Fuelling and Harris stated that, “API supports the innovative idea of the fund proposed by the council.  The fund will give a platform to find specific solutions for the industries effected.  API appreciates the UNs efforts to support the energy industry and its voluntary efforts already being made. However we want to warn that care must be taken to ensure efficiency.”

Yet, it remains to be seen whether the UN Resolution will fully back big oil or force the scale backs it detests.

Published: December 16, 2009

The New York Times -What has to happen between the Copenhagen Climate Convention and the G8 Summit, 2010?

Nguyen Minh Triet, President of Vietnam- Once an agreement has been made in Copenhagen; the implementation really needs to begin.  G8 must also give their backing full support and the G8 members should review what has already been done and complete a progression report stating what has been achieving and what still needs to be done.

NYT – What have you to say in relation to the threats to security by climate change, if you are provided with three ‘aspects’ of discussion: targets, funds, engagement of developing countries?

Nguyen Minh Triet – We strongly believe that climate change is a threat to human and state security, in order to tackle this issue we need to do three things: we need to set targets to reduce C02 emissions, proportionate to the CO2 that the states have already emitted, and secondly and thirdly, in order to engage developing countries we require funds from the developed states in order to adopt green technology.

NYT – What have you to say about the ‘cap and trade’ trend and what is Vietnam’s stance towards this somewhat controversial ‘solution’?

Nguyen Minh Triet – We do not support the ‘cap and trade’ trend, it impinges on development, and does not put the responsibility of climate change on developing nations.

NYT – Do you find that the recession has had a substantial impact on the environment, or the world’s focus on the environment?

Nguyen Minh Triet – Unfortunately the recession has meant that Vietnam has had to prioritize education and welfare over environmental concerns; there are fewer resources available and we have had to cut budgets in this area.

NYT – How would you argue against dissenters’ opinions that the Copenhagen Climate Convention is merely a way-station to some other agreement?

Nguyen Minh Triet – We strongly disagree with this, we firmly believe that states are willing to commit and that Copenhagen will be a success.  In order to achieve a positive outcome, member-states must unite to tackle this urgent menace.

NYT – Could you respond to Al Gore’s exclamation – “We have to get it right in Copenhagen” –

Nguyen Minh Triet – We do have to get it right in Copenhagen, we need a successful convention for all member states to agree on realistic targets to cut C02 emissions and commit to the resolution.  We would also like to see a body established for aid for developing states to be invested in lower carbon technology; this aid should be required from Annex 1 countries in order to ensure development continues and historical responsibility contributes to a solution for the future.

NYT – Do you believe penalties should be implemented if decisions made during the Copenhagen Climate Convention do not come to pass within the allocated time-frame?

Yes, in order for countries to abide by these targets they must be incentivised.  They should be committed to the agreement reached at the convention.

NYT – What penalties would you suggest?

Nguyen Minh Triet We believe sanctions would be too harsh, however there could be some sort of fine – or possibly if they do not reach the target they should maybe contribute more in financial terms and investment terms more towards low carbon technology etc.

NYT – Have you formed any alliances with other nations in this fight against climate change?

Nguyen Minh Triet – We have been in close contact with other developing states, namely Uganda and Costa Rica.  In this instance we have agreed to sign Burkina Faso’s resolution as we believe it is closely related to our stance.  We give it our full support and hope that other states will follow suit.

The New York Times: Why is the UN Security Council resolution necessary when COP15 coming up?

Secretary General Alex Braithwaite: It’s a very important question. I think the important thing is that the Copenhagen talks are designed to provide the opportunity for all nations to come together to deal with the full range of problems associated the climate change. The reason I’m very happy is that the ambassador from Burkina Faso brought the intension of the Security Council. We have a very specific task which is to identify the problem of peace and securities specifically rather than the more general technological or societal implications of climate change. An agenda within the Security Council is much narrow. An interest is in focusing on specifically threats for the security as the result of the climate change. I think it’s important for the second reason as well that the Security Council to be central. That’ll be a process and that’s because we have an established role as the authority to body. The Security Council permanent members are also those countries which are currently producing a highest level of the carbon emissions, so many would argue the fact that the responsibility of the permanent membership of the Security Council along with the other developed nations in Europe, North America, and including Japan as well, to take responsibility to deal with this problem from the security perspective. I think the Security Council becomes the ideal thing with the discussion like this. If shouldn’t be seen the alternative to Copenhagen, hopefully that can be seen this complementally to Copenhagen. A very importantly it’s not dependent on Copenhagen. The idea would be the Security Council can still proceed even if the Copenhagen talks appear not to be bringing the kind of success the hope they will.

NYT: What will the role of the UN Secretary General during the Conference? Will you try to influence the debate or are you there purely as a facilitator?

AB: It’s an interesting question. I don’t wish to overstep my authority. My primary role as Secretary General is to try to encourage an agenda with global scope and to facilitate the communication amongst member states. I’ve been very welcome in the past about my belief that the climate change is the greatest threat that we face collectively from the global perspective. I’m willing to go so far as to say the greatest strategy face to international peace and security as decades continued the past. So I’m very keen to get the message out there to encourage discussion about the security implications of climate change. But I don’t wish to tell member states how they should deal with the problem, because it is a threat to us as a global society. I think it’s generally requires many more people in myself and my office and the Secretariat to deal with that problem.

NYT: The IPCC Working Paper talks about security, is this language appropriate or just political rhetoric?

AB: It’s important. I think we reflect upon the initial statement made by the ambassador from Burkina Faso in announcing this meeting. It’s important to remember that there are real, current threats, the result from the climate change in terms of peace and security. And they’re maybe disproportionately located in the poorest nations. So when Burkina Faso mentions the rapid rate which arable earns are disappearing and becoming desert. They don’t mention this is the hypothetical problems 20-years time. They mention it’s a real problem they face today. They talk about flooding resulting from massive dramatic changes of weather patterns. It will appear these are the real results of climate change. So when the IPCC talk about the security implications of climate change, they are talking about currently observed and real world threats. Many of the naysayers and doubters of climate change are suggested that these problems will exist in the long way in the future. And it’s too expensive to deal with the miss they only happen in 50 years this time. The reality I say is these are the problems we face now and therefore it is important to deal with under the auspices of the Security Council.

NYT: Are you surprised by the grouping of nations who have submitted the draft resolution?

AB: It’s not surprising that we see the UK and France, Croatia and Austria and Turkey as inspiring a member of European Union. We ought not to be to surprise as well that Japan is forward to looking in this process along with South Korea, I think. Japan has really been leading a way among those nations that haven’t yet fully exploited their opportunity for the development. So, on face value it’s not a surprising collection of statements because they are in a collection of states spoken very positively about using the opportunity to bring about UN Security Council Resolution. I guess the membership Croatia and Austria for some would be the most surprising, but under the EU flag, it makes sense.

NYT: What is the largest problem faced as a result of climate change?

AB: It’s tempting to identify the list of priorities. I think the greatest problem in fact is our inability collectively to act upon the various agreements we’ve achieved in the past. There are multiple ramifications of Climate change to bring the significant harm to populations. We can talk about the deforestation changing a nature of a land use in terms of arable land being deserts. We can talk about increase of resource scarcity and access to the water. These all individual problems are great important. They wouldn’t be ranked in any particular orders. All problems are required the change. The one thing those province change occurring is our inability as a collective to act. So I think absolutely without a question the problem that would be faced most    immediately is in action and inability to agree.

NYT: Some delegations propose setting up UN Climate Change Security Agency, would this be useful of are the existing agencies adept to deal with the challenges faced by climate change?

AB: I’ll be personally interested to see what responses we receive next week from those delegations that are not amongst the six that proposed this. My senses would be a little scepticism about the nature of any such organisation. I personally support having an agency that is given some significant role in coordinating the security response. It has to be made very clear that this is distinct from the other UN based organisations that exist to deal with the problem of climate change. So we’ll meet new organisations or agencies would have to be very very specific to deal with problems relating human security. The proposal on this table also raises the question of a binding agreement. I think it would only be possible to conceive of any kind of binding agreement where any agency that are established to be given in a significant of enough budget which brings me to a particular mind which we’ve made an agreement in the past to finance the activities that come out of any climate change agreement. I’m very much concerned as I made in statements in the end of last month that would be fail to do is the live up the promises we made. And here I mean the primarily the larger richer nations who have promised to commit significant founds to a special climate change fund in particular out of Kyoto Protocol. What we’ve not seen is yet the action to deliver the funds they promise. Because I think really the only way we can reach an agreement either all those in meeting in Copenhagen or all those us meeting in the Security Council on 16 December is willing to be supposed very heavily with significant funding.

NYT: Will the UN provide financial aid in terms of R&D?

AB: Under the agreements we made it in Kyoto meetings in 1997, there was discussion and indeed the establishment of two funds. One is for the least developed countries fund and the second one is the special climate change fund. These really are the mechanisms, I think, must appropriate for delivering support to developing nations to enable technological advance to compensate for lost by having new ability to produce carbon. So I hope it would be the agreement that we have looked to reach the 16 December will increase the commitment and enforce, in some way, the commitment from the very richest countries.

NYT: Do you hope for legally-binding or just politically binding commitments from the nations participating in COP15?

AB: It’s an important question. I know there are drafts that have been circulated. The only draft has been formally received by the Secretariat which is from the six correspondences. Because we have a requirement in order to be able as the Security Council at a meeting to discuss a draft paper we have a requirement that would be coordinating one state in correspondence by three additional states. We are aware, though, there are additional proposals are circulated. I’m very much adherent to the belief you should focus upon common but differentiated responsibilities. And I think as a part of this there is a fundamental requirement that the developing nations receive and insurance from the developed nations. They will indeed support fully back, especially financially, any proposals. The legally binding question is going to be a tricky issue to deal with as an all issues of global collective action when it comes to the binding agreement. Fundamentally the agreement we are able to reach from the 16 December will be dependent among willingness of states to pass authority to the Security Council.

NYT: Are you optimistic about the US taking a more substantial role in climate change mitigation?

AB: It’s an important point for the climate change movement. It’s also an important moment for President Obama. He has an opportunity which I feel he is fully embracing to demonstrate in line with what he committed to in the election of last year to demonstrate that he truly believes now is the time to talk much about global collective action, but instead to act globally and collectively. I’m optimistic that the US will bring a very optimistic and constructive set a proposal that they concern the remains of course there are domestic constituents in the US that is not willing to support these mechanisms. So my hope is the Obama’s team will be working overtime to convince Americans that responding to climate change is the priority.

NYT: China, India, other non-Annex 1 nations, are their commitments essential in order to get a comprehensive deal?

AB: We will find we need all members to agree, not just to be able to sign agreement on the day, but to be able to bring about changes that are the meaningful in the future. We have to remember that 16 December our meeting is really just a third or fourth steps in quite a long journey. What important is to we get a point not just we’re just countries willing to say ‘yes’ but they are willing to act and they willing to keep on acting. I wouldn’t like to isolate the US or China or India or any other member of the UN is having a great responsibility. As I stated many times, this is a global problem that we face, so it really requires that all nations identify their responsibility. It is very clear given of the nature of the Security Council and having America or China which agreement is the fundamental part of a Security Council resolution.

NYT: Is the objective reducing CO2 by whatever means necessary, or should the concept of fairness and sustainable development be central to any deal struck?

AB: I’ve spoken this in the past, because it’s my contention that we are as the UN Security Council is important part of the UN, able to set the world trajectory in both the healthy planet on one hand and the sustainable economy for all on the other. So I don’t see these have been mutually exclusive. I see these have been complementary which is why so much of my attention of late has been focused upon how we finance any agreement, because the one thing we know even in the situation of significant global economical crisis is that there are still significant wealth disparities which will only be worsened if we take the approach of simply cutting carbon emissions and encouraging everybody to proportionally cut their carbon emissions. There are a number of solutions potentially or hypothetically to this problem. I certainly favour a financial aid package over for instance carbon exchange scheme or carbon trading scheme which would simply push the location of carbon emissions globally.

NYT: What role, if any, do you envisage for the private sector in terms of mitigation an R&D? Will this be down to national legislation or do regulations need to be enforced at the national level to limit emissions?

AB: I’ve been very keen to make sure that the discussions we have as part of the Security Council are comprehensible to the majority. The debate about solutions of the climate change will tend to be quite lithest, because we’ve assumed a significant technological solution is required and one can only be understood by scientists and economists. I’m very keen that we communicate in this debate in a way that it could be understood by many. My team advices absolutely to encourage you to talk to the climate change support team, Niheer Dasandi and Horald Heubaum were both in my team, are available for comment. They can give you the more precise details about a kind of mechanism that we anticipate would be the most fruitful. I’ll do think it’s fair enough to say in simple terms the reason of the important role for the private sector. We know that many of the innovations that enable us to overcome the problems of CFC, for instance, through the Montreal Protocol were facilitative by technological advances made through the R&D amongst the private sector. It is clear that many of the specific technological solutions will come from that area again. It would be ideal to conceive over scenario where businesses were able to make proposals that were not controlled by their governments. But we have to respect at same time the rights of governments to make regulatory decisions. Niheer Dasandi and Horald Heubaum would be able to give you the more detail response in the particular question.

NYT: Any further comments for countries specifically?

AB: I think there is a need to be ambitiousness process. It is ambition after a role that cemented the UN. We had rather ground agenda in 1945 and in many respects to the UN benefits from an air of considerable optimism. I would encourage states to be ambitious I think the proposal we have on the table is certainly ambitious one, but we’d encouraged also a sense of feasibility. I spoke earlier about the impracticality of focusing upon a single problem. If we think of climate change as a single monolithic problem, then probably it’ll be a very difficult one to overcome. If, however, we pursue piece meal changes to break the problem apart the thing about the component parts. Then I think we have much more manageable though it’s still complicated problem or set a problem to deal with. So I will encourage countries to be creative not to think outside the box but try to make sure always the way which is the problems and solutions are a line. We don’t nearly end up with the restatement of an agreement there are problems to solve. I think this is the time now for us to put in place incredible authentic solutions.

By CECILIA EKLUND
Published: December 15, 2009

The New York Times correspondent Cecilia Eklund sat down with the Director and Deputy Director of Greenpeace to hear a side of the story from a seeming impartial delegation present at the upcoming convention.

What has to happen between the Copenhagen Climate Convention and the G8 Summit, 2010?

Rosemary Forsyth, Director of Greenpeace: We really expect to see concrete commitments from all the member states because one of our main caveats is that it is legally binding.  We need to work on their emission reductions and this needs to be evidenced by the time we get to the G8 because we need this political momentum to galvanize people to actually commit to their targets.  We will particularly be looking to the US and China in regards to this, especially because multilateral cooperation is so important.  It’s really sort of following up on research and development, into renewables and phasing out coal and nuclear and reducing emissions at the cuts that we have suggested in our statement: 40% for developed countries and between 15-30% for developing countries by 2020.

Ralph Swann,  Deputy Director of Greenpeace: It is just pertinent to note that the danger of failure, the risk of failure is too high, it’s something that the people, throughout the world, in developed and developing countries can’t afford to see happen.

What have you to say in relation to the threats to security by climate change, if I provide three ‘aspects’ of discussion: targets, funds, engagement of developing countries?

Rosemary Forsythe: Well, first of all, in terms of funds we’ve noted that there’s been progress with Gordon brown’s pledging 50 billion pounds, I think it is, towards an initiative to aid developing countries in terms of mitigation and adaptation and technology transfer, which I think is really key in aiding developing countries to be at equal footing with developed countries and we can embrace green technology, especially as I think a report suggested that there could be danger of 90 % future growth of emissions from developing countries if they are not provided with the adequate resources to be able to make this transition.

There is also a separate fund, a special climate change fund that BBC has issued a report on, it does worry us that a lot of money that seems to be missing.  What has been recorded, $269 million in September, there should have been $287 million – I do not think it has been expressly stated what are the main purposes for this fund, I think more money should be earmarked for developing countries because there seems to be a backlash from developing countries feeling that they have not been adequately supported, the Least Developed Country Fund, under the framework for the climate convention change is notoriously underutilized, so I think we would need to focus on that.  There is a need for fiscal stimulus; we have to compensate the developing countries.  There is this issue of historical responsibility from the industrialized nations and it is a combined effort because otherwise we are just going to end up coming into contact with these run-away effects of climate change – devastation.  Hooked onto that, meeting targets is really essential because if we can’t contain these rising temperatures through reductions of emissions, if we surpass this two-degrees increase threshold that is when we are really going to see the future wreaking its revenge in terms of drought, killer heat waves, and just general devastation and threats to human security and global security as well.  Things like scarcity of resources, food security, ecological security, water security and this has a world-wide impact and that is really important to target and I guess that is all underpinned by the engagement of developing countries – we really need them on site and they really need to be compensated at the same time.  China, as perhaps the top tier of the developing countries has a huge role to play in turning the future to green technology and phasing out coal and nuclear [technology].

To elaborate on that, how is Greenpeace operating – how are departments within Greenpeace taking on working with developed countries on climate change as opposed to their approach to developing countries, which you will be more lenient with…though they are arguably the first to be negatively affected by climate change?

Rosemary Foresyth: Yes, well we have recognized as a global organization that Greenpeace is that I believe it is up to 80% of the effects of climate change are experienced by those that ‘put out’ the least, i.e. the developing countries, so we really advocate support of the developing countries and in turn we are trying to apply as much political pressure on key member states and industrialized nations that are historically responsible for the anthropogenic emissions that have brought us in to this state of play that we are in at the moment.

Ralph Swann: Yes, I think one of the more simple facts demonstrates quite well that there is a huge responsibility on the developed world to take a lead on climate change issues, per capita emissions.  There is a quite a clear indication that the developed world should take the initiative on tackling climate change and support the developing world in reducing their emissions but also in technology transfers and increasing efficiency.

Does Greenpeace have any sub-levels (of sorts) of interaction with developing countries to get them to ‘join in the fight’?

Ralph Swann: The global campaign is focused on reducing reliance on fossil fuels and that is, in terms of efficient production energy, efficient use of energy – whether we take a different attitude with developing countries as opposed to developing, I would say personally our campaign is more strongly based on bringing the whole world into the framework of more efficient use of reductive energy – that has different impacts on different countries around the world and will have to impact on the less developed than on the more developed countries but I would not say we differ in terms of our aims, our aims are clear and how they impact on different countries may vary.

Rosemary Foresyth: I second that opinion.  We are heading for a future for all and all future generations and compensating these developing nations, this is at the forefront of one’s mind but implementing these universal initiatives to have a more equitable share in our finite resources – mitigation and technology transfer.

What have you to say about the ‘cap and trade’ trend and what is Greenpeace’s stance towards this somewhat controversial ‘solution’?

Rosemary Foresyth  – We have made a comment previously about the Waxman-Markey bill that has been passed through congress which was spearheaded by Obama, I believe, and which actually ties into their new statement of reducing emissions by 17-20 % (as far as I am aware this is by a 2005 level) and they will reach 80% by 2050.  Ralph Swann- Using the trend of ‘cap and trade’ as per the legislation.  Rosemary Foresyth – I think they are trying to compensate the smaller companies.  Because, say that this is a step in the right direction and there is a need for legislative framework to help foster economic growth but also implement a fair system so that it is not susceptible to be overridden.  At the same time it is not strong enough, we need to advocate a much stronger response.

Cecilia Eklund later caught up with the two Greenpeace heads for further inquiries, towards which Greenpeace had much to add.  Please read back shortly.

In the week past the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya released their public statement, much in the same vein as the circulating press releases made by them amongst the delegations in lieu of the upcoming negotiations.  Professions were made regarding the disempowering use of English as the language of communication in reaching a resolution and therefore Libya is releasing all necessary information in Arabic as using English would hint at the “Western countries dominating the agenda.”  Perhaps it might be argued that Libya is approaching a resolution not so much seeing green as an environmental indicative but as envy, or seeing red as an indication for political mistrust and agenda-pushing rather than world cooperation for climate change deceleration.

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi professes that “Libya will not support any legally binding agreements which apply to LDC’s. We will oppose any resolution which places equal responsibility for climate security upon every nation. We will oppose any resolution which places caps on the economic and industrial activities of Africa, or which limits our development. It is our sovereign right to utilise our own nation’s resources. We will therefore continue to develop our oil and gas production without external interference or pressure. Hence, we will refuse any resolutions which propose that we make cuts in our emissions.”  With this statement Libya leaves much to be desired in terms of its proposed contributions, or complete lack thereof towards this global crisis.  Furthermore, despite many attempts, probing and proddings, Libya has remained mum about a potential interview with The New York Times.

Read back 16/12/09 for an update on their proceedings during negotiations.

TOKYO — Last week, the Japanese delegation submitted their draft resolution. Their position aligns with the EU countries, mainly France and the UK. The Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has stated that Japan is going to cut its emissions by 25% by 2020 based on 1990 levels and combat the global environmental problem. Although their reduction estimates estimate may be too optimistic, this shows their ambitions for the Security Council meeting on December 16.

Another responsibility Japan will bear as a developed country is economic and technical support to developing countries. They have already decided to loan $400 million to Indonesia to help their efforts against climate change. However, Japan is facing their own problems of high unemployment rates and an inflating budget deficit. Furthermore, like many countries, they have not recovered from the financial crisis.

Although international economic and technical aid is an essential and possibly a sole way for Japan to enhance their international presence at the moment, public increasing discontent could be inevitable if their international aid increases any more. The Japanese government, which have led in the advocacy efforts for an ‘idealistic’ reduction rate of CO2 emissions along with the EU since COP-3, should now advocate a realistic target for aid as well as reduction goals.

ANKARA — Turkey has released an official public statement. Turkey has already made clear their willingness to cooperate in the fight against the problem of climate change on the draft resolution from six countries. The Press Secretary of Turkey told the NYT that they still have a strong commitment to address the issues of climate change and ensure sustainable development. “Our hope [is] for a contract that will demonstrate that all countries have agreed that climate change is a real and pressing issue and are willing to make a firm commitment to solutions based on common but differentiated responsibilities”.

According to the Turkish Press Secretary, one of their largest problems regarding climate change is the Mediterranean Basin, specifically the erosion, control and the protection of water resources which are essential. “Climate change will affect daily life in a number of ways, ranging from physical and natural environment, agriculture, food security, clean water and health”, the press secretary continued. For Turkey, the climate change problem is a serious issue.

Currently, Turkey is in the midst of an economic transition and a high unemployment rate. Three Turkish police officers were shot outside the American Consulate in July 2008 and as a result, political uncertainty continues. One of their first concerns is the problem of the EU accession, as well as the strong commitment to this Security Council meeting and therefore showing an attitude of cooperation to the global issues. This will hopefully accelerate the process of Turkey’s EU accession regardless of political, economic and social problems.

However, the challenge is that it might be difficult to achieve the numerical goal aspired to by the EU but for the transfer of renewable energy technologies from developed countries. Turkey states clearly that prior to their endorsement for economic development is obtaining sufficient support from other countries on their public statement. If they are considering the strong commitment to the environmental problem as one of the strategies to remain closely aligned with the EU countries, it could be weak. They are welcoming the day with some expectations toward the legally-binding issue for tackling the global common problem and by proxy, their own unclear future.

GENEVA —In the run up to the UNSC meeting, the IPCC have been amongst the most vocal. Indeed their report, published and commended by The New York Times, has been instrumental in shaping the decisions of the delegations stating in no uncertain terms that the time to act is now.  According to a recent statement, their role is two-fold, not only creating scientific census but also raising awareness among the public and policy makers. The scientific evidence is beyond dispute, and the IPCC has been working unrelentingly to publicize the information through press conferences and interviews with media outlets.

The IPCC’s role is not to propose policies but to present options. They stressed that they are “on nobody’s side yet everyone’s” in a press conference when questioned on the matter of whether they were overstepping the mark, by the NYT correspondent. They insist that the “broader definition of security” is essential given the wide-ranging global consequences of  the projected temperature increases. This notion of security is of course the key question delegations must seriously weigh-up in the forthcoming negotiations. But how helpful really is it to lump issues from biodiversity, economic growth and sustainable development into one conference? With each of the COP conferences, it seems that extra issues get tacked on and that makes the central aim of the UNFCCC, that is reducing carbon emissions, get convoluted. Within the current round of talks there is already a clear friction between the various negotiation blocs: Annex 1, newly industrializing countries and G77. Thus the task if the IPCC has got extremely complicated. Some critics claim that the remit of the IPCC is too broad and that scientists ought not to do the job of economists.

A number of the delegations have suggested setting up a special agency, notably France, one of the P5 nations and key in the negotiations, and Burkina Faso who will be chairing the meeting. This could potentially take these issues out of the IPCC’s hand and allow them to carry out their primary duty: creating scientific consensus. Nowhere in their communication does it make clear which organizations the IPCC consults outside of the scientific community and they reacted strongly when this news source publicized the meeting with the American Petroleum Institute, a strong economic interest group last week. The original article was phrased in way that was speculative and in the absence of other details being made public through the IPCC or the API, and it is perfectly legitimate for the NYT to raise suspicions as is our right to press freedom. According to their statement (sent to the NYT and subsequently published when we declined to publish it) the “notion of collaboration itself [being] a source of some mirth amongst IPCC members” Despite this, details of the meeting still have not been made public. The New York Times does not feel that it is necessary to publish the whole statement as this issue threatens to overshadow the debate when there is more at stake than the reputation of the IPCC. However, in the interests of journalistic obligations to disseminate information, we advise that it is available via Moodle.

This confusing array of issues are real for all of the parties involved. How will the various delegations negotiate this minefield of information? And that includes the IPCC.

WASHINGTON — The American Petroleum Institute’s headquarters are a nondescript office building on L Street in Washington, DC.  I was expecting something with more glass and less concrete.  An overly ambitious intern greeted me at the door, squashing any thoughts I had that I was in the wrong place.  Leading me up to the top floor, I could instantly tell he had been well rehearsed for this moment, a feeling I got throughout my day at API.  The intern, Mike, a student at the near by George Washington University, gushed to me about API’s dedication to new energies and how wonderful his unpaid internship was.  I asked him if he got free lunch.  His face dropped, “No.”

Mike dropped me off in a conference room that was not filled with, as I had hoped, images of sunsets over oil fields.  For, American Petroleum Institute, or simply API, is the oil industries trade group.  Made up of around 400 companies that are involved with the oil and natural gas industries. It deals with education, advocacy, certification, and perhaps, most importantly, lobbying.  In the run up to the Copenhagen conference, API has been increasingly active in improving the oil industries global image.

Lucas Fülling, CEO of API and the companies vice president, Victoria Harris walked into the conference room shortly after I arrived.  Mr. Fülling is boyishly handsome and looks like he belongs more in movies than in the boardroom.  Ms. Harris was plucked from the finest schools across the pond in her native England.  Her accent and quintessential English beauty seem to lend the organization a certain refined, intellectual quality, that a brazen American couldn’t contribute.  And they, like their intern are well versed in public image.

API has been extremely active in America in the lead up to Copenhagen, loudly criticizing the Obama administrations climate initiatives and protested the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.  The EPA by arguing the emissions effect public health, will be able to regulate them sans the backing of Congress (this effort was finalized just days after our interview took place).  Yet, Mr. Fülling insists that API is leading the way in climate change initiatives, despite these facts.

Citing examples, he stated, “We spent 58 billion dollars in the last six years on renewable energy research and it made up half of the US budget for renewable energy initiatives.  And ExxonMobil currently has a commission with the European Union on Carbon Capturing.  BP is doing a lot with wind energy, Shell is doing a lot with renewable energy, so all our members are combining their research in order to lead the way for the future.”  Ms. Harris quickly added to this, “As well as simultaneously reducing their emissions as they go.”

These initiatives are impressive, considering just ten years ago the API venomously denied climate change.  And yet, the organization’s hopes for Copenhagen will enrage most climate change activists and progressive governments.  When asked what kind of resolution his organization would support in Copenhagen, Mr. Fülling strongly stated, We’re not supporting any fixed resolution that has static outcomes and is not efficient.”

For, API believes that a fixed resolution would require too quick of a transition because in Mr. Fülling’s words, “We cannot do it right now.  The technology is not ready for it.  The costs are too high for it.  You need to remember it takes time.  It’s just not possible.”

These beliefs will not be easily accepted by most at Copenhagen and indeed the organization recognizes the oil industry’s public image problem.  Since 2007 API has been on a public outreach campaign, courting bloggers and the public to recognize the good in the oil industry.   Ms. Harris answers my question about the oil industry’s negative image and its demonization by some environmental groups by stating, “I think it’s entirely easy to demonize our industry because we are quite united in our move forward and in what we believe.  The environmental lobby may claim that we spend an awful amount of money but it’s only because we do so as a whole.  While they are fractured and can’t agree among themselves.  Which isn’t helping our own efforts towards green technologies.”

API, with its views on environmentalists and binding resolutions is certainly not going to be loved by all in Copenhagen.  And yet their presence cannot be denied.  Especially since they have two charismatic executives and their powerful lobbying force, backed by millions of dollars, ready to battle any initiative they see as threatening to their members.