Climate Talks Look to U.S. Role

By LEILA ABBOUD and STEPHEN POWER

When the Obama administration makes its debut in the international climate-change debate at talks next week, expectations will be high: Europe hopes the U.S. can help end a standoff between rich and poor countries over how to share the burden of cutting carbon emissions.
"The arrival of the new U.S. administration will have a huge and positive effect on the negotiations," said Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat, which is overseeing the talks. "This will be the first opportunity for the Obama administration to state what it expects and wants."
The summit in Bonn from March 29 to April 8, is one of several meetings this year aimed at drafting a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. That treaty committed 183 signatories to collectively reduce their emissions 5% from 1990 levels by 2012.

The aim is to agree on a new global treaty that would include the world's biggest emitters -- the U.S. and China -- by mid-December. The U.S., under the Bush administration, didn't ratify the Kyoto treaty, and China and other developing countries such as India and Brazil aren't obligated under the treaty to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases, which are believed to contribute to climate change.
The thorniest issue in the talks is deciding how much aid rich countries will give poorer countries to help them limit emissions and cope with the effects of rising temperatures. Another challenge will be agreeing on how deeply and quickly rich countries will cut emissions.
In 2007, developing countries committed to take "measurable, reportable and verifiable" actions to reduce their emissions, but only if they were given support by rich countries. Hammering out the details of such support is crucial to getting countries such as China and India on board.
The Obama administration has sent mixed signals about the issue, highlighting the difficulty it faces in getting congressional support for its emissions goals.
U.S. President Barack Obama has repeatedly said the U.S. must do more to fight climate change, and has called for legislation to cut U.S. emissions about 80% below 2005 levels by 2050. But getting such a law through Congress will be difficult, and any international climate change treaty must be ratified by the Senate. Some politicians are balking at the idea of imposing new regulatory burdens on companies during a recession.
Todd Stern, Mr. Obama's climate envoy, told reporters earlier this month that the administration was developing a "financing package" to help developing countries. But U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu suggested last week that tariffs could be levied on products imported from countries that don't agree to limit their emissions -- a move that could shield energy-intensive U.S. industries and increase costs in developing countries.
Mr. Chu said tariffs were just one idea, but his comments raised eyebrows because they came after a Chinese diplomat warned that a carbon tariff would violate World Trade Organization agreements. In a letter Thursday, congressional Republicans called on the Obama administration to clarify its stance on emissions-related trade policy.
Mr. Stern, the climate envoy, declined through an aide to be interviewed ahead of the Bonn conference.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving toward regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, and Democrats in the House of Representatives have begun drafting a bill to establish a system that limits emissions and creates a market for businesses to buy and sell the right to produce them.
But in recent weeks, Democratic lawmakers such as Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, have objected to key elements of Mr. Obama's plan, raising the prospect the U.S. won't be able to enact such legislation before the Copenhagen talks in December.
European countries haven't been able to agree among themselves on how much money they are willing to give to poorer countries to help them cut emissions. Europe was supposed to decide on a financial package by this month, but recently pushed back the decision until June after countries squabbled over how to share the burden.
"It's a disappointment," said the U.N.'s Mr. de Boer of Europe's delay. "Without money on the table, we will not get the developing-country engagement we need."
Write to Leila Abboud at leila.abboud@wsj.com and Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com