Kerry says clock ticking on climate change deal

Senator John F. Kerry, opening a hearing on global warming on Earth Day, says this is a "make-or-break" year on the issue and calls on the United States to spearhead the effort.

Covening the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Massachusetts Democrat notes that a key international conference on climate change is later this year in Copenhagen, Denmark.

"The clock is ticking on the best chance the countries of the world will have to marshal an effective global response," he said in his prepared opening remarks.

"All policymakers involved in this process need to realize that if we aim too low, America and the global community will fail to do what is necessary to meet this challenge. It’s that simple."

He added, "We here in Washington must realize that the world is taking its cues from us. In my meetings over the past several months with environment ministers from Germany to China to Bangladesh, I have been struck by the extent to which the eyes of the world are focused on the U.S. Congress and our domestic policy process. Without a clear signal from Congress on the scope, format and ambition of our domestic program, our negotiators will lack the leverage to secure the participation of all the major contributors to climate change. Ultimately, the strength of our domestic policy will be a critical factor in galvanizing the world to enter into a global agreement."

Kerry also asserts that the crucial debate will revolve on what steps the United States takes -- and what is required of China, which passed the US inb 2007 as the largest carbon emitter.

"While China is implementing policies to address its energy use – in some cases more ambitious than our own– their emissions trajectory continues to pose a grave risk to the global climate," he said. "We have to find a way to reconcile two imperatives: on one hand, China requires a treaty that gives it room to develop; on the other hand, unless we can convince the world’s most populous nation to pursue a sustainable, low-carbon development path, we cannot hope to solve climate change. These two constraints define the scope and structure of any viable agreement."

Kerry's full prepared statement is below:

Today’s hearing comes at a critical juncture in our global effort to address climate change. The clock is ticking on the best chance the countries of the world will have to marshal an effective global response.

All policymakers involved in this process need to realize that if we aim too low, America and the global community will fail to do what is necessary to meet this challenge. It’s that simple.

Today, we are less than nine months from the 15th Conference of Parties in Copenhagen, a summit to negotiate a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. Within this make-or-break year, this week is a crucial but little-noticed turning point: it is the deadline for countries to submit their input into the draft treaty that must be circulated by early June.

I know that our team, under Todd Stern’s leadership, is hard at work crafting our input. Our submission this week represents a crucial opportunity to ensure that America’s perspective—on financing, the structure of mitigation commitments, and countless other issues—is maintained and reflected in the draft document.

Our essential challenge in crafting a global deal is how we give life to the guiding principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”— which was codified by the UN and ratified by the Senate in 1992. This largely boils down to a debate over how much action is required from the United States, and how much from China. While much has changed in the past 17 years, we are still struggling to answer this fundamental question. The difference is that in the meantime, China’s economy has nearly quintupled, and in 2007 China surpassed America as the world’s largest emitter. While China is implementing policies to address its energy use – in some cases more ambitious than our own– their emissions trajectory continues to pose a grave risk to the global climate.

We have to find a way to reconcile two imperatives: on one hand, China requires a treaty that gives it room to develop; on the other hand, unless we can convince the world’s most populous nation to pursue a sustainable, low-carbon development path, we cannot hope to solve climate change. These two constraints define the scope and structure of any viable agreement.

That is the reality, and that is why the Copenhagen agreement must both secure aggressive emission cuts from developed countries, and also support verifiable, low-carbon growth pathways that will allow developing nations to begin reducing emissions within the next 10 to 15 years. This will only be possible if we develop financing mechanisms and structures to facilitate technology transfer and energize global markets in clean energy technologies.

The agreement must also help countries adapt to a changing environment. The most dire impacts of climate change will likely be felt by those who did the least to bring it about and who are least capable of managing its impacts. Just last week, a study in Science warned that climate change may exacerbate “mega-droughts” in West Africa. We must agree on a global mechanism to support poor countries as they struggle to relocate their citizens and reorient their agriculture patterns and resource use in response to a warming planet.

The time has come for the United States to reclaim our rightful role as a diplomatic leader within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. I am pleased that the State Department will be convening a Major Economies Forum here in Washington next week. While any agreements reached in these meetings should be reflected and formalized in the official UN negotiating process, I believe next week’s Forum can strengthen the final deal by offering the 17 largest emitters a venue to explore areas of agreement in a smaller, more focused setting.

We here in Washington must realize that the world is taking its cues from us. In my meetings over the past several months with environment ministers from Germany to China to Bangladesh, I have been struck by the extent to which the eyes of the world are focused on the U.S. Congress and our domestic policy process. Without a clear signal from Congress on the scope, format and ambition of our domestic program, our negotiators will lack the leverage to secure the participation of all the major contributors to climate change. Ultimately, the strength of our domestic policy will be a critical factor in galvanizing the world to enter into a global agreement.

This particular challenge is one that America cannot meet alone—and shouldn’t try to. Not when the developing world will be responsible for three quarters of the projected increase in energy use worldwide over the next two decades. Even if we cut our emissions to zero tomorrow, those increases would more than nullify our progress.

Also, by structuring a global deal that steers developing economies onto low-carbon pathways, we have an opportunity to invigorate global markets for clean energy products and services. And that will give America a chance to lead economically once again—putting Americans back to work dreaming up and assembling the innovative energy products of the twenty-first century and offering billions of people across the globe the chance to participate in green economic growth.

This country invented solar and wind technology, but German and Japanese companies developed it. Today, of the top thirty companies in the world in solar, wind and advanced batteries, only 6 are based in the US. If we do this right, I truly believe that the next four or five Googles will emerge in the energy sector. I want them to be based right here in America.

We also need to take a risk-based approach to climate change policy. Surveying the existing models, Harvard economist Martin Weitzman found that there is approximately a 5% chance that world temperatures will rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius, or 18 degrees Fahrenheit. I, for one, wouldn’t board a plane if there were a 5% chance it would crash. We certainly can’t afford to take that same risk with our planet.

The reality is that we are running out of time. Earlier this month, a 25 mile wide ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Shelf to the Antarctic land mass shattered, disconnecting a shelf the size of Connecticut from the Antarctic continent.

We are seeing our world change in real time, in ways that ought to trouble all of us and mobilize the world to take quick and decisive action. Frankly, the greatest risk we face is that we will trim our sails and do too little now—and face enormous consequences later as a result of our lack of ambition. If we fail to confront the full scale of the threat, today’s global challenge is poised to become a global catastrophe.