EU GENERALLY POSITIVE ON U.S. CLIMATE POLICY, BUT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 001033 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/28/2019 TAGS: ECON EIND ENRG EUN EWWT KGHG SENV TPHY TRGY TSPL SUBJECT: EU GENERALLY POSITIVE ON U.S. CLIMATE POLICY, BUT REMAINS INCONSISTENT ON HOW TO ADDRESS UN NEGOTIATIONS REF: BRUSSELS 1032 Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Peter Chase, Reasons: 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) Summary. Several EU officials are pleased with the direction the United States is taking in its climate policy, but some (notably Germany and France) are looking for more. However, on several other issues related to the UN negotiation process, the EU is far from a consolidated position. (See reftel for description of the EU internal position.) The main points relayed to USEU EconOff on the margins of the Informal Council of EU Energy and Environment Ministers on July 23-25 in Are, Sweden: -- The EU is committed to an agreement in Copenhagen, but believes the current pace of negotiations is too slow; -- Comparability with developed countries remains a contentious issue among Member States, and there are disagreements as to how to address the U.S. position; -- Eastern European countries are more likely to support the current U.S. policy, but Germany and France appear willing to identify possible areas of flexibility in comparability discussions; -- The consistent position within the EU is the need to work in cooperation with the United States to engage the developing world--China and India at the top of the list, but also Russia and Africa; -- Given the internal disagreements in the EU, likely to remain through the end of October, there exist several avenues to U.S. engagement on many of the key issues, potentially leading to positive influence of the final position. End summary. -------------- EU wants to increase the pace of negotiations -------------- ¶2. (C) The EU remains committed to and convinced there will be an agreement in Copenhagen, but is concerned by the amount of work needed to get there. Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, Member of European Parliament Lena Ek, and a Finnish delegate all said that negotiations are moving far too slowly and there needs to be an increase in the pace. However, the Finnish delegate added that there is somewhat more optimism after the G-8 and the MEF countries committed to limiting global temperature rise to two degrees C, and added that there will likely be more stringent numbers from some countries. ¶3. (C) The balance between 2020 emissions reduction targets for developed countries and mitigation actions for developing countries has become a source of disagreement among Member States. Among developed countries, comparability is likely to become the biggest issue from the EU,s point of view, as it assesses how to determine if it will move from 20% to 30% reductions by 2020. A Finnish delegate argued that binding targets will be difficult in negotiations because of the comparability question; setting criteria is a &waste of time8 because of differences in national realities. She recommended looking into domestically-focused situations where there could be flexibility. A French delegate was more direct, explaining that the United States is the EU,s single focus regarding comparability. The EU will publicly state that Japan and Canada are important, but in reality, those countries will carry much less weight than the United States. In addition, debate is beginning to emerge within the EU as to the midterm target date. A Slovakian official explained that a conversation is developing on the possibility of using a date between 2025 and 2030 as the midterm, adding that the idea is gaining steam because a later date looks better for the Eastern European Member States. A French delegate conceded as well that 2020 is not a &magic year,8 though it is politically relevant in Europe, but argued that 2030 starts to stretch a little too far for realistic targets. ¶4. (C) Financing is also contentious for the EU at the moment, and Finance Ministers have yet to put forth concrete proposals. The general consensus is that the developed world can not pay for everything and that there must be actions by developing countries in order to secure financing, but beyond that, the EU,s position becomes less clear. Some countries, including Poland, believe financial instruments need to be put on the table immediately to engage China. However, BRUSSELS 00001033 002 OF 003 Germany has argued that nothing should be given away immediately, as the developing countries will simply take that without giving anything back, and then ask for more. According to a French delegate, financing cannot be looked at alone, rather mitigation and financing must be balanced, as any gap between the two will make it very difficult to achieve an agreement. The EU is anxious to hear the proposals from other Annex I countries, specifically the United States, but a Finnish delegate expects that in the end, the EU will be the first to put something on the table in October. -------------- -------------- EU pleased with steps in U.S., but looking for more -------------- -------------- ¶5. (C) The shift in climate policy in the United States remains a positive factor for most EU countries. Although Germany and France remain critical of less stringent targets, both believe there are paths to solve the disagreement. A Polish delegate, despite noting that Poland remains upset it is not a member of the MEF, said that President Obama,s policy has been well received and has sent a good signal to other countries. A Maltese delegate supported that position, stating that the positive signals from the United States are echoing in the EU. Finland believes that the negotiations would not even be where they are today without the United States and appreciates the fact that the United States is strongly engaging China. ¶6. (C) That said, delegates from Germany and France claimed that the United States has not gone far enough, noting that the 25-40% IPCC range is critical to bring along the developing world. However, both provided insights into what they feel the United States can do to supplement the current efforts. The French delegate, explaining that he understands the dynamic between the Administration and Congress and highlighting President Obama,s statement in Italy that the United States will not sign up to what it cannot meet, believes that a lot can be achieved if countries make it clear that they think there is a need to do more. In the case of the United States, he argued that the offsets available in the draft American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) give the United States flexibility. More international action now and taking up increased domestic action later to raise the target is a reasonable approach. He would like to be able to present the U.S. position in these terms as it will help move others, but he understands the Administration,s wariness to do so ahead of actions in the Senate. Environment Commissioner Dimas, speaking on behalf of the Commission, made a similar statement publicly, that ACESA allows for flexibility, notably in avoided deforestation, in the U.S. target. A German delegate focused the conversation around the two degree C benchmark, saying that if the United States can make the case that it is seriously trying to get on a two degree C path and invest in climate technologies, there will be more room to work. Eastern Member States are taking a different perspective, with a Slovakian official explaining that if the United States is considered comparable as stands under ACESA, it is better for the Eastern Member States, as they will not be asked to do much more. -------------- -------------- EU wants to cooperate with U.S. on developing world -------------- -------------- ¶7. (C) Despite the disparate views among the Member States on how to approach the negotiations internationally, there was a consensus that the United States and the EU should work together to bring the developing world along. China was the focal point of discussions, and a German delegate explained that it is not Germany,s intention to &let developing countries off the hook8 and is looking for further dialogue with the United States on how to engage China. Poland and Malta added that they do not believe China is as engaged as necessary, and that the focus should be on ensuring China understands the economic benefits by shifting to a low-carbon economy. ¶8. (C) A Finnish delegate, speaking from Finland,s close relationship with Russia, expressed the opinion that Russia will be difficult--possibly more so than China--and will need BRUSSELS 00001033 003 OF 003 a lot of high level attention. The delegate explained that during a recent meeting in Moscow, it became apparent that Russia feels as though it neither gained from Kyoto nor received the attention or benefit it felt it deserves from its efforts to agree to the Protocol. The delegate says Russia is taking things seriously now that it believes the United States is committed. Russian representatives recognize that climate change might be harmful economically, and given that it has missed a lot of opportunity in the past, the Finnish delegate thinks that it could accept a 35% emissions reduction target quite easily. ¶9. (C) Several delegates noted the lack of attention being paid to Africa. A French delegate said that there is a huge untapped potential in energy infrastructure development in Africa, and with close to a population of one billion, it is critical the developed world engage. Separately, the delegate believes that Africa can be helpful to the United States and the EU, if those countries believe there is a benefit, such as adaptation infrastructure support. He added that the United States and the EU could cooperate to mobilize African countries to push China and India to act. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶10. (C) The EU remains divided internally in how it will develop its negotiating position and in how it plans to approach the rest of the world. The EU is looking to maintain what it believes is a leadership role but recognizes the importance of engagement with the United States, particularly vis-a-vis the developing world. Eastern Europe is much more supportive of efforts already taken by the United States, and if those countries solidify their bloc within the EU, they could prove to be a productive negotiating partner. Separately while France and Germany appreciate the strides taken by the administration, they continue to push for more, much of it driven by pressures at home. However, they appear receptive to trying to move past those concerns for the greater cause of bringing along the developing world, and seem at least generally focused on identifying alternative paths for comparability. The Commission also likely will remain an ally, as it recognizes the importance of the United States and the EU remaining coordinated to work with China, India, and others. As the EU has not yet solidified its position and approach to the negotiations, and probably will not until toward the end of October, there are several levers available to shape the EU,s stance for the benefit of the U.S. negotiating position. End comment. CHASE .