the EU elected so called Permanent President and sort of Foreign Ministers, both of whom are totally unknown to Washington, all what they see as qualifications for Mr. Vale de Almeida is that for five years – 2004 – 2009 he was Chief of Staff for the EU Commission’s President Mr. Baroso – the non-permanent and non-rotating – third EU President – of that nebulous intractable – so called European Union – the symbol of its refusal to be united, even though he was the one that did in effect push for the Lisbon rules for creating that goal of a United Europe.

The laughs come up when the author of the note points out that the perception is reinforced by the fact that Baroso has engineered the Ambassadorial appointment for his man in advance of the newly being created EU foreign service under Dame Ashton – who will have her job as who chooses ambassadors.

OK, we hope the EU helps squeeze Greece into allowing its neighbors to chose their own names, and to squeeze Island of allowing its fish to be caught by Greek fishermen. The mess in Cyprus can then be left to the UN to handle that other tough issue and in the meantime – the EU of 27 will require from the world to be seen as an EU of 28 – with the EU itself being the added state that enlarges meeting tables with one more unproductive participant.

The sad thing is that the world needs an EU that amounts to the missing G3 with which China and the US can sit down at a small table before inviting over India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Mexico, Japan, Australia, Russia . . . one or two more, and start looking at what is of highest importance for the future of the Planet – issues such as global warming and climate change.

From: ALDE-PRESS <press@alde.eu>
Date: Thu, Feb 11, 2010

Distribution: immediate – February 11, 2010, 1:19 pm
Verhofstadt: 20 years on, Mandela’s dream is alive

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s release from jail, which signalled the end of apartheid, Guy Verhofstadt the President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe made the following statement:

“The dream of Nelson Mandela is still alive. February 11, 1990 was a historical day for South Africa and the World. It was the symbol of tolerance, anti-apartheid and anti-racism. South Africa is now an equal player at the world’s top table. The transformation that took place in the country should serve us both as an inspiration and a reminder of what the courage of one man can do in the plight for freedom.

Mandela’s commitment to peace has been unwavering. I remember very well how we cooperated in Central Africa’s peace process. This brought the end of the war after the terrible genocide. It was thanks to Mandela that this peace was reached.”

Louis Michel (MR, Belgium) and former commissioner for development added:

“Mandela’s fight is witness that the conscience of a single man can illuminate the whole of humanity and transform the world for the better.”

For more information, please contact:

Neil Corlett: +33-3-88 17 41 67 or +32-478-78 22 84
e-mail:  neil.corlett at europarl.europa.eu
Web: http://www.alde.eu

EU votes in new commission after long delay – 09.02.2010

The European Parliament has given the green light to the new European
Commission, ending an eight month hiatus in the governance of the union at
the height of the economic crisis.
 http://euobserver.com/9/29436/?rk=1

8 8 8 8 8  – - – -* * * * * ————————————————–

Barroso urges new wave of optimism in Europe – 09.02.2010

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso on Tuesday celebrated EU
enlargement and the single currency as the bloc’s main achievements in the
face of crisis-related gloom in Europe.
 http://euobserver.com/9/29440/?rk=1

Green groups have warned that electric cars could actually increase carbon emissions.

Spain pushes for common strategy on electric cars.
VALENTINA POP

January 10, 2010, EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  http://euobserver.com/9/29443/?rk=1

EU industry ministers on Tuesday (9 February) discussed plans to establish a common strategy for electric cars, a pet project of the Spanish EU presidency.

“Obviously there are lots of questions …issues of legal security, validation, the safety of the vehicles themselves …and cost,” he admitted, however.

As national plans vary throughout Europe and use differing technologies, not always compatible, Spain is pushing for the EU commission to come up with a common strategy in May. The Spanish minister cited Germany’s support for the plan.

“It is good for people’s pockets, good for European income and employment, good for Europe as a whole, and it will be good for the planet from an environmental perspective,” the Spanish minister said.

But his view was not shared by several green groups issuing a report on Monday in which they warned that electric cars alone could actually increase carbon emissions unless they were backed by “smart” power grids.

“Just as every car sold today has to have an odometer to show how far it has driven, every electric car needs a smart meter to show how much electricity has been used and better still, whether or not that electricity came from a renewable source,” Nusa Urbancic from Transport & Environment said in a statement.

Simply plugging electric cars in “like kettles” would leave consumers and electricity suppliers “in confusion and chaos”, Ms Urbancic argued. “It’s up to the EU to ensure that all new cars sold in Europe are fitted with this kind of technology,” she added.

A course on “Application of Public Domain Models for Water, Food and Climate Studies”, in Wageningen, Netherlands, this summer.

Details can be found at:
 http://www.futurewater.nl/uk/projects/mo…

and
 http://www.futurewater.nl/downloads/Mode…

from:
Johannes Hunink
Costerweg 1G | 6702 AA Wageningen | The Netherlands
Tel: +31 317 460050 | Mob: +31 633 891849
 j.hunink at futurewater.nl
 http://www.futurewater.nl

–

Dr. James McGann comes to the UN to talk before a UNU Current Affairs
Series session about the “World Rankings of Think-Tanks.” These are institutions that can be of tremendous help to policy makers.

Thursday, January 21, 2010, we learned at the UN about the way how at
the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. James McGann, as part of the Think
Tanks and Civil Societies Program, he serves as its Director, he
looks, as a Policy Research objective, at The Global – “Go-To Think
Tanks” concept. He is also the Assistant Director of the International
Relations Program at the U of Penn. He runs his own consulting firm
and was advisor to the World Bank, the UN, USAID, and various
foundations the likes of Soros, Hewlett and Gates Foundations, and
other Philanthropic Institutions, and Foreign Governments, on the roles
of NGOs. Public Policy, Civil Society, Charities and Academic issues.

He categorized the Global Think-Tanks, and came up with lists of
ranking for these institutions. Dr. McGann is also a senior fellow at
the Foreign Policy Research Institution (FPRI), and as he wrote in a
FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE article – “Think-Tanks are also called
governments in waiting.

They are needed by leaders around the world to provide independent
analysis, help set policy agendas, and bridge the gap between academia
and policy-making” – and we must add that the UN is in very serious
need to have such an institution on its campus – so the leaders can
breathe a little easier in their decision making process when
attempting to find that golden path in between the various oppressive
pointers, they get daily, from the Member States’ delegates.

McGann has gone over 6500 think-tanks from around the globe in his
present study. This study ranks them, and provides an insider’s
guide that will appear this year in book form, to be released by
Routledge Global Institutions Series. He gave us sort of a pre-print
of that study.

His work is sort of an Input – Output report but he said -”we want the impact measures – not just output measures. We want independent Think-Tanks that challenge conventional wisdom – he said. He received nominations from NGO’s but to be on the list he required to get also support for the nomination from other sources. He mentioned two and two in order to get on the list. The US has a separate listing because they are more in numbers and are better funded, he said.

The Top Top Think Tanks of the United States are:

1. Brookings Institution

2. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

3. Council on Foreign Relations

4. RAND Corporation

5. Heritage Foundation

6. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

7. Cato Institute

8. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

9. American Enterprise Institute

10. Hoover Institution

11. Peterson Institute for International Economics

12. Freedom House

13. Aepen Institute

14. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

15. German Marshall Fund

16. United States Institute for Peace

17. Center for American Progress

18. Open Society Institute (OSI)

19. Center for Global Development

20. Center for Transatlantic Relations SAIS Johns Hopkins

21. Human Rights Watch

22. Urban Institute

23. Pew Center on Global Climate Change

24. Stimson Center (FNA Henry Stimson Center)

25. World Bank Research Department

26. Harvard Center for International Development

27. Carter Center

28. East West Institute

29.Manhattan Institute

30. Atlantic Council

31. International Crisis Group

32. Hudson Institute

33. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

34. World Resources Institute

35. Center for New American Security

36. Resources for the Future (RFF)

37. Baker Institute for Public Policy

38. Competitive Enterprise Institute

39. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

40. TED

41. World Watch Institute.

42. Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

43. Reason Foundation

44. United States War College

45. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

46. Economic Policy Institute

47. Mercatus Center

48. Acton Institute

49. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies

50. The Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Our comments: Looking at that list and Having worked with two of the Institutions on that list, with our experience in the United States, it becomes obvious that in order to be high on the list – the institution better be headquartered in Washington DC close to the seats of power. Further, it is funded by industry and business lobbies, and in effect becomes a lobby themselves by arranging for conferences that are tilted in the sponsors direction. If that makes them also part of the tilt to right and conservatism in American politics it might just be coincidental – but nevertheless it is a clear result from the need for permanent financing. Academic institutions are not prominent on that list, and this is thus also a coincidental result of the way the institutions are financed. The fact that Brookings is number one is the exception that proves the rule in the sense that it is a well centered institution receiving backing so that it is not all on the Republican side. The fact that The Earth Institute is at the bottom of that list, and most other academic institutes did not make it at all – just is another proof of our observation. Having said the above, we nevertheless agree – that in terms of actual results with Washington decision makers – the rankings seem to us to be correct. Our comment is nevertheless standing – even Think Tanks cannot be viewed as completely stand-alone truly investigative bodies because money rules in Washington.

Further, Having worked in the 70s with Mr. Hermann Kahn of the Croton-on-the-Hudson based Hudson Institute, I know first hand how that institution was instrumental in helping formulate US only Energy Policy ever – the creation of the Synfuels Corporation. Granted that in those days the interest of US Energy Independence were coal oriented – coal liquids and coal gases – never the less we introduced also oil shales and biofuels because we thought they should be parts of the policy package.  After the passing away of Mr. Kahn and the lackluster General Haig Hudson leadership, that Institution was moved to Indianapolis with a Washington office and lost much of its Washington influence.

Later, in the 80s, with Washington DC based CSIS – an institution whose energy studies are heavily influenced by the oil industry – nevertheless a second group under Mr. Charly Ebinger was established so we could look at non petroleum fuels and work with the US Department of Defense when the doors at US Department of Energy were closed to non-petroleum energy. Thanks to the imprint CSIS had on Washington, the results of our studies became also policy implemented in Washington and both those two experiences convinced me that with all the funding straight jackets Think-Tanks can nevertheless do somehow solid work.

——————-

Mr. McGann remarked that 5 to 7 years ago he started to get questions about what are the leading global Think-Tanks and how does a National Think-Tank transform into a Global Think-Tank? The challenge for the new millennium is how to harness this new breed og GLOBAL THINK-TANKS – knowledge-based, policy oriented to serve governments, IGOS, and Civil Society by generating Policy-Oriented Research, Analysis, and Advice. I could not but think that this is really why he was spending his time with us at the UN as a guest of the UNU which is indeed the only in-house institution at the UN that has the potential to become a UN Think-Tank if the UN Secretary General would only call upon them for advice – and tell the rest of the UN to do the same!

But clearly – I am jumping the gun ar this moment.

——————-

In his process leading eventually to listings ofbest GLOBAL Think-Tanks, the McGann team first prepared regional listings outside the US. (Tables #2 – #

These include the following tables – all based on Table #1 – an alphabetically arranged list of 392 Leading Think-Tanks In The World.

Those were base on the global total of Think-Tanks where the 25 countries with most Think-Tanks are:

1. the US         1815

2. China           428

3. UK                285

4. India             261

5. Germany      190

6. France          168

7.  Argentina    132

8. Russia           109

9. Japan            108

10. Canada          97

11.Italy                 88

12. South Africa 84

13. Sweden          74

14. Switzerland  71

15. Netherlands  57

16. Mexico            55

17. Romania         54

18. Israel               52

19. Taiwan            52

20. Belgium          51

21. Bolivia             51

22. Spain              50

23.Brazil               48

24. Ukraine          45

25. Poland            41

and this dwindles down until the number zero is attributed to 23 counties – among those to Monaco, Myanmar(Burma), Oman, Turkmenistan – the remaining mainly SIDS or other small states. Many other have just one single Thin-Tank

——————–

Table # 6 provides the list of top 25 Mexico and Canada Think-Tanks with Mexico taking spots 4, 12, 14, 21, 22, 25.

Table # 7 provides the list for top 40 Think-Tanks in Latin America and the Caribbean region.

Table #8 provides the list for top 25 Think-Tanks for the Middle East – North Africa region and includes with the Arab States (a total of 11 listings), also the Caucasus (1 listing), Turkey (3 listings) and Israel (10 listings).

Table # 9 provides the list of the top 25 Sub-Saharan Africa.

Tables # 10 and #11 provide the lists for top 40 Western  and 40 top Central and Eastern European Think-Tanks with the dividing line going strangely along the former East – West political divide that bunches strangely Hungary with Russia still in one list while France, Germany, the UK and other Western States are in #10.   is this a look backwards or a look forwards?

Table # 12 provides the list for 40 Non-Arab Asian Think-Tanks that includes Australia.

—————–

Having done the above – Dr. McGann proceeds to pick on specific Thin-Tank topics of research and gets now down to the real usefulness for helping solve Global issues.

His Tables # 13 provides for the 10 top International Development Thinking Institutions.

# 14      “                         10 “     Health Policy Think Tanks.

# 15      “                         10 “      Environmental           “

# 16      ”                         10 “      Security and International Affairs Think Tanks

# 17     “                         10 “      Domestic Economic Policy Think Tanks: US (8),  Canada (1) and Germany (1).

# 18     ”                        10 ”        International Economic Policy Think Tanks.

#19                                10 “        Social Policy                                     “

#20                               10 “        Science and Technology                “

The comment that begs to be brought up at this point is that tables #13 – # 19 are pure US, Sweden, UK, Canada, Germany, Japan, Switzerland – with an obvious very great majority for US Think-Tanks – the few others are from classic OECD countries. Literally the only exception is in Table #20 where The Energy and Resources Institute of India has place number 9 on the list. Jarringly is the absence of China, Brazil, Argentina, Russia – any Latin American or African institution. I am sure there must have been possible even a token mention of someone besides that one Indian organization – at least in table #17 – I know at least in Brazil of institutions that help plan domestic policy! Sorry – these listings might cause difficulties if the UNU would attempt to go only by these tables – granted that we understand that the tables are based on evidence of success – but nevertheless – even China, Brazil and Russia have had some success stories the world needs to look at.

Having said above we look now at the remaining “Special Categories” Tables – #21  and#23 at the Most Innovative Policy – Outstanding Washington Think Tanks – The Brookings Institute and The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, USA organizations – we hope that when doing their work they outreach to obtain input from overseas. We do not believe that CATO and The American Enterprise Institute, also on those lists, are in the habit of doing so. The only non Washingtonian on those two Tables is Breugel from Belgium and we testify of having no idea what that institution does.

Table # 22 is nevertheless a ray of hope. It is titled: BEST NEW THINK TANK (established in the last three-five years).

The listings are:

1. European Council on Foreign relations, Belgium

2. Center for American Progress, USA

3. Bruegel, Belgium

4. Center for New American Security, USA

5. Carnegie Middle East Center, Lebanon

As I know and appreciate all the others, I had to look up “Bruegel” and at – /www.euractiv.com/en/pa/bruegel-newest-addition-think-tank-landscape-brussels/article-134327 I found:

BRUEGEL: newest addition to think tank landscape in Brussels.
Wed, 2005-01-19

A new EU think tank called the ‘Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory’ (BRUEGEL) has been launched by former commissioner Mario Monti and French economist Pisani-Ferry in Brussels.

According to the Notre Europe report, EU think tanks have not yet “fully found their place in European policy-making: the value they add is not perceived clearly, they are seen as moderately useful, and even sometimes elitist. Overall, they are believed to have a limited impact on policies and public opinion. Some of the more established thinks tanks in Brussels include the Centre for European Policy Studies  (CEPS), the European Policy Centre  (EPC) and Friends of Europe. In recent times many new think thanks have been set up. A number of these work outside Brussels [several of them being  EurActiv content partners or occasional contributors].

So, here we are – there is a clear need for good think-tanks to help navigate the governing process. In the UN case, it will be needed to have a globally oriented super think-tank that can digest and combine the best ideas from the older well established and successful think-tanks we are familiar with today, it better be non-ideological and not-vindictive -  and form the real globally oriented think-tank the world of tomorrow needs desperately. The issue is not how to redress the evils of yester-years – but how to alleviate today’s suffering and how to avoid tomorrow’s suffering in most ethical and just ways possible.

—————

The Q&A:

Q from the audience – from a UN Foundation man: What are the leading TT in China and India? and in the Francophone World?  Further – what about the Qatar Foundation and in Africa apart from South Africa?

Q: What about The council on Foreign Relations filled with members of former Administrations? To whom are they accountable?

Q: Climate Change, Sustainability, Human Rights – How do you judge quality?

Answer from Dr. McGann: I explore the question of Think-Tanks in sectors in various parts of the world. He expects to come out with a book on the BRICS.

A Security & International Affairs TT. Here he works with the Hewlett and Gates Foundations looking into Africa.

I do not look into the OECD region but into the other regions of the world. The look into East Africa specifically rather then the global.

He did a major study on India that is circulated now in India – a highly centralized major democracy – a colonial and later Russian history related to India. Studies can be diminished by government funding.

China and the Google problem – not a very positive view in your face. The nature of analysis gets constrained. There are very few really independent Think-Tanks.

In funding – the US is the most highly diverse. He tracks the budgets in the US since 1983. They grow in very diverse strides in he US. The new EU model involves Government and international donors.

————–

second round of Questions:

Q: from a consultant on diversity

Q: from a Kazakh Foundation

Q: About development in Africa and access to Think-Tanks.

Answers from Dr. McGann: He watched Africa to look for ranges that do not favor Think-Tanks. Hard to bridge the gap between academics and policy. Most policy matters don’t read … The Dough Hammarskjold Foundation has many CEOs donating to high level research – some for universities – he said there will be policy tsunamis – it will be possible to pick up global trends to identify them before they get to a critical mass. In the donor community there is focus on high impact of funding to get to find ideas  – but “do tanks.”

The EU refuses to see the multi headed Hydra it has become and expects President Obama to play along. Reality calls – EU please get serious at becoming some sort of one headed entity! The US President is a busy man now with all that US Jazz.

It slowly starts sinking in – we said it a long time ago!

Battling the ‘Multilateral Zombie’ – EU climate strategy after Copenhagen.
LEIGH PHILLIPS

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29354/?rk=1,
 http://old.norden.org/analysnorden/defau…

EUOBSERVER / ANALYSIS – “The EU’s post-Copenhagen strategy should be
just to have a strategy, any strategy,” quips one Brussels think-tank
wag during an interview.

The rough hip-check Europe received in the Danish capital in December,
sidelining the bloc during the eleventh-hour huddle between major
powers that produced the Copenhagen Accord, has produced a wave of
despondency and cynicism amongst Brussels politicians, green
lobbyists, and analysts – and carbon traders across the continent to
boot. They’re all having a crack at how poorly the EU played its hand
during climate negotiations.

For the last three years, if it hasn’t been the institutional reform
of the Lisbon Treaty, it’s been the bloc’s obsession with climate
change that has dominated the EU agenda. Even if the EU is well off
the at least 40 percent cut in emissions that science demands if we
are to avoid catastrophic climate change, it remains the case that as
a result of its 2008 climate and energy package, Europe remains the
most advanced rich-country power on the planet in terms of its binding
CO2 reduction commitment.

With its climate boy-scout badge afixed to its sleeve, Brussels headed
off to Camp Copenhagen expecting at least to see its self-proclaimed
leadership reflected in winning something along the lines of a broad
commitment from other powers to at least a 20-percent cut in carbon
emissions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But in the end, the EU ended up the goody-two-shoes pupil who’s top of
the class, but yet, when he invites all the other kids over for a
party, glumly watches as they end up playing among each other instead
of with him. It was the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa that
cobbled together the last-minute three-page-long Copenhagen Accord
without the EU even in the room, while most of the developing world
complained throughout the two weeks that Brussels was at best just a
cat’s paw for Washington.

Denmark’s Connie Hedegaard, now incoming EU
climate commissioner, was repeatedly attacked for favouring rich
countries over the developing world.

“It was the strangest conference I have been at in my life, from all
points of view,” Mr Barroso told a pow-wow of the leading European
think-tanks in early January.

Typical of the initial EU reaction were comments from Swedish
environment minister Andres Carlgren, who, when meeting in Brussels in
late December with his EU counterparts to debrief after the UN summit
and begin the discussion of what to do next, slammed the result as a
“disaster.”

“It was a really great failure and we have to learn from that,” he
said at the time. { but the gentleman forgot to say whose failure it was!}

Glass half full!

However, after the holidays, a clutch of pollyanna-ish EU officials
have since fervently urged everyone to consider the Accord’s silver
lining. Both President Barroso and the bloc’s chief climate
negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, in various venues have emphasised
that many of the things the EU had been pushing for were contained in
the final result – developed countries agreed for the first time a
concrete sum for climate finance, a target maximum average global
temperature increase of two degrees was embraced and a review,
allowing for a ratcheting up of targets if necessary, is foreseen for
2015.

At the same time, EU member states that have never been comfortable
with the bloc’s climate ambitions have used the opportunity to delay
or block European plans to boost its CO2 emissions reduction
commitment from 20 percent on 1990 levels to 30 percent. On 18
January, environment ministers met in Seville, to assess, for the
second time, the reasons for the failure in the Danish capital. UK,
France, Germany, Belgium and Spain continued to push for the increased
pledge, while Italy and Poland said now was not the time given the
poverty of ambition by other states at Copenhagen.

As of this week, the consensus in the bloc is to maintain its target
of 20 percent and conditional offer of 30 percent if other powers make
comparable efforts – in other words exactly the same position the EU
has held for the last year, although Ms Hedegaard has publicly said
she hopes to see a move to 30 percent “by Mexico,” meaning the next UN
climate summit in the Central American nation at the end of 2010.

At the same time, the commission itself is in the ‘twenty-percenter’
camp, pushing this position in Copenhagen, “afraid to be naked” with
nothing left to put on the table in the game of climate strip poker.
Moreover, crucially, the executive’s goal of a transatlantic emissions
trading system is unworkable with cuts pledges that are wildly
divergent and without legally binding commitments from Washington.

The US is looking to a 17 percent emissions reduction on 2005 levels,
which works out to be just three percent when using the same 1990
baseline year as the EU. Watch for the US, if legislation gets
through, at some point to somehow nudge up its cut to 20 percent and
the EU to stick to the same figure, dressed up in language about how
the two targets are now comparable, with a fudge over the differing
baseline years.

Support unravelling:

Separately, four of the five architects of the Accord, Brazil, South
Africa, India and China, have themselves gone lukewarm on the project,
smarting from accusations from much of the rest of the developing
world that these four richest of the poor countries had broken ranks
after a year of unprecedented global south unity.

“The two-track negotiating process …is the only legitimate process
to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico,” he added.

Meanwhile, the cornerstone of the Accord, an understanding that
however limited America’s commitment, Washington would at least be
able to deliver on this promise.

But with the surprise election to the US Senate of Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown on an anti-climate-bill ticket, killing the
Democrat’s filibuster-proof majority, the country’s climate
legislation is threatened. A defeated or heavily watered down bill
only engenders further reservations in the minds of Chinese, Indian
and even European leadership about promising tough reduction targets.

For all the public talk of Latin American, Chinese and African climate
“villains” blocking the process in Copenhagen, privately, there is
frustration with Washington as well. A senior EU policy official
speaking to EUobserver described President Obama’s position as the
same as that of George Bush. “We are willing but only if others move,”
the official said, attributing the position to both the current and
former US leaders.

One EU climate voice {?}

A popular post-Copenhagen analysis from the Brookings Institute, the
centrist US think-tank, that has made the rounds of officialdom and
NGO-land warns of a slow-motion failure scenario similar to the Doha
round of WTO talks, a process it describes as a “multilateral zombie”
in which climate negotiations “stagger on piteously, never making much
progress while never quite dying either.”

Nevertheless, despite the dark days and the cynicism of some
onlookers, we can already begin to sense the outlines of a European
strategy.

EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy has already said he hopes to
see a common climate strategy emerge from an 11 February extraordinary
EU summit originally scheduled to deal with the economy. Angela
Merkel, as well, has upgraded a climate meeting in Bonn in June from
expert to ministerial level and the European Commission is preparing a
series of proposals that it is to put to the member states.

While this sort of member-state activity is likely to continue, the
Lisbon Treaty has given the commission a powerful new diplomatic
weapon it intends to use to the fullest.

Sidelining the UN:

Related to this, the major task will be to break the remarkable unity
shown by developing nations. The UNFCCC’s principle dating back to
Kyoto of “common but differentiated responsibility,” is understood by
developing nations to mean that those countries that caused the
problem should pay for solving it and make binding commitments to CO2
reductions.

The third world has said that it would be happy to develop along a
low-carbon path itself, but that the rich north will have to pay for
this and that their emissions cuts should in any case be voluntary.
The World Bank, unhelpfully, has estimated the cost of all this to be
$400 billion a year. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, would rather that the
developing world, but specifically China and to a lesser extent India,
agree to binding, verifiable CO2 cuts without the price tag.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord for rich countries is that
it “weakens or even does away with the principle of common but
differentiated responsibilities,” as the South Centre, a Geneva-based
think-tank close to developing world governments, warns – another
reason why the Basic countries, upon reflection, have taken a distance
from the deal.

In many ways, Copenhagen was a victory for the developing world, in
that it managed to hold off against pressure to junk the Kyoto
Protocol and in the end ensured that the Copenhagen Accord was only
“noted” by the UN plenary instead of endorsed, making it a document
floating in a legal limbo.

Border tariff:

It should also be remembered that many other major powers were
sidelined at Copenhagen. Japan and Russia were also absent from
Copenhagen’s endgame. In many ways, the EU’s limited influence has
been largely a product of its own climate success. Although Europe is
the world’s third largest emitter, this will likely change in the near
future. Ironically, if the continent isn’t going to be as much of a
problem in absolute (as opposed to per capita) terms as China or India
by 2030, it doesn’t have much of a bargaining chip. Washington was
always going to be far more interested in Beijing.

Copenhagen was very much the US and China show, but it won’t always be.

——–

This feature was originially written for the Nordic Council’s Analys
Norden website.

{ We wonder at the last sentence of the article because we think that unless the EU does in fact unite under  one leadership it will not amount to much when the US continues to deal with the BASICs – I mean the countries that are form the basic future. The EU should aim at becoming the G3 to be added to China and the US in future global negotiations that will include also the IBSA and one or two more states. See please next article.}

——————————————————————————-

US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco. Mr Obama – the Madrid summit decision is being seen as a diplomatic snub to Spain.
by ANDREW RETTMAN from Brussels.

February 3, 2010, http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  writes -  The US State Department has said that President Barack Obama’s decision not to come to an EU summit in Madrid in May is partly due to confusion arising from the Lisbon Treaty.

State department spokesman Philip J. Crowley told press in Washington on Tuesday (2 February) that the treaty has made it unclear who the US leader should meet and when. { that sounds very clear to me.}

“Up until recently, they [summits] would occur on six-month intervals,
as I recall, with one meeting in Europe and one meeting here. And that
was part of – the foundation of that was the rotating presidency
within the EU. Now you have a new structure regarding not only the
rotating EU presidency, you’ve got an EU Council president, you’ve got
a European Commission president,” he said.

“We are working through this just as Europeans themselves are working
through this: When you have a future EU-US summit meeting, who will
host it and where will it be held?” he added. “All of this is kind of
being reassessed in light of architectural changes in Europe.”

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December, 2009. It created the post
of a new EU Council president and EU foreign relations chief in order
to give the union a stronger voice abroad.

It kept the institution of the six-month rotating EU presidency as
well, with the member state holding the chairmanship to do the bulk of
behind-the-scenes policy work in Brussels.

The Spanish EU presidency is being closely watched to see how the EU
manages the transition to the new power structure. The EU Council
president has so far taken charge of summits in the EU capital. But
Madrid was to share the limelight with a few top-level events at home.

The state department’s Mr Crowley said the US and Spain have been in
touch “directly” to discuss Mr Obama’s decision after Madrid learned
about it through the media on Monday.

“Obviously, there’s been some disappointment expressed by the
government of Spain, and we understand that and we’ll be working with
them on that,” he said.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero and Mr Obama are both
expected to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington on
Thursday. But no bilateral meeting has been announced so far.

Mr Zapatero, a centre-left secularist, has taken flak for his trip in
Spanish media, with the El Pais daily calling his decision to attend
the prayer event “shocking.”

The White House has said that the US President would not be attending what used to be the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he participate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate?

The EU has three Presidents – if they cannot decide who is their President in fact – do they really expect for Obama to travel trans-Atlantic, and sit at Summits chaired by all three of them – Herman Van Rampuy, The Permanent EU President, Jose Manuel Baroso, the President of the European Commission, and the Spanish Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero,    who is presently the Rotating President of the EU?

Papers write of a “Snub.” This is ridiculous and for us who watched the Copenhagen Conference that was saved by President Obama under a G-2 arrangement with China, because he had to act fast if he wanted to save the meeting from itself, and there was no strong man or woman of the EU to stand at his side, the above “News” are old hat – and we say – we told you so!  Actually, we welcome Charles Forelle writes as “World News” in the Wall Street Journal of today: “Things haven’t been good recently for Europe’s position on the world stage. Despite the new treaty ambition to make the EU a bigger player, the bloc has sometimes seen itself shut out.  At climate talks in Copenhagen in December, Mr. Obama hammered out a last-minute accord with China and other emerging nations. The Europeans were left out of the picture.” This recognition of reality in a WSJ article is very unusual – but this is real life. If the EU does not get together – and still claims 7 seats at the G-20 – rather then one seat for real – they are turning themselves, by their own choice,  into world political irrelevancy. The same is true at the UN where we see more and more a 2 1/2 seats situation – with France and the UK in Security Council seats but Germany on practical UN Security Commissions, and no EU representative with any powers what so ever.

Obama’s decision not to go to Madrid is no snub to Mr. Zapatero or to Spain – but rather the cleareeded sign that he wants to go and meet the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED EUROPE. Had Obama decided to go to Masdrid it would have been as if someone from Europe would come to a meeting of the US Governor’s Association. Just think – Germany id California, France is New York, the UK is Texas, Spain is Florida, Poland is Illinois, Austria is Vermont … etc etc. Perhapse indeed Van Rampuy should come to the US Governor’s Association meeting in order to learn what is needed in order to create out of the EU the neededpartner for Obama in order to turn the G-2 into a G-3 and to create out of the G-20 a new meaningful global body.

———————–

The best article on this we found is from The Telegtaph:
Barack Obama has snubbed the EU amid confusion in Washington over which “president” of Europe he would be expected to meet at a trans-Atlantic summit this spring.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels  – from Telegraph.com
Published:  01 Feb 2010 -
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew…

The White House has said that Barack Obama will not be attending the EU-US talks planned to take place in Madrid in May.
The White House has said that the US President would not be attending the regularly scheduled EU-US talks, which have been planned to take place in Madrid in May 24-25, 2010 by the Spanish Rotating EU Presidency for the First half of 2010.

Honestly, why should he particioate in the European Games while there are so many real problems on his plate.
US officials have expressed frustration because the Lisbon Treaty, which was supposed to give the EU a single global voice, has created a number of European presidents competing for Washington’s attention.

Even the venue for the summit, Madrid or Brussels, has been “up in the air” after a tussle between Spain, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency and Herman Van Rompuy, the new created President of Europe.

Under the terms of the Lisbon Treaty, Mr Van Rompuy, President of the European Council which represents EU heads of government, should host the summit in Brussels as Europe’s lead negotiator in global bilateral talks.

But Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Spanish prime minister, insisted that he should host the summit because the EU was in “transition” after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in December.

A US official told the Wall Street Journal that President Obama had not yet received an a formal invitation to the EU-US summit, a twice yearly meeting that has taken place since 1991.

“We don’t even know if they’re going to have one. We’ve told them, ‘Figure it out and let us know’,” said the official.

Other American diplomats have blamed confusion over which of the three EU “presidents” is in charge of the summit – Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Zapatero or José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.

“Who attends from the US and at what point will depend on who’s calling the meeting,” said a US state department official.
“There’s a competition in Europe because you now have the standing EU architecture.”

Many national and EU diplomats are dismayed at the institutional infighting that has followed the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

“The Spanish are behaving badly. They’ve made a mess of the summit but Van Rompuy and the post-Lisbon EU institutions will carry the can in the long term. The squabbling has damaged the EU in the eyes of the most powerful nation in the world,” said a senior source.

A European Commission spokesman hinted that the meeting would have to be downgraded or cancelled if Mr Obama did not show up.

“Normally a summit is a summit because it is attended by heads of state and government,” said the spokesman.

A Spanish foreign ministry spokesman said: “The EU-US summit is scheduled to take place in May in Madrid, as was foreseen and we are still preparing it.”

US officials have indicated that Mr Obama might reschedule talks with the EU in the wings of a Nato summit in Portugal this autumn.

In Copenhagen, well meaning NGOs demanded the outlawing of internal flights because of the CO2 emissions air travel is causing. In effect air travel causes just as much GHG as automotive transportation, and until now air transport was not taken into account, and was not part of the content of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC. It was supposed to be picked up for the second stage of Kyoto, but as Kyoto has fallen by the wayside as of now, these discussions also led nowhere.

OK, we came back pleased with President Obama’s performance on the international negotiations on climate change. We followed with interest his trip to China and the State Visit of the Indian Head of State to the White House. We knew that the President is right in leading to some sort of agreement between the major emitters – China and the US – to be supported by next line of evolving strong economies – the IBSA. We know those three leaders met with China separately from the Obama trip to Beijing. An agreement between the emitters is clearly much more valuable then agreements between lesser emitters, and Kyoto is just the great tub that says there was no wash for ten years.

Now, let us be honest. With eight years of GW Bush/Cheney government very little has been achieved in emissions reduction by the US federal government, but some States imposed rules and even laws that caused people to start changing behavior. But that was not all – in effect the increase of price of oil led people to drive less and to move to smaller cars. I know that there are still Hummer affectionados even in New York City, but I also see tiny cars on the street, I know about hybrids that I dislike, but also of electric cars that are coming on the market very soon. Our website is following this closely. We just posted about “Better Place” and “Balqon.” Our postings on the metal Lithium that will be used in batteries are among the most read postings.

OK – so money saving talks to people. But not just money – think also of convenience. In the 1970’s when people were scared of shortages in fuel, they changed to CNG and moved to more efficient vehicles – but they also wanted electric cars, hoping that if they lived in a suburb they will be able to “refuel” in their own garrage at home, without ever having to visit a supplier. The automotive industry killed that early thought because they make one third of their profit from parts and repairs – and their horror dreams – electric motors have no moving parts and need no repair.

People think nothing of taking a taxi to the airport and catching a flight – but thanks to our enemies we will have now to spend three and four hours before we can get on that half hour flight from New York to Washington. In effect we will be making better time catching a train. Then, after the “shoe bomber” we were made to take off our shoes in good Muslim fashion, when on our way to the plane, but after the “underwear bomber” we will yet have to prove that our underwear is clean – and watch the face of the agent that will be made to check them. That is more then what we are ready to bear – so we will be pushed by those Islamists, to cry out – WE WANT GOOD, FAST, AND CHEAP TRAINS – if the Chinese can have them we want them also!

The bottom line for this article is thus – we thank the unsuccessful bomber for making us do what we were not ready to do otherwise – to call for a high speed line from Washington to Chicago and make sure that the air connection is eliminated. This so that we buy less oil from the home country of that bomber, and from any other country that suports with our oil-money his agressive coreligionist brothers and sisters in arms.

The lesson from the Christmas day attack, less then one week after the Copenhagen meeting, and exactly one week since the NGOs there demanded it – air transport for the civilized world will be reduced to only where absolutely necessary – like in Washington – Beijing traffic.

And think for a moment – on December 22nd we thought that waiting in an airliner on the tarmac was the major problem, and the Administration decreed a very serious penalty on those airlines that keep the passengers cooped inside the plane. See how much more serious can be the problems imposed on the industry by outsiders. But then, the delays showed us that even in best of conditions it makes no sense to fly short distances.

————

Chinese Harmony Train Sets Speed Record.
By UCN on December 28, 2009

China streaked ahead of its western and Asian rivals at the weekend by unveiling the world’s fastest longdistance passenger train service.

The Harmony express raced 1,100km in less than three hours on Saturday, travelling from Guangzhou, capital of southern Guangdong province, to the central city of Wuhan. The journey previously took at least 11 hours.

The improvement illustrates how China’s huge investment in infrastructure is dramatically shrinking the country, yet the economics of the new service, which runs 56 times a day, remain unproven amid a build-it-and-they-will-come approach to transport.

“China has focused on building expressways but that is an American method,” said Zheng Tianxiang, a Guangzhou-based infrastructure expert and government adviser.

“Expressways are not suited for China, which has large numbers of people but little space to spare. China should learn from Japan and Europe.”

The Harmony express, which reached a top speed of 394km per hour in pre-launch trials, travelled at an average rate of 350km per hour on its debut. This compared with a maximum service speed of 300km per hour for Japan’s Shinkansen bullet trains and France’s TGV service. In America, Amtrak’s Acela “Express” service takes 3½ hours to trundle between Boston and New York, a distance of only 300km.

According to state media reports, the government spent $17bn (€12bn, £11bn) on the Harmony express line’s construction over 4½ years. Wuhan invested $2.4bn in a new Frenchdesigned train station, which boasts 20 tracks and 11 platforms. Officials this weekend declined to confirm project costs.

Ticket prices have been set at Rmb780 ($115, €80, £72) for first class and Rmb490 for second. The country’s airlines, which like the railway are mostly state-owned, have responded by slashing fares to undercut those for the new train, with China Southern Airlines, based in Guangzhou, offering tickets for advance purchase starting at Rmb250 and introducing hourly flights.

Huang Xin, head of passenger services for Guangzhou Railway Group, said on the inaugural ride that pricing might have to be adjusted.

Even the second-class fares may prove too rich for the biggest pool of potential passengers for the line, the estimated 20m workers in the Pearl river delta manufacturing belt around Guangzhou who hail from inland provinces. About half of them usually return home during the Chinese new year holiday in the world’s biggest human migration. The round-trip express fare is priced at about two-thirds of an average factory worker’s monthly wage.

Most passengers on the sold-out debut run were middle-class leisure travellers drawn by the journey’s novelty value. “We are not staying in Wuhan,” said Qiu Chaoyue, a Guangzhou resident who tried out the new rail link with a group of friends. “We’re going to take the next train back to Guangzhou.”

Another disadvantage of the new service is that the stations at each end of the line are at least an hour’s drive from their respective city centres.

The railways ministry intends to complete 18,000km of high-speed rail lines by 2012, allowing travel between most Chinese provincial capitals in eight hours or less.

One reason for the enormous construction outlay for the Harmony express was difficult terrain. The train travels along 713km of elevated tracks and tunnels, accounting for about 70 per cent of its length.

Police were posted along the route to guard potential sabotage points, while burly railway security personnel monitored each passenger car. The police outside were often joined by farmers, who stopped to watch the Harmony express rush by their rural homes.

In spring and summer, the train will travel through a lush agricultural breadbasket, especially in the rice-growing areas of southern Hunan province. But in the dead of winter, it traverses a bleak, monochrome landscape of fallow fields and dirt roads that turn to mud in the rain.

From Monica Alessi ( Monica.Alessi at ext.ceps.eu) we learn that the Center for European Policy Studies – CEPS – a Brussels based Think Tank – is tackling now the issue that we wrote about a long time ago – at least a year ago.  The Copenhagen meeting was doomed by its organizers at the UN, and by the world’s reality. It can be only a G2 – US and China that has any chance at dealing realistically with Global Warming / climate change, and there will not be a G3 to include the EU – this because of the other reality – the fact that the 27 members of the EU do not want to create a strong union, and by their own choice have thus doomed themselves to irrelevance when it comes to global leadership. Japan is also left outside the new inner circle that is destined to become eventually a UN CLIMATE SECURITY COUNCIL that will include besides the US and China also the IBSA States – India, Brazil, and South Africa. The first two because of their strong development pace and the latter in order to have present also an African country – and the reasonable pick is thus South Africa that has indeed a high potential for development. Russia is not in this game either, and we believe that with time Russia itself will apply also for membership in the EU which will thus become its own mini-UN with its own high economic potential if they ever decide to create a stronger union led by an Administration that has power to govern large and mini-States – at least in a way how the US Federal Government manages its affairs. That is when the EU will indeed become a “G.”

The present UN Security Council has a P5 that leads it, and aspires to be considered the G5 that they believe they are because they are the 5 governments that command the officially acknowledged atomic weapons. But when it comes to Climate issues – the weapon that wields power is rather the combination of size of the economy, the population numbers, and the quantifiable amount of GHG emissions by the year 2050 that will determine supremacy! To understands that better we posted the Professor Schwartzenberg scheme that helps us rank the UN members according to their true values – which obviously counts size of the contribution to the UN as a measure of size of the economy. In the Climate arena, it can be contended that size of GHG emissions is also a measurement of the size of the economy if we do not want to say blatantly that the emissions measure the size of the destructive power of the states because of their impact on climate. If the EU stays un-united they are just not part of that leadership even today. Even without going into this sort of calculations, it is clear nevertheless, that the precious day President Obama spent in Copenhagen, was much better utilized in his meetings with the Chinese then it would have been in meetings with Europeans as after all – it is not for him to help Europe figure out what is best for themselves.

The Alessi e-mail tells us:

In a new CEPS Commentary (from 25 December) on the implications of the Copenhagen Accord on the EU, Christian Egenhofer and Anton Georgiev are wondering why the outcome is seen so differently in the EU and the US and find very different expectations and perspectives on both sides of the Atlantic.  The Commentary, which is attached but can also be downloaded at http://www.ceps.eu/book/copenhagen-accor… argues that the Copenhagen Accord can be an important first step towards an architecture, but i) shifts from a top-down target and timetables approach to voluntary pledges, ii) cements very inequitable table carbon budgets, iii) brings the world onto a pathways to 3.2° C at best while iv) raising major issues on the negotiation mode.

Yet, the Copenhagen negotiations may not be remembered for their impact on the future climate change architecture but in making visible a new world order, with the US under Obama working towards a network of partnerships with itself at the core to preserve its influence in the world.  In turn this raises a number of hard questions for the EU:

-          Should the EU declare – the US-made – Accord a success or acknowledge the absence of EU influence?
-          Does the new EU Lisbon Treaty – the ‘EU constitution’ – offer possibilities to increase the role of the EU on the world stage?
-          Is continuation of a close relationship with the US still an option to ensure EU influence on the new climate architecture?
-          What are other options to ‘impose’ global carbon pricing, the main plank of EU policy?

The Commentary gives first tentative answers to all these questions – signed Christian Egenhofer.

Reference:
Christian Egenhofer & Anton Georgiev, The Copenhagen Accord: a fist stab at deciphering the implications for the EU.  CEPS Commentary, 25 December 2009: http://www.ceps.eu/book/copenhagen-accor… (or go to CEPS Shop, then to Commentaries)

The Copenhagen Accord

A first stab at deciphering the implications for the EU
Christian Egenhofer & Anton Georgiev
25 December 2009

The original purpose of the conference in Copenhagen (COP 15) had been to complete
negotiations on a new international agreement on climate change to come into force when the
Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period came to an end in 2012.  In the last two years,
however, climate change has assumed such an important role in the global agenda that an
unprecedented number of heads of governments – almost 120 were present – decided to meet
in Copenhagen to provide political leadership and give the final push for a global climate
change agreement, hoping thereby to lay the foundations for the new ‘global climate change
order’.  Days after the meeting ended, people are still asking themselves whether the gamble
paid off.  Almost everyone agrees that the outcome was far less than most had hoped for.  On
the other hand, the final outcome is better than what even the most optimistic observer could
have wished for after the conference entered into deep negotiations in the second week,
where deadlock built up. It is still unclear whether the agreement is “a disaster” (Swedish EU
Presidency) or represents “an unprecedented breakthrough” (US President Obama). Even the
EU seems to be divided. German Chancellor Merkel hailed the outcome as a ‘step, albeit a
small one towards a global climate change architecture’. What is striking is that the outcome
is generally seen in a more favourable light in the US than in Europe. This difference,
however, can be explained by different expectations and perspectives.

Expectations
Let us first start with the expectations. First, there has always been a high degree of optimism
behind the assumption that heads of governments – even at an unprecedented number – could
break the deadlock that has developed over the last two years. It has been the very same
governments whose heads met in Copenhagen that have been instructing the negotiators to
stick to their positions and made them dig themselves ever deeper into their trenches. And
ever since the end of last summer, it had become clear to virtually all participants that a
legally binding agreement was not possible – the downgrading started at the latest in mid-
October and was rubberstamped by heads of state at a meeting in Singapore of the Asia-
Pacific Economic Conference.  Nevertheless, the EU continued to hope for a ‘comprehensive
and operational’ agreement, including especially commitments for GHG reductions and
finance in line with their ‘responsibilities and capabilities’.

Second, closely related to the first point, the negotiations have become too complex for the
heads of governments to conclude. As argued by Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff of the FT, who
characterised them as ‘systems overload’,1 in the end the negotiations included issues
involving macroeconomic transformation, trade, development, R&D and innovation,
technology transfer, intellectual property rights. To conclude each of these negotiations
separately is a tall order on its own. To move them to the global scale, in addition requires
that negotiations are concluded in parallel. The belief that this can be achieved requires an
immense dose of optimism.

Third, for the EU Copenhagen was originally about the final sharing-out of the remaining
carbon budget of cumulative GHG emissions of around 1,550 billion tonnes of CO2eq that
are left until 2050.  For many other, including industrialised, countries, COP 15 has been
more about architecture than about cuts in carbon emissions as such.

Perspectives
We can find similar differences when it comes to perspectives. First, many developing
countries see climate change mitigation – rightly – as a short-term ‘constraint on economic
growth’, mainly but not only because it puts a constraint on the use of coal.  Industrialised
countries regularly respond with the ‘benefits of a green growth model’. As a result, in the
EU and some other industrialised countries, climate change mitigation is framed in the
context of green growth and jobs and future competitiveness.

Second, while the UNFCCC has set out the principle of historical responsibility, some
developing countries prefer to frame the debate in terms of carbon debt, thereby suggesting
that developed countries first need to pay back these debts (in terms of reductions or finance)
before developing countries take action. The emissions figures however tell us differently.
Without reductions by emerging economies, global climate change targets of 50% reductions
by 2050 simply cannot be met.

Finally, for many developing countries and emerging economies, the climate change issue is
framed in the context of adaptation. Impacts are typically the highest in countries with more
extreme weather conditions. In many cases, these countries are developing countries or
emerging economies. The government of India typically claims to be spending around 2.5%
of GDP on climate change. Moreover, developing countries, especially least-developing
countries are more vulnerable as their adaptive capacity tends to be lower than that of ‘richer’
countries.

1.  Main results of the Copenhagen Accord
Judging from the high rhetoric heard before the Copenhagen meeting, urging parties to
complete negotiations on a new international agreement on climate change to follow the
Kyoto Protocol, the results must be seen as a failure. The Copenhagen Accord – the
substantial outcome of the negotiations – does not impose actual and verifiable obligations, or
binding emissions targets in particular or finance contributions.  This fact, however, should
not be allowed to belittle the significant progress has been made in at least three areas:
financing, deforestation and adaptation.

• Developed countries for the first time commit to a goal of jointly mobilising $100
billion annually by 2020 from both public and private sources. Not only could this
unlock the finance standoff, it also gives further impetus for the development of
carbon markets. In addition, there is a collective commitment to provide ‘new and
additional, predictable and adequate funding’ amounting to $30 billion for the period
2010-12, with ‘balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation’ with
adaptation funding being prioritised for the most vulnerable developing countries. The
major question is whether this commitment will be honoured, given the past record of
governments in bringing up really additional finance.

• There is an explicit acknowledgement to act on deforestation and forest degradation
and the establishment of a mechanism, i.e. a body, to mobilise the required resources.

• Action and cooperation on adaptation particularly in the least developed countries,
small island developing states, and Africa have been given ‘urgent’ attention with
developed countries committing to provide financial resources.  This could open the
way to addressing a key concern of developing countries.

For the EU, item 7 on ‘opportunities to use markets’ is of particular importance as it
recognises the importance of carbon markets, a key plank of EU policy.

Progress is also represented by the recognition of the scientific case for keeping the rise in
global temperatures to 2°C, but this recognition falls short of providing a credible pathway
for reaching this objective. Instead, the Copenhagen Accord inserts ‘domestic pledges’ to be
submitted by the end of January 2010.  Emissions reductions for the Annex I parties will be
measured, reported and verified according to guidelines, yet to be established. Mitigation
actions taken by non-Annex I parties will be subject to domestic measurement, reporting and
verification (MRV) reported through national communications, with international
consultation and analysis. The latter has been a major point of contention between the US and
China. Beyond that, the Copenhagen Accord remains vague. It makes a reference to 50%
reductions by 2050 compared to 1990. There is also a reference to developed countries’
commitment to reducing their emissions by at least 80% by 2050 but without mentioning
1990 as the base year. It also repeats the ‘equitable right of access to the atmosphere’.
Conspicuously absent is the recognition of ‘historical’ responsibility, despite a reference to
the UNFCCC.

No meaningful progress has been made on international aviation and maritime transport.
Following 2015, the Accord foresees a review including the long-term target.
Finally, due to opposition from a small number of countries, the COP itself did not adopt the
Accord but merely took note of it. It is therefore still uncertain what role it will play in future
climate change negotiations.

2.  An important first step?
Despite the ‘legal limbo’ in which the Accord is currently suspended, if and once adopted, it
could have major implications. These implications are to a large extent linked to the absence
of legally binding ‘targets’ and commitments, an area that so far has been at the centre of
attention – even if one has faith in the national pledges countries are due to file by the end of
January 2010.  But the implications of the Copenhagen Accord go beyond this. The document
also introduces a number of ‘architectural changes’ with potentially major repercussions for
the future climate change agreement.

2.1. A new architecture: From targets and timetables to voluntary pledges?
At about the same time that it became clear that there would be no legally binding agreement
– around October 2009 – it gradually transpired that what now has become the Copenhagen
Accord would not follow a ‘top-down’ Kyoto-style ‘targets and timetable’ approach, but
rather would take the form of ‘unilateral pledges’ or what the Harvard Project calls the
‘portfolio approach’ with some – of a yet unknown nature – mixture of domestic and
international compliance.  This is not dissimilar to the ‘bottom-up pledge-and-review’ model
that the Japanese government proposed prior to the negotiations leading to the Kyoto
Protocol in 1996.  If this approach prevails, it means that the Kyoto Protocol’s top-down
targets-and-timetables approach has been buried in Copenhagen.

By extension, this means that the original objective of “vacating and redistributing the
remaining carbon space” has been postponed and may never materialise.  Those who have
been occupying this carbon space – such as the US, Europe or the countries of the former
Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent many of the emerging economies – will continue to
occupy it to the detriment of least developed countries or countries with low per capita
emissions such as India and Indonesia. This has major implications for financial transfers.
The failure to ‘vacate’ the occupied carbon space due e.g. to physical limitations can only be
compensated by financial transfers, which constitute a kind of ‘rent’.

2.2. Inequitable carbon budgets
The Copenhagen Accord has confirmed that the current ‘grandfathering’ practise, expressed
through percentage reductions in current actual emissions, favours those currently occupying
the carbon space. Some simple calculations make this clear. On the basis of preliminary
figures – derived from pledges (see also section 3) – in all likelihood this means that the
remaining carbon budget will largely be used up by those occupying it now. For example,
there is a 50% chance of limiting the warming to 2°C at a maximum budget of cumulative
GHG emissions of around 1,550 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Gt CO2eq).
This chance could increase to 74% if the remaining cumulative carbon budget – left until
20502 since the end of 2008 – to be distributed among the world’s nations is reduced to
around 1,050 Gt CO2eq,. Some calculations show that developed (or Annex I) countries,
accounting for 20% of the world’s population in 2005, have already contributed around 75%
of the cumulative CO2 emissions (from energy) until 2000 and above 50% of the cumulative
CO2 emissions since then.3 Given the range of pledges listed at Copenhagen, these countries
will have used up at least4 25-30%, or 36-43% for the stringent but more realistic budget,5 of
the total remaining GHG budget stock.6 And, meanwhile, some of the emerging economies
such as China, Brazil, Mexico, Korea or South Africa are about to consume the remaining
part, potentially curbing the economic growth ambitions of the least-developed and other
low-income countries (including India and Indonesia).7 The latter group of countries
collectively might need as much carbon budget as the developed countries are about to take
up from now until 2050, if they were to merely reach per capita GHG emissions of 4 t CO2eq
by 20308 and maintain that level until 2050.9  Many would expect such per capita emissions
as reasonable in order to make possible the approximately 8% economic growth needed to lift
people out of poverty. In all likelihood, currently existing and affordable technologies will
not enable this kind of economic growth without a significant per capita carbon emissions
increase.  One could argue that during the review of the Copenhagen Accord starting in 2016,
the target might be strengthened, as incidentally the Accord suggests.  We leave the
judgement of the likelihood that this will actually happen to the reader.

2.3 An emissions pathway towards 3.2°C at best
The Copenhagen Accord asks Parties to formalise their pledges by the end of January 2010.
To date, the most ambitious upper limit of the pledges for 2020, combined with the
implementation of the national plans in China and India, would bring the globe towards a
3.2°C increase by 2100 at best, according to estimates by the Climate Action Tracker.10
These pledges are estimated to reduce the projected 57 GtCO2eq in 2020 to 48 GtCO2eq.
Such a level of emissions increases the likelihood of exceeding 2°C to roughly 70%,
according to Meinshausen et al. (2009). Impacts will be mainly felt in least-developed
countries and in other low-income countries – as they have least means to adapt – but also by
future generations in emerging economies and developed countries.

2.4 More questions on the negotiation mode
The events in Copenhagen have exposed institutional shortcomings. Copenhagen has raised
doubts on whether the ultimate resource, i.e. heads of government, was deployed in the most
efficient way.  Even high-level participation did not ensure that the deep divisions between
developed and developing countries would be overcome. At the same time, the negotiations
have called into the question the assumption that a deal can be more easily reached if the
number of countries involved is kept small. These two analyses, however, pull into different
directions and warrant closer examination.

while the higher estimate also includes an assumption of 80% below 1990 levels. The two cases resulted in
Annex I cumulative emissions of 377 Gt CO2eq in the best case scenario and 456 Gt CO2eq in the more realistic
case (2009-49).

3.  A new world order?
A major difference in the appraisal of the Copenhagen outcome on both sides of the Atlantic
may lie in the fact that the world has witnessed – possibly for the first time in history –
fundamental new realities of the ‘new world order’. As the Washington Post notes,
developing nations, though not always united, nonetheless exercise a commanding role in a
large majority in United Nations gatherings such as the Copenhagen conference. At some
point, these majorities prevail.  Copenhagen therefore may have been a glimpse into a new
world order in which international diplomacy will increasingly be shaped by cooperation
between the United States and emerging powers, most notably China. In fact, the
Copenhagen negotiations boiled down to President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao
personally hammering out a pact both could live with, even if many other leaders could not.
Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Fund,
an environmental NGO, cited in the Washington Post (20 December), remarked: “Coming
into this conference, it was about 193 countries, and coming out of it, it clearly came down to
a conversation between the leaders of those two superpowers.” The leaders of Europe, Japan
and other countries at the summit were largely left to rubber-stamp the deal.  This may have
been why the Swedish Prime Minister’s office let it know that the result was ‘a disaster’.”
Therefore, the Copenhagen Accord essentially reflects the domestic political realities not only
in Washington but also Beijing. Both remain more cautious than for example the EU about
establishing a strict set of international rules. The agreement, which allows nations to set their
own emissions reduction targets without a firm deadline for signing a binding international
accord, ensures full national sovereignty. This may have touched a raw nerve revealed by the
findings of a new report by the European Council on Foreign Relations (see Shapiro & Witney,
2009) that documents how the US under Obama works towards a network of partnerships
with itself at the core to preserve its influence in the world.

4.  What are the EU’s options?
As we have said before, the EU went into the negotiations shoulder to shoulder with the US
with the objective to achieve a ‘comprehensive and operational’ agreement, leading to a
roadmap towards legally binding commitments on GHG reduction targets and finance. It did
not get it. In the end, the fact is that Europe as well as Japan played a very limited role at the
centre of the negotiations. This state of affairs will surely provoke some internal reflections in
the EU on its future role in the international negotiations.

The EU faces several options:
1. The EU could attempt to declare Copenhagen a success. Chancellor Merkel made an
earnest effort at it, attempting to discredit stakeholders and climate activists by saying
they were overly pessimistic.11 French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown spoke along similar lines.12 However, this would throw away
the opportunity for Europe to reflect on what ‘leadership’ or at least a considerable
role would mean. We would expect that the press coverage in Europe would not allow
this strategy to persist much longer.

2. The Lisbon Treaty, as the EU’s new ‘constitution’, offers an opportunity for the EU to
play a bigger role in the negotiations, if it so wishes.  Ironically, the bad press that all
EU leaders received, including the climate leaders, may trigger a rethink on their part
on the desirability of attempting to play a bigger role in the future. Now that Merkel,
Sarkozy and Brown realise that international climate change negotiations do not
automatically allow for a shining role, they may find it attractive to allow the
European Commission to do more work in the negotiation trenches.  The next months,
which will see the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, will be a crucial window of
opportunity.

3. The EU will have to answer the question whether it wants to keep its close
relationship with the US in the negotiations – as we described in a recent CSIS/CEPS
publication (see Egenhofer et al., 2009) – or whether it wants to develop its own
distinct position. This would require the EU to continue to develop its own position as
well as to challenge the US, where required. Given the importance it attaches to
historical responsibility and finance, the EU could become a possible bridge between
developed and developing countries. Already in Copenhagen negotiators and
observers wondered whether a break between the EU and the US position would not
have made a difference with respect to the outcome. So far, the EU has preferred to
stick closely to the US, which may explain why the EU did not play a major role in
the negotiations.
4. The EU could exercise leadership in future climate talks by pursuing a global ‘level’
pricing of carbon. There are two ways of doing this. One route would be to pursue
scaled-up post-2012 mechanisms that allow the establishment of a global carbon
price, but this would require the cooperation of other countries, notably developing
countries. Another route would be for the EU to impose an import tax on the content
of CO2 of all goods imported into the EU from countries that do not have their own
cap-and-trade system or equivalent measures. From a purely economic perspective,
this would be a straightforward way to move towards a global ‘shadow’ carbon price
even in the rest of the world. Such an import tariff improves global welfare because it
transfers, at least partially, via trade flows, carbon pricing even to those parts of the
world where governments have so far refrained from imposing domestic measures of
any magnitude. In other words, it creates a mechanism that enforces the pass-through
of carbon costs across the globe, therefore making domestic consumers pay the full
cost of carbon. A key effect of such a tariff is that it would always lower global
emissions. A paper by Gros and Egenhofer (2009) shows that there are solutions to
issues such as WTO compatibility and equity, the latter for example through rebating.
The latter move would have potential implications for the world trade regime and
international relations. Nevertheless, it should not be dismissed out of hand. What is clear
from the result at Copenhagen is that EU must engage in some serious re-thinking of its
strategy.  We strongly believe that business-as-usual is no longer a viable option. If the EU
continues to believe that climate change policy is important, it may need to make radical
choices. Otherwise the recent period of EU leadership in this critical domain risks becoming
a mere footnote in history.

1
Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, “Copenhagen lessons”, Financial Times, 23 December 2009, p. 8.

2
We took the respective global carbon budget (2000-49) for the above-mentioned probabilities from
Meinshausen et al. (2009) and subtracted the cumulative 450 Gt CO2eq (assuming a constant two-thirds of GHG
emissions are CO2 emissions) emitted in the period 2000-08.

3
Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT), v 7.0., World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., 2009.

4
Assuming a linear decrease between 2008 and 2020 and then between 2021 and 2049, which is an optimistic
scenario as emissions should already have peaked in that case.

5
We take the Climate Action Tracker analysis as in Höhne et al. (2009) giving a high pledge for developed
countries of 19% reduction of GHG emissions (excluding LULUCF) below 1990 levels by 2020 (see also den
Elzen et al., 2009) and a low pledge of 11% reduction. The lower figure of the range for Annex I cumulative
2009-49 emissions also includes an assumption of reaching annual emissions of 90% below 1990 levels in 2050,

6
Climate change is caused by GHG concentrations as emissions stay in the atmosphere for up to 100 years.
Hence, historical cumulative emissions, i.e. the stock, matter.

7
A typical low-income country in terms of GHG emissions per capita is India with an average around 1.7
tonnes of CO2 equivalent per person in 2005 (see the CAIT database). An average EU citizen emits more than 6
times as much with around 10.3 tonnes, while a US citizen uses about 14 times the Indian carbon space. Hence,
in effect, developed countries together with most of the emerging economies have been occupying the world’s
carbon space.

8
This could be compared to the world average in 2005 of 5.9 t CO2eq per capita (see CAIT database).

9
For illustrative purposes, we took the countries with the lowest per capita GHG emissions in 2005, which
combined account for a population of roughly 3 billion (including Indians and Indonesians), as given in the
CAIT database. Taking their combined total GHG emissions in 2005 as a starting point (corresponding to almost
2 tCO2eq per capita excluding LULUCF), we then assumed a linear increase to 4 tonnes per capita in 2030 that
remains constant until 2050 while keeping for the sake of simplicity the 3 billion population fixed over the
whole 2005-50 period. This results in a cumulative 425 Gt CO2eq (2009-49).

10
See Höhne et al. (2009).

11
See http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20… and
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20… .

References
den Elzen, M.G.J., M. Roelfsema, S. Slingerland (2009), Too hot to handle? The emission surplus in the
Copenhagen negotiations, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven, The
Netherlands, December.
Egenhofer, Christian, David Pumphries, Sarah Ladislaw, Anton Georgiev (2009), Next Steps for the
Transatlantic Climate Change Partnership, A Report of the Global Dialogue between the European
Union and the United States. CSIS, December.
Gros, Daniel and Christian Egenhofer (2010), Climate Change and Trade: Taxing carbon at the border?, Centre
for European Policy Studies, CEPS Paperback, CEPS, Brussels (download preliminary version at:
 http://www.ceps.eu/system/files/article/…).

Ho?hne, Niklas, Michiel Schaeffer, Claudine Chen, Bill Hare, Katja Eisbrenner, Markus Hagemann, Christian
Ellermann (2009), Copenhagen Climate Deal – How to Close the Gap, Briefing paper, Ecofys &
Climate Analytics, 15 December.
Meinshausen, Malte, Nicolai Meinshausen, William Hare, Sarah C.B. Raper, Katja Frieler, Reto Knutti, David
J. Frame and  Myles R. Allen (2009), “Greenhouse gas emissions targets for limiting global warming to
2°C”, Nature, Vol. 458, 30 April.

ON THIS DAY – On Dec. 21, 1988, a terrorist bomb exploded aboard a Pan Am Boeing 747 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people; now, 21 years later, remembering what addiction to oil can do to us, the New York Times starts to discern a path to a better future for the planet.

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL OF December 21, 2009
Copenhagen, and Beyond.

The global climate negotiations in Copenhagen produced neither a grand success nor the complete meltdown that seemed almost certain as late as Friday afternoon. Despite two years of advance work, the meeting failed to convert a rare gathering of world leaders into an ambitious, legally binding action plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It produced instead a softer interim accord that, at least in principle, would curb greenhouses gases, provide ways to verify countries’ emissions, save rain forests, shield vulnerable nations from the impacts of climate change, and share the costs.

The hard work has only begun, in Washington and elsewhere. But Copenhagen’s achievements are not trivial, given the complexity of the issue and the differences among rich and poor countries. President Obama deserves much of the credit. He arrived as the talks were collapsing, spent 13 hours in nonstop negotiations and played hardball with the Chinese. With time running out — and with the help of China, India, Brazil and South Africa — he forged an agreement that all but a handful of the 193 nations on hand accepted.

Mr. Obama aside, there were two keys to the deal. One was a dramatic offer of $100 billion in aid from the industrialized nations to poorer countries to help them move to less-polluting sources of energy and to deal with drought and other consequences of warming. The offer had an instant soothing effect on many poorer nations that had been threatening to walk out all week.

The other was China’s willingness to submit to a verification system under which all countries would agree to report on their actions and — assuming details could be worked out — open their books to inspection. Transparency is a huge issue in Congress, and Mr. Obama made clear in his opening remarks on Friday that he would not agree to a deal unless China gave ground.

An enormous amount of work lies ahead, both for the president and for the other signatories to what is now being called the Copenhagen Accord. In order to deliver on his promises to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and provide a chunk of that $100 billion in aid, Mr. Obama must persuade the Senate to approve a cap-and-trade bill — a huge task.

Meanwhile, there can be no letup by the rest of the world’s negotiators, no matter how tired and beat up they may be. These talks have been so chaotic and contentious that some people believe the United Nations machinery has outlived its usefulness, and real progress will henceforth be made in smaller gatherings of the big players.

There may be some truth to this, but at the moment it is hard to see how many of the arrangements agreed to in principle at Copenhagen — the verification system, for instance — can be made to work without detailed agreements. There must also be some mechanism that holds all countries responsible for doing everything they can to tackle climate change. As it is, the pledges now on the table, from both rich and poor countries, are nowhere near enough to keep atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from rising above dangerous levels.

But for the moment it is worth savoring the steps forward. China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way it has never been, putting measurable emissions reductions targets on the table and accepting verification. And the United States is very much back in the game too. After eight years of playing the spoiler, it is now a leader with a president who seems to embrace the role.

NEW YORK TIMES RECENT FURTHER ARTICLES ABOUT THE UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Mixed Bag for Obama on Climate Change Deal Amid the Recession

By JOHN HARWOOD

A victory for President Obama in Copenhagen will not necessarily help his popularity at home.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: FOREIGN AID, GLOBAL WARMING, UNITED STATES ECONOMY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, PELOSI, NANCY, OBAMA, BARACK, KERRY, JOHN

An Air of Frustration for Europe at Climate Talks

By JAMES KANTER

Caught off guard by the Copenhagen accord, European leaders felt pressure to back it even though they thought it did not go far enough and had a process in which they had little influence.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, COPENHAGEN (DENMARK),EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Copenhagen’s One Real Accomplishment: Getting Some Money Flowing

By JAMES KANTER

The accord in Copenhagen was “a big step forward” after previous talks offered no financial support mechanisms, Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary general, said.

December 21, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, ENERGY AND POWER,COPENHAGEN (DENMARK)

Compromising on 2 Issues, Obama Gets Partial Wins

By PETER BAKER

From Copenhagen to Capitol Hill, the president determined the outer limits of what he could accomplish on climate change and health care and decided that was enough, for now.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, HEALTH INSURANCE AND MANAGED CARE, REFORM AND REORGANIZATION, OBAMA, BARACK

A Grudging Accord in Climate Talks

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JOHN M. BRODER

After delays, theatrics and deal-making, climate talks ended with an agreement to “take note” of a pact shaped by five nations.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, TREATIES

• Science and Politics of Climate Change
• Who’s at the Climate Talks, and What Do They Seek?
• Climate Change Conversations

U.N. Climate Talks ‘Take Note’ of Accord Backed by U.S.

By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JOHN M. BRODER

The agreement left open the question of whether the accord would gain the full support of the countries involved in the talks on limiting the risks of climate change.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: COPENHAGEN (DENMARK)

• Science and Politics of Climate Change
• Who’s at the Climate Talks, and What Do They Seek?
• Climate Change Conversations

———————————————————————————————————-

Off to the Races

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

A competitive Earth Race led by America can be a more self-sustaining way to reduce carbon emissions than a festival of nonbinding commitments at a U.N. conference.

December 20, 2009

MORE ON THE UNFCCC AND: GLOBAL WARMING, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, UNITED STATES, UNITED NATIONS

———————————————————————————————————

Updated Dec. 18, 2009

Representatives of 192 nations gathered in Copenhagen to seek a consensus on an international strategy for fighting global warming, in a series of meetings between Dec. 7 and Dec. 18, 2009.

Leaders concluded a climate change deal the Obama administration called “meaningful” but which fell short of even the modest expectations for the summit. The maneuvering that characterized the final week of the talks was a sign of their seriousness; never before have global leaders come so close to a significant agreement to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to warming the planet.

President Obama injected himself into a multilayered negotiation that was far more chaotic and contentious than anticipated – frozen by longstanding divisions between rich and poor nations and a legacy of mistrust of the United States, which has long refused to accept any binding limits on its greenhouse gas emissions.

The accord drops what had been the expected goal of concluding a binding international treaty by the end of 2010, which leaves the implementation of its provisions uncertain. It is likely to undergo many months, perhaps years, of additional negotiation before it emerges in any internationally enforceable form.

Read More…

[Comment] EU-US energy council should act as model for others

by RICHARD MORNINGSTAR AND JULIA NESHEIWAT, the US’ Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy,  and the Senior Advisor on Policy at the US Department of State

posted on  EUObserver as a comment (opinion piece) on 07.12.2009

President Barack Obama will travel to Copenhagen on 9 December to support the United Nations climate change conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.

{obviously, that date was changed now to December 18, 2009 and accordingly the presentation the US President will be making in Copenhagen will be very different from what he would have said on December 9th. As such, we wonder what the purpose of this posting was when intended to be viewed close to that date, and how things might change after the December 18th date in case Copenhagen will have laid out the foundation for a larger scope climate, and thus energy, global horizon. (the SustainabiliTank editor)}

Copenhagen presents a critical opportunity to take decisive and immediate global action, to build the institutions that we will need to combat climate change and to speed the transition to a low-carbon global economy. Agreement on – and implementation of – a climate deal at Copenhagen is critical, but will be weakened without effective corresponding energy policies.

The right kinds of energy and their distribution across the globe will determine whether the international economy can maintain production levels while meeting the climate change goals set out in Copenhagen.

Energy is the prime nutrient that powers the global economy. It is the common thread that connects many of today’s global challenges, from rebuilding the global economy and combating climate change to forging new partnerships around the world. To ultimately be successful in combating climate change, we need a plan for clean, secure, and abundant energy not only for us for but for our friends around the world.

For these reasons, last month, President Obama, Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt, and President Barroso of the European Commission announced a new partnership that will help the United States and the European Union work together to meet our energy-related challenges: the US-EU Energy Council.

The Council will help drive diversification of energy sources, such as increased use of liquefied natural gas, solar and wind power and biofuels. It will facilitate cooperation in technical areas, such as energy efficiency and clean energy technology. And it will help us coordinate our approaches with other energy producers and consumers to increase sources of supply, diversify routes, strengthen energy markets in today’s financial crisis and increase transparency.

The new Council will help us address four major trends that will likely shape energy policy in the coming years: rising energy demand, increasingly interdependent markets, a growing imperative for global co-operation to reorient away from fossil fuels, and a clearer understanding that energy and climate change policy are inseparable.

First, despite the current decrease in global energy demand, increased demand over the medium term will likely result in increased reliance on fossil energy resources, with its accompanying environmental challenges. Unless we act now with fortified partnerships, these challenges will move ahead with increased demand for fossil fuels.

Second, global energy markets are interdependent. Disruptions in one market can have adverse impacts in distant places. In this global economy, countries and companies must realize that we can no longer afford “zero-sum games.” Clean energy and environmentally sustainable production are critical – as is maintaining global supply. A disruption of gas to Europe – apart from potentially severe humanitarian consequences – will have a direct effect on the supply and price of liquefied natural gas on a global basis. Instability of countries affected by climate change or by political volatility can also have dramatic effects.

Third, to ultimately reduce dependence on fossil fuels countries must work together to promote the development and commercialisation of alternative technologies and renewable energy, as well as improve energy efficiency and conservation. The brightest and most creative thinkers should be directed at this vital challenge.

The time is now to work with the European Union and other global partners and take authentic, concrete and quantifiable actions to exchange commercial ideas and address energy security challenges. Our partnerships must be standard bearers bringing about global co-operation and ultimately reduce dependence on fossil fuels. We must be leaders in promoting efficiency and developing alternative energy technologies. Together, we must pursue hydrogen and solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal energy.

One of the principal sources of alternative energy is via improved energy efficiency. Given that the largest sources of C02 are in the exceedingly inefficient thermal electricity and transportation sectors, there is a great deal of room for joint, international victories with the EU and Asia.

We are already engaging with other major energy players, such as Russia through the US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission Energy Working Group. We will work together in technical areas, such as energy efficiency and clean energy technology. And we will discuss new investment opportunities in both countries, while at the same time encouraging diversified supply routes. By deepening the US-Russia dialogue on energy, we will increase transparency and promote stability and predictability in our relationship. While we may not agree on every issue, we can work together to foster an open dialogue that builds trust.

Fourth, our understanding of energy challenges must include environmentally suitable sources of supply that are compatible with

climate change objectives that will be outlined in Copenhagen. Addressing energy security and meeting the climate change challenge are inextricably linked. Since President Obama took office, the United States has demonstrated its renewed commitment to combating climate change both by supporting domestic policies that advance clean energy, climate security, and economic recovery; and by vigorously re-engaging in international climate negotiations.

Domestically, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included over $80 billion for clean energy investment. President Obama set a new policy to increase fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks. And the administration supports mandatory emissions reduction targets. On the international front, the United States is working with its partners around the world to forge a strong international agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiating process.

Global issues need global solutions and we can not go at this alone. A secure energy future is fostered by building relations internationally through many cross-cutting issues that will determine peace, prosperity and quality of life, not only for Americans, but for the world.

Richard Morningstar is the US’ Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy. Julia Nesheiwat is a Senior Advisor at the US Department of State

First President Obama went to Copenhagen on behalf of the city of Chicago and his host was Prime Minister Lars  Lokke Rasmussen. The man did not help him and the President came back empty handed. But now, in Copenhagen, quite a few people told me that Obama’s visit has completely overshadowed the election of the site for the Olympics. In effect the visit became an Obama festivity.

Europe Bypassed on Climate Summit.

Europeans claim great strides in moving toward a low-carbon economy, but their political bloc will be tested in Copenhagen.

By JAMES KANTER
Published online December 1, 2009 but various versions are in existence – the printed version of December 3, 2009 has as title: “EUROPE STEWS AS ITS CLOUT DIMINISHES ON CLIMATE.”

BRUSSELS — No political entity has pushed harder for the Copenhagen conference on climate change to succeed than the European Union.

But just days before the opening of the United Nations-sponsored meeting, the Europeans have been largely pushed to the sidelines, watching as the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, seek to set the rules of the game.

“That’s of course the unfortunate situation for Copenhagen,” said Jo Leinen, a German member of theEuropean Parliament who is leading the chamber’s delegation to the conference that is intended to follow up on the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol. “It’s turning into a bit of a ping-pong match between China and the United States, with each just looking at the other,” he said.

Europeans say they have gone further than anybody else in moving toward a low-carbon economy that could serve as a model for the rest of the world. But the bloc’s ability to exercise global influence through progressive standards and moral leadership, rather than through superpower status, is facing a key test.

“The E.U. frankly doesn’t have the political clout to determine the outcome at Copenhagen,” said Peter Haas, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

The E.U. still has much at stake in Copenhagen, however. It is facing huge pressure, Mr. Haas added, to “keep the prospects of a global deal alive so that European business leaders and voters believe they are on track to take advantage of green technology markets of the future.”

That will be a challenge. The E.U. remains internally divided on key issues, among them how much to pay developing countries to limit emissions and how deeply to cut their own output.

So far, New Zealand is the only country outside Europe to have passed into law a national plan to trade emissions, leaving the bloc looking increasingly isolated. Jürgen R. Thumann, the president of BusinessEurope, a powerful confederation of industry and employer groups, has criticized the system as the most “costly climate policy program in the world.”

Last year, in a bold move to stamp its environmental policies on the rest of the world, the E.U. required all airlines arriving or leaving from its airports to buy some pollution credits beginning in 2012. But the move infuriated Washington, which said it risked breaking international aviation rules by forcing non-European airlines into the system.

Mistrust between Europe and the United States lingers even after President Barack Obama pledged right after his election victory that the United States would finally tackle greenhouse gases.

This summer, the Europeans were particularly irked by a U.S. decision to negotiate with China bilaterally rather than to come to Bonn, where climate talks under the U.N. umbrella were under way at the same time. The Europeans regard the United Nations as the best forum to ensure developing countries rally behind the treaty-making process.

When President Obama omitted any mention of money for developing countries last week, the European Commission tartly responded that finance was “one element we need to continue to discuss.”
Brussels also has taken a lukewarm view of Mr. Obama’s provisional commitment to reduce U.S. emissions by 17 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, which it views as falling far short of what is needed to secure a global agreement to prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising too much.

Todd Stern, the chief American climate negotiator, noted several months ago that some people “across the pond” did not fully understand how difficult it was to move the U.S. Congress to approve economy-wide greenhouse gas measures.

In an interview Monday, Mr. Stern said his counterparts in Europe had gained a more sophisticated understanding of the limitations and frustrations of the American system through the process of negotiating over the climate treaty.

E.U. officials also expressed disappointment in a Chinese offer, made last week, to slow emissions growth, saying that it did not appear to go beyond “business as usual.”

Despite the setbacks, E.U. officials maintain that their first-mover strategy encouraged Brazil, Russia, Japan, Indonesia and South Korea to make more ambitious bids than they would have done otherwise ahead of the Copenhagen meeting.

The bloc’s environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, has called for Europe to keep up that momentum by unilaterally cutting emissions by 30 percent from 1990 levels, from the current agreed offer of 20 percent, rather than wait for other nations to sweeten their bids.

“The moral pressure would be much stronger on the developed countries and developing countries alike,” Mr. Dimas said.

According to diplomats, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands and Slovenia are among member states that would support cutting emissions further at an E.U. summit in Brussels on Dec. 10 and Dec. 11, which will take place during the first week of the Copenhagen conference. They see it as a way to improve the chances of producing a treaty to replace Kyoto before it expires in 2012.

But leaders in Italy and Poland, which has a big coal mining industry, plus a number of East European countries, fear that such a step would be far too expensive. That has created the potential for an embarrassing public dispute among E.U. nations right when the bloc most hopes to assert its leadership.