Elliot Diringer's blog

Only time will tell whether the Durban climate talks produced an historic breakthrough.  It’s possible.   What’s clear for now is that the Durban deal keeps the global climate effort intact and moving – however incrementally – in the right direction.

The deal is delicately poised between two eras – the fading age of Kyoto, and a new phase beyond Kyoto, with developed and developing countries presumably on a more equal footing.

Politically, there were four essential ingredients to the deal: Developing countries – and South Africa in particular – were adamant that Kyoto not die on African soil.  Europe was adamant that it would only do another round of Kyoto if Durban launched new talks toward a comprehensive binding agreement.  The United States (along with Japan, Australia, Canada and Russia) was adamant that any such agreement include major developing countries too.  And, for the first time, China, India and other emerging economies appeared to agree.

The result: Europe (and a handful other developed countries) agreed to a “second commitment period” under Kyoto, with their new targets to be put in legal form next year.  And parties launched the Durban Platform, aimed at producing a new deal by 2015 to take effect in 2020.

The immediate fate of the Kyoto Protocol may be the headline issue at the U.N. climate talks now underway in Durban, South Africa.  But the real linchpin to any deal is not Kyoto – it’s whether or not parties can agree to any path beyond it.

What that may boil down to is whether governments are prepared to say that their goal, ultimately, is binding climate commitments.  We believe they should.

This post also appears in National Journal's Cancún Insider blog.

CANCUN – So what accounts for Cancún’s success?  I can see a number of factors that thankfully conspired to produce the most tangible progress in the U.N. climate talks in years.

The first, without doubt, is the savvy and skill of the Mexican diplomatic corps. The Mexicans have been widely praised for doing their utmost to keep the negotiations inclusive and above-board. Less noted, but equally important, was the firm hand they maintained in the crucial closing hours. Taking the very practical view that consensus does not mean strict unanimity, they refused to allow a vocal minority to impede the will of the vast majority. In short, they ensured that everyone had their say, even if all didn’t get their way.

This post also appears in National Journal's Cancún Insider blog. 

CANCUN – We’ll see tomorrow here in Cancún whether countries are ready to move past binding-or-nothing in the international climate effort.

For the past five years, negotiators have deadlocked over whether and how to extend a legally binding climate regime beyond 2012, when the first Kyoto targets expire. In that time, over countless sessions, the U.N. climate talks have produced little in the way of tangible results.

Cancún is an opportunity for a more sensible approach.

This post also appears in National Journal's Cancún Insider blog.

CANCUN – We need a new paradigm – one that recognizes the importance of a binding treaty, but appreciates that getting there will take time. 

For 15 years, the primary thrust of the UNFCCC negotiations has been establishing and extending a legally binding regime: the Kyoto Protocol.  This preoccupation has probably precluded more modest steps within the UNFCCC. Worse, it has produced a perennial state of stalemate.

In a new report we are releasing today, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change calls for a more “evolutionary” approach. Looking at other multilateral regimes, the report shows how most have evolved gradually over time: incremental steps build parties’ confidence in the regime and one another, leading to a greater willingness to take on stronger obligations.

It’s off to Bonn again, this time for the first substantive negotiations under the UN Climate Convention since Copenhagen.  That’s the hope, at least.

Climate negotiators last gathered in Bonn (home base for the UN climate secretariat) for a few days back in April.  That time the agenda was strictly “procedural,” although in truth the main issue – whether the Copenhagen Accord could enter into the formal negotiations going forward – had rather broad substantive implications.

The Accord, you’ll recall, was the political agreement struck by a few dozen world leaders in the final hours of the chaotic Copenhagen summit last December.  To date, 130 countries have associated themselves with the agreement, and 79 of them, including all of the world’s major economies, have listed nonbinding targets or actions to reduce their emissions.

If there was going to be a fall guy for the chaos that was Copenhagen, Yvo de Boer was the natural choice.

As the executive secretary of the U.N. climate secretariat – one whose own profile has risen along with that of the climate issue – Yvo is closely associated in many minds with the perceived failure of Copenhagen. With parties’ confidence in him at an all-time low, it was no surprise that he announced today he would be departing July 1.

The fuller significance of the Copenhagen Accord became a little clearer this week – and a little murkier too.

The nonbinding deal struck six weeks ago by a couple dozen world leaders left open two immediate questions: exactly which countries would be signing on to it, and just what targets or actions they would be promising.  The parties gave themselves until January 31 to fill in those blanks.

Only time will tell whether the deal struck in Copenhagen proves a true turning point in the effort against climate change.  Flying home after two chaotic and exhausting weeks, I find I’m of two minds.  

The deadline of December 18, 2009, in fact drove many governments further than before.  In the weeks preceding, the United States, China, India and others felt compelled to come forward with explicit emission pledges.  Under the Copenhagen Accord, countries have until January 31 to put these numbers on record; then there is no taking them back. 

These pledges are not binding.  They are statements of intent, not obligation.  But that is not what disappoints me.  I never expected Copenhagen to produce more than a political accord.

What troubles me is that governments did not resolve to move next to a legally binding treaty.  That goal was part of the tentative agreement announced by President Obama.  But then he left, and in final deal-making, it somehow vanished.  The negotiations will of course continue.  Governments agreed they’d meet next year in Mexico, the year after in South Africa.  But with what type of agreement in mind?  That’s unclear.

This post first appeared in

Amid the distracting dramas of purloined emails and secret texts, it’s easy to lose sight that Copenhagen has already proven a catalytic event.  Every major power arrives here with its own explicit pledge to curb emissions.  That these promises will be delivered in most cases by heads of state reflects an absolutely unprecedented level of political will.

It’s also easy to lose sight of precisely what more we need from this conference. 

A year ago in Poznan (the site of last year’s climate summit), my colleagues and I got beat up pretty badly for suggesting out loud that Copenhagen was unlikely to produce a final deal, and the aim instead should be an interim political agreement.  Here we are in Copenhagen, working on an interim political agreement. 

What’s that mean?  There’s a lot of emphasis from the United States and others on this being an “operational” agreement delivering “immediate” results.  Let’s hope so.  But an equally important test for Copenhagen is whether it charts a clear path toward the next agreement – one that turns political pledges into binding legal commitments.