The lede of this otherwise excellent story by @SominiSengupta, as well as the headline on A1 in the print version, make it sound as if the US was responsible for the failure of #COP25. That may fit the conventional narrative, but it’s wrong. nyti.ms/2PLkJaU
I’m told by a senior negotiator that the claim that the US blocked language on ambition is simply false: that was China & India. Having been in the USG, that rings true to me — and I know that enviro campaigners are often unduly paranoid about the US. But the issue runs deeper.
There’s no question that Trump and his administration have been a disaster for the planet. But at the int’l level they have undermined climate action by walking AWAY from the #ParisAgreement, not by actively interfering in the negotiations. It’s a sin of omission, not commission.
It’s important to understand the distinction for four reasons. First, the State Dept negotiators who represented the US in Madrid are dedicated, smart, well-respected professionals who should be THANKED for persevering, rather than tarred with the brush of their awful president.
Second, attributing long-standing US positions to Trump misconstrues the complexity of the issues involved. I get why many people are upset at the US position on loss & damage, but blaming it on Trump misses the rationale for it & therefore can’t lead to a solution or compromise.
Third, blaming the #COP25 outcome on the US may be reassuringly simple but lets other countries off the hook: Brazil, whose obstinance held up progress on Art 6 until the 11th hour; or Saudi, which always makes mischief; or even Chile, which was a well-meaning but weak President.
Finally, blaming the US also misses the way in which Trump’s shameful retreat from multilateralism and climate action has undermined US interests, long recognized by both R and D administrations, in high-integrity carbon markets, robust accounting, and above all transparency.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A6 is the #ParisAgreement’s engine of international cooperation. It’s vital because countries can cut emissions faster & deeper together than on their own.
The decision is not perfect; no text is. But overall it's a step forward. Here’s why.
First, a glossary:
ITMO=“internationally transferred mitigation outcome” (btw 2 Parties)
6.4ER=emission reduction under new UN crediting mechanism
CORSIA=Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation
CA=“corresponding adjustment" to prevent double counting
1/ The guidance has strong provisions against double counting of emissions reductions—the most important safeguard of integrity.
It requires CAs for *all* ITMOs (incl. 6.4ERs) that are authorized for use toward NDCs or “other international mitigation purposes” (including CORSIA)
Some reflections on #COP26 as we enter the home stretch. (🧵)
1: The US-China announcement 2. Progress on Article 6 3. The draft COP decision 4. Where we go from here 5. Are we making progress, or just "blah blah blah"? 6. Bringing it all back home.
1/ The US-China announcement is well short of what is ultimately needed—but more than expected and a welcome reset after acrimony of recent months. It builds on April statement in key ways, esp. methane & coal phaseout. And it outlines several concrete areas for collaboration.
2/ Article 6 is the #ParisAgreement’s engine of international cooperation. Good to see Parties at #COP26 making progress on guidance.
AND: We must ensure that markets have high integrity. That means corresponding adjustments for 6.4ERs, and no (or sharply limited) pre-2020 CERs.
Today, @CFTC, a key US financial regulator, released its first-ever climate report, looking at how climate change threatens the US financial system & the economy. I was an author.
This is big news for Wall Street & Main Street. Thread below on why ⬇️
1) The report is the first report on climate-related financial risk under the auspices of a U.S. government regulator
It immediately shifts the debate from whether climate threatens the U.S. financial system, to how to deal with that threat. bit.ly/3bSKYqB
2) There’s a LOT of credibility behind the report
The @CFTC subcommittee that authored & *unanimously* approved it includes 34 experts representing a wide range of orgs: banks, asset managers, energy & agricultural sectors, as well as environmental NGOs: cftc.gov/About/CFTCComm…
In this chilling @nytimes piece, @malcolm_john of @Heritage argues in support of unmarked federal agents occupying an American city by force to quell political dissent, against the express will of state and local governments. nytimes.com/2020/07/25/us/…
This is the same malcolm_john who wrote with alarm in 2015 about “the dramatic expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, the people, and civil society.” Of course, that was about things like expanding health care, protecting public health and the environment, etc.
Apparently the blatantly unconstitutional use of force by unmarked federal agents to quell peaceful protests by American citizens doesn’t pose any concerns for him.
Jake Tapper asks about #ClimateChange and health. Bernie emphasizes impacts today and says we need to transform our energy system as soon as we can — and goes right to fossil fuel interests. #DemDebate
Tapper follows up by asking Biden whether his plan is ambitious enough because it would cost $14 trillion less than Sanders. The ideal answer would be: “The measure of ambition is not how much money we spend, but how many tons we cut.” #DemDebate#climatechange
Biden lays out key aspects of his plan: Restore EPA regs including clean car standards; Rejoin #ParisAgreement; and in a surprise devote significant funds to saving the Amazon.
Three takeaways from #COP25, which ended earlier today in Madrid without a deal on major issues including carbon markets guidance under #Article6 of the #ParisAgreement on #climatechange:
1. #COP25 showed that the yawning gap between what citizens are demanding on climate action, and what UN negotiations are delivering, is wider than ever.
2. With no deal at #COP25, it’s now time to move on. Countries that are serious about using carbon markets to increase ambition should move forward to set their own strong rules for high-integrity international emissions trading, paving the way for faster, deeper cuts in GHGs.