Web Chat Transcript: 20 June 2007 - 3:30pm to 4:30pm

Below is the transcript from the web chat with Ambassador McCallum on U.S. Policy and Climate Change.

Moderator

Welcome to the U.S. Embassy’s webchat on U.S. Policy and Climate Change. Today’s webchat features Ambassador Robert D. McCallum, Jr., who will be happy to take your questions. Please remember to submit your questions via private message (PM) to the Moderator. You can do this by clicking on PM next to Moderator in the list on the right. “/Moderator” will then appear in the text box at the bottom of your chat screen. Please position your cursor *after* the word Moderator before you begin typing.

Ambassador McCallum

Over the past few weeks there have been several important developments on one of the key issues of the day, climate change. China and Japan both have recently announced their intentions to reduce emissions. On May 31, President Bush announced U.S. support to develop a new international framework on climate change. Just a few hours later, Australia issued its “Report of the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading” on June 1. And the following week, the Group of Eight (G8) leaders agreed on a process that eventually can lead to substantial cuts in emissions. So I thought it would be a good time to hold my first web-chat on this important issue.

Moderator

amyking_aspi asks: Mr Ambassador, what do you see as the strategic implications of climate change, in terms of both national and regional security?

Ambassador McCallum

This is an important question, but not one to which one can easily give a definitive, detailed answer on specific implications for national, regional or global security. Climate change can affect energy security. It may affect economic growth and development in the global economy which can impact investments in new technologies. It may have implications for trade between nations in natural resources as well as manufactured goods. However, all of these possibilities are speculation at this time and the responsible community of nations is realizing that it needs to address climate change issues now rather than later given the uncertainties of the impacts of climate change.

Moderator

amyking_aspi asks: Following on from my initial question, may I ask what, if any, planning the Pentagon has undertaken with regards to military preparedness in an era of climate change?

Ambassador McCallum

Thank you, amyking_aspi, for your question. The Pentagon has done studies on the impact of climate change on security. The Pentagon is in the business of conducting studies assessing possible contingencies and changes in circumstances, including those from climate change.

Moderator

Scott asks: What has the U.S. been doing about climate change?

Ambassador McCallum

To answer Scott’s question, the United States and this Administration have made tremendous investments in reducing emissions. Since 2001, the United States has invested over $35 Billion in climate change science, energy technology, and international assistance: more than any other nation. These efforts are producing real results that compare favorably against any other nation in the world.

Between 2000 and 2005, the U.S. grew its population by 4% and grew its economy by more than 12.5% percent while greenhouse gas emissions grew by less than 1.6% and carbon dioxide emissions grew by 2.5%. By contrast, the EU had a lower population growth of 1.8% and a lower economic growth of less than 9% with a similar increase of 1.4% in greenhouse gas emissions and larger growth of 3.8% in carbon dioxide emissions.

This is only one of a number of different programs that the Untied States has initiated. The President has also announced a 20 in 10 program relating to motor vehicle emissions. That program seeks to reduce by 20% gasoline consumption in the United States through increased fuel efficiencies, through alternative fuels and through hybrid vehicles.

Moderator

NET asks: Mr Ambassador, do you believe the IPCC’s emissions cut target of 60% by 2050 is based on scientific evidence?

Ambassador McCallum

Responding to NET: All of us are very interested in the IPCC reports and the impact that those reports will have on the global community as it considers a coordinated response to climate change. Of course the IPCC used a lot of scientific data in making this estimate. However the science in this area is still developing and it is difficult to know precisely what levels the global community would need to cut by what date.

Moderator

bj asks: President Bush’s recently announced climate change initiative commits to bring major emitting nations together to develop a global goal to reduce greenhouse gases. What form do you think that target should take? - eg a percentage emissions reduction, a reduction in GHG intensity, a maximum limit on temperature rise?

Ambassador McCallum

To answer bj’s question, the President’s initiative is a very important development, as you recognize. The initiative is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As the President said, we believe that the United States and other nations should set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To help develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.

addition to this long-term global goal, each country would establish midterm national targets, and programs that reflect their own mix of energy sources and future energy needs.

The specific methods of achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be determined by the nations participating in the forum.

Moderator

Tony Forster asks: Mr Ambassador,you quote investment over $35 Billion and emissions growth by less than 1.6%. Can you quantify the savings if any over business as usual growth in emissions?

Ambassador McCallum

Thank you, Tony Forster, for your question. We believe that the investment in programs and technologies is beginning to have an effect and that emissions growth is significantly reduced from what it otherwise would have been. However, I don’t have specific figures on that. It would be extremely difficult to quantify that since we would be speculating on emissions that did not occur.

Moderator

amyking_aspi asks: Mr Ambassador, could you comment on whether the U.S. is likely to play a greater role in responding to global natural disasters associated with climate change?

Ambassador McCallum

To answer your question, amyking_aspi; the United States government and people have a long tradition of providing humanitarian assistance in response to natural disasters. I fully expect this will continue to be the case. The response to the Boxing Day tsunami is only one such example.

Moderator

peterw asks: Mr Ambassador, what does the United States hope can be achieved in regard to climate change at September’s APEC summit in Sydney?

Ambassador McCallum

Thank you for the focus on APEC, which the U.S. considers to be the pre-eminent forum for our engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. Under Australia’s leadership as chairman, we anticipate that the APEC leaders will focus on defining fundamental principles that can be an additional step forward for a broad, global solution.

These principles can then serve as the basis of further discussions by the major consuming and emitting nations at the President’s Washington meeting to be held later this year.

Moderator

solar_power asks: Talk is all good and well but as the old saying goes - actions speak louder than words. Is the U.S. Embassy doing anything to conserve water and energy?

Ambassador McCallum

I greatly appreciate solar power’s comment because we agree that actions speak louder than words. I am especially proud of the efforts made at Embassy Canberra to be responsible stewards of our environment. We’ve seen conservation results through a GreenSmart initiative, which seeks to develop, demonstrate, and promote environmentally responsible technologies, design principles, and practices. Those results include reducing overall energy consumption by nearly 30%, reducing our water usage by nearly 25%, wasting less through efficient procurement and better management practices and recycling 20,000 liters (by volume) of recyclable material per year.

We comply with all local and state regulations in regards to water restrictions and beyond that, we invest in rainwater harvesting tanks for our government-owned properties. There are other detailed initiatives which are part of this overall ‘green’ approach.

We not only talk globally, but we act locally.

Moderator

bj asks: Mr Ambassador, you mention the U.S. will convene a series of meetings with other countries to reduce emissions, starting later this year in Washington. How often will these meetings be held, and what kind of people will be involved (eg heads of state, ministers)?

Ambassador McCallum

Your question, bj, addresses the President’s May 31^st initiative. As indicated previously, the President is inviting leaders of the major consuming and emitting nations to come to Washington for a meeting later this year. So, as currently envisioned, the initial meeting will be at the highest levels of government.

We don’t know how many meetings will take place after this initial meeting, or the levels of government that will be involved.

Moderator

Rod McGuirk asks: Could the United States agree to carbon targets at APEC?

Ambassador McCallum

I’m not going to speculate as to what leaders of 21 economies are going to discuss, much less agree on. The initial focus is going to be on fundamental principles.

Moderator

peterw asks: Mr Ambassador, is the U.S. committed to the UN framework on climate change or is it attempting to make agreements independent of that?

Ambassador McCallum

Thank you, peterw. The United States remains committed to the UN framework convention and meeting our responsibilities in that framework. The President’s initiative is designed to accelerate that process by defining fundamental principles on remedies to climate change among the major consumers and emitters.

The President’s invitation to the meeting in Washington later this year will involve 10 to 15 nations — both developed and developing nations. Progress made at those meetings will, no doubt, be of benefit within the UN framework of over 180 nations.

Moderator

Tony Forster asks: Mr Ambassador, the cost of delaying action on greenhouse is high, both in economic and environmental terms, is the U.S. and Australian delay on ratifying Kyoto justifiable?

Ambassador McCallum

To Tony Forster: The United States did not ratify Kyoto because it would have been ineffective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It would have resulted in the worst of both worlds — aggregate increases in greenhouse gas emissions and harm to the economies that must produce the funds to invest in the technologies that will be central to any remedy of the problem.

To foster a truly sustainable global approach to climate change, the United States believes that international climate actions must accommodate diverse national circumstances and approaches, and that climate actions should be considered in tandem with economic as well as other sustainable development goals.

The United States is taking a leadership role in implementing international public-private partnerships, conducting cutting-edge science and technology research and through many other domestic, bilateral and regional clean development and climate initiatives. For example, there are 8 specific working groups within the AP6 that are sector-specific assessments of realistic and achievable actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or otherwise provide solutions to climate change issues.

Moderator

amyking_aspi asks: Mr Ambassador, my apologies for returning once again to the security field. Could you conceive that climate change (and specifically the military’s own energy footprint) will ever affect U.S. decisions to project force around the globe?

Ambassador McCallum

I appreciate all your questions, amyking_aspi. It’s impossible to speculate on factors would influence future military deployments, including the impact of climate change.

Moderator

We have time for one final question. bj asks: Mr Ambassador, in the light of recent Australian developments, does the U.S. government foresee the development of a national emissions trading system in the U.S., perhaps building on the existing work of state governments and industry? Would such a system link to other countries’ emissions trading systems (such as a future Australian system)?

Ambassador McCallum

Thanks again for your question, bj. As indicated in the President’s May 31 initiative, each nation has got to determine the proper mix of remedies that addresses the particular circumstances of that particular nation. There is no silver bullet that will solve all of the climate change problems by itself. Each nation will have to determine the proper mix of conservation, energy efficiency improvements, technology, land use management and reforestation, alternative energy sources and other potential remedies that work best for its particular circumstances. Emissions trading may be one of those remedies, for particular nations, and not for others.

Thank you all for participating in this web-chat, and for giving me the opportunity to answer your questions on climate change policy. Climate change and our responses to it are important issues, and I’m glad we had this chance to discuss this today.

Moderator

Thank you for participating in the U.S. Embassy’s webchat. We will post a transcript on our website tomorrow.

For more information on the topic of U.S. Policy and Climate Change, here are some useful websites:

• http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/global_issues/climate_change.html
• http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html
• http://www.energy.gov/environment/climatechange.htm
• http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070531-13.html

Last update Sunday, 15 June 2008