On 7 July 2009, the Ecologic Institute co-hosted a Dinner Dialogue on "Current Trends in the American Climate Debate and Prospects for a Global Deal in Copenhagen" with the German Marshall Fund of the US. Keynote speakers were Elliot Diringer, Vice President for International Strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and Nicole Wilke, Head of Division for International Climate Policy at the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.

Opening the discussion, Elliot Diringer highlighted the recent adoption of the Waxman-Markey Climate and Energy Bill as a major step forward in US climate policy, but also cautioned that the Senate has yet to decide on climate policy, where the interests of regional constituencies are expected to play a much more significant role. To get climate legislation through the Senate will require a bipartisanship and possible even engagement by the president. Even so, Elliot Diringer viewed it as unlikely that a bill on climate and energy would be finalised in time for the Copenhagen negotiations. Taking on criticisms regularly brought forward from the European side, Elliot Diringer described the climate targets established by the bill as comparable in ambition to the European climate policies - when compared to the base year 2005, rather than the 1990 baseline advocated by the EU. Regarding the Copenhagen negotiations on a global climate agreement, Elliot Diringer argued that the very high expectations of the Copenhagen summit must not lead to a situation where any outcome short of a complete package would be seen as a disappointment. Instead, it should be acknowledged that the summit may leave a number of issues for further negotiations.

Reacting to this, Nicole Wilke underlined that there is no "Plan B" for the Copenhagen summit, nor should there be one. The admittedly high expectations are justified by the urgency of the problem and the need for ambitious action: there is no Plan B, since we cannot afford to delay international action any longer. She also pointed out the added value of a global agreement over the individual commitments made by different countries. In sum, the commitments on the table express a level of ambition that would fall short of the required emission cuts; only through a global agreement would all countries have the necessary political pressure to do their best. For this reason, she argued that the Copenhagen summit would need to produce more than just a general political agreement. Nicole Wilke recalled the major stumbling blocks that need to be overcome on the road to Copenhagen, including the issue of financing for technology transfer, avoided deforestation and adaptation, and the issue of involving developing countries. She acknowledged that the variety of fora in which climate policy is being addressed (including G8 / G20, the Major Economies Forum and of course the UN process) creates some overlap, but that each of these fora had their role to play in carrying forward the international negotiation process towards an agreement under the UNFCCC.

The concluding discussion touched on a range of issues, including:

• The anticipated impacts of domestic climate policy on the competitiveness of US industry and measures to counter these impacts. Elliot Diringer pointed out that this discussion was lead in a defensive way, with the anticipated losers of climate action dominating the debate. The positive view - promoting energy-efficiency and energy efficiency to safeguard industrial competitiveness in tomorrow's low-carbon-economy - received much less attention. Regarding measures to defend energy-intensive industries against alleged competitiveness impacts, several participants noted their scepticism of the proposed border adjustment measures, in terms of their necessity, their effectiveness and their potential impact on the global climate negotiations.
• With regard to the interaction between domestic and international policies, Elliot Diringer recalled as one of the lessons from the Kyoto experience that the international negotiations would need to be rooted in domestic policies, and advocated a bottom-up approach. It was noted that this does represent a difference to the European approach, where the interdependence between global negotiations and domestic policies is more widely acknowledged.

Further links:

• CV Elliot Diringer
• CV Nicole Wilke
• R. Andreas Kraemer
• Ecologic Institute launches Office Washington, DC
• Riverside Chat: Adapting/Adopting: Perspectives on International Cooperation in Addressing Climate Change - Nicole Wilke and Alina Bokde
• Transatlantic Lunch: The Changing Climate in U.S. Renewable Energy Markets and Policy: A USEPA Perspective on Renewable Energy Market Transformation in the U.S. – Matt Clouse

Co-Host: The German Marshall Fund of the United States

Sponsors: The German Marshall Fund of the US and the Ecologic Institute are grateful for the generous support of the Transatlantik Climate Bridge.