Negotiating Climate Change

Summary

The Political Scene | The New Yorker Episode: Negotiating Climate Change Date: December 5, 2014

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, host Dorothy Wickenden leads a nuanced discussion with Elizabeth Kolbert (New Yorker staff writer) and Robert Stavins (director of the Environmental Economics Program at Harvard Kennedy School) on the challenges of global climate negotiations. The conversation centers on outcomes and prospects from major climate summits, especially in the wake of the recent U.S.–China climate agreement and the ongoing United Nations conference in Lima, Peru. The guests analyze international climate policy, national achievements and setbacks, and the political and economic obstacles to meaningful action—offering both a sober assessment and cautious optimism regarding progress.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Shift in International Climate Negotiations

(03:01 – 05:00)

• Division of Countries & Emissions Coverage:
  • The world has long been split between industrialized (Annex I) and developing nations. Developed countries’ emissions are now flat or declining, while developing countries, including China and India, drive emissions growth.
  • The Kyoto Protocol’s second period covered only 14% of global emissions; newer frameworks, notably following the recent U.S.–China accord, could soon cover over 40%, marking substantial step forward.
  • Quote:
    “The current structure under the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol covers only 14% of global emissions. ... We've gone from 14% being covered to more than 40% being covered.”
    — Robert Stavins (04:00)

2. Assessing the U.S.–China Climate Agreement

(04:12 – 06:27)

• Short-Term vs. Long-Term Impact:
  • Critics argue the accord won’t cut CO₂ soon; Stavins and Kolbert counter that it’s a critical foundation for future progress.
  • Quote:
    “It’s terribly misleading to look at the short term. ... We’ve got the right foundation for meaningful steps going forward, and we didn’t have that before.”
    — Robert Stavins (04:22)
  • Kolbert points out the move's political significance in the U.S. and the risk that voluntary commitments may be insufficient or unrealized.
  • Quote:
    “Unfortunately, as with all climate talks, the proof is going to be in the pudding. ... If this next round is just voluntary commitments, then we have to see whether anyone lives up to them.”
    — Elizabeth Kolbert (05:01)

3. U.S. Domestic Climate Progress and Political Constraints

(06:27 – 08:59)

• U.S. Policy Achievements:
  • Increased vehicle fuel efficiency standards and the Clean Power Plan are noted as significant contributions but subject to legal and political instability.
  • Quote:
    “This administration ... has done as much as it can possibly do on the climate change front given the polarization in the Congress.”
    — Robert Stavins (06:41)
  • Kolbert raises doubts about whether the U.S. can fulfill even voluntary reduction pledges, given congressional resistance and legal challenges to EPA regulations.
  • Quote:
    “Can you really start making real progress on this issue if you don’t have buy-in from Congress, which is essentially ... the buy-in from the American people?”
    — Elizabeth Kolbert (07:39)

4. Public Opinion and Political Dynamics

(09:33 – 10:54)

• Changing Views but Limited Political Pressure:
  • Public acceptance of climate change is rising, and political discourse has shifted from denial to debate over solutions and costs.
  • Quote:
    “We’re seeing something different now, actually ... it is a legitimate problem. And now the discussion is more on, well, what’s the effective path forward.”
    — Robert Stavins (09:45)

5. Economic Consensus on Climate Action

(10:54 – 12:19)

• Mainstream Economists’ View:
  • General support for internalizing the ‘social cost of carbon’—estimated at $40/ton—to account for economic damages and guide policy (taxes, cap-and-trade, etc.).
  • Acknowledgement that risks of catastrophic climate feedbacks are now a part of economic analysis.
  • Quote:
    “There’s also ... an emerging consensus ... that what we need to worry about is not just what the expectation is ... but what if it turns out there are positive feedback loops ... catastrophic events. ... That’s also now mainstream thinking from the economics community.”
    — Robert Stavins (11:08)

6. Looking Ahead: The Lima Summit and Paris Agreement

(12:19 – 13:05)

• Expectations for Lima:

  • Lima is a stepping stone toward the 2015 Paris Agreement, which should set binding frameworks for monitoring and accountability.
  • Quote:
    “What I hope to see come out of this is going to be the building blocks of the 2015 Paris Agreement that combines nationally determined contributions with some meaningful monitoring, reporting, verification and comparison.”
    — Robert Stavins (12:25)

• European Perspective & Cautious Optimism:

  • Kolbert, speaking from Europe, notes European disappointment, as their ambitious actions have not been matched globally.
  • Stresses the irreversible nature of climate damage: “...unfortunately, while there are a lot of good things to point to ... the bottom line is when you actually look at the numbers which are all that count, they’re not that hopeful.”
    — Elizabeth Kolbert (13:05)
  • Balances credit for recent breakthroughs with realism about the seriousness and permanence of the challenge.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Robert Stavins on progress since Kyoto:
  “For many years ... the countries of the world were divided into two groups ... What’s happened now is ... from 14% [of emissions] being covered, to more than 40%...” (03:01)
• Elizabeth Kolbert on voluntary action:
  “If this next round is just voluntary commitments, then we have to see whether anyone lives up to them.” (05:01)
• Dorothy Wickenden on the U.S. role:
  “Isn’t it somewhat appalling, Rob, that after China, America is still the world’s second biggest polluter?” (06:27)
• Stavins on U.S. limits:
  “This administration ... has done as much as it can possibly do on the climate change front given the polarization in the Congress.” (06:41)
• Kolbert on public and congressional buy-in:
  “Can you really start making real progress on this issue if you don’t have buy-in from Congress, which is essentially ... the buy-in from the American people?” (07:39)
• Stavins on Republican rhetoric:
  “For quite a long time it was deniers or climate skepticism ... now ... it is a legitimate problem.” (09:45)
• Kolbert on irreversible impacts:
  “When you’re talking about climate change, you’re talking about irreversible effects. ... even if we live up to these commitments. So it’s a very, very mixed picture.” (13:05)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 01:36–02:47: Introduction to the episode and guests
• 03:01–04:12: Stavins explains evolution of international climate agreements
• 04:12–06:27: Debating the effectiveness of the U.S.–China climate agreement
• 06:27–08:59: U.S. policy advances and political/legal challenges
• 09:33–10:54: Shifts in American public and political attitudes
• 10:54–12:19: Economic perspectives on climate action
• 12:19–13:05: Outlook for Lima and the path to the Paris agreement
• 13:05–14:41: European disappointment and overall risks/irreversibility

---

Final Thoughts

The episode offers a thorough, candid analysis of both advances and entrenched obstacles in international and U.S. climate policy. While panelists acknowledge significant recent diplomatic achievements and a shift in global participation, they remain clear-eyed about the challenges posed by voluntary commitments, political gridlock, and the creeping, irreversible nature of climate change. Actionable optimism is tempered by a sobering recognition of what is at stake.

For listeners seeking a compact yet sophisticated discussion of climate diplomacy’s state circa 2014, this episode delivers insight, context, and the lived ambiguities at play in global environmental politics.

Transcript

[Mint Mobile Advertiser]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com newyorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[Squarespace Advertiser]

This episode is brought to you by Squarespace, the all in one platform that makes it fast and easy to create your own professional website, portfolio or online store. For a free trial and 10% off, go to squarespace.com scene and use offer code SCENESC a better web starts with your website.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and editors about politics. It's Thursday, December 4th. I'm Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of the New Yorker. Last month at the G20 conference in Brisbane, President Obama reiterated the urgent need to take on climate change all countries.

[Robert Stavins]

Whether you are a developed country, a developing country, or somewhere in between, you've got to be able to overcome old divides, look squarely at the science, and reach a strong global climate agreement next year.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

This week, representatives of 193 countries are convening in Lima for the first conference on global warming since Copenhagen in 2009. This meeting comes after the release of a dire report from the UN saying that if by 2100 all greenhouse gas emissions don't fall to zero, the world will fail as they put it, severe, widespread and irreversible consequences. We have our own authorities here today to talk about the bad news and, I hope, some good news about climate change. Elizabeth Kolbert, a staff writer for the magazine, and Robert Stavens, director of the Environmental Economics Program at the Harvard Kennedy School. Welcome back, Rob.

[Robert Stavins]

Nice to be with you, Dorothy.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So you have been a participant, correct me if I'm wrong, at every one of these summits since Kyoto, and progress has been, not surprisingly, agonizingly slow. What has been achieved since then?

[Robert Stavins]

So here's what's happening is that for many years, going back to before Kyoto, to a conference that took place In Berlin in 1995, the countries of the world were divided into two groups. What was the industrialized world as of 20 years ago, and then the rest of the world. The emissions from those industrialized countries, that list called the Annex 1 countries, are essentially flat to declining for a variety of reasons. The growth in emissions is from the other countries. Those other countries have never been under a legally binding agreement of any kind. And importantly, that includes the large emerging economies of China, India, Brazil, Korea, South Africa, Mexico and Indonesia. The current structure under the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol covers only 14% of global emissions. What's happened now is that under a new structure that's emerging that started in 2011 as a result of the joint announcement from China and the United States and Beijing a couple of weeks ago, we've gone from 14% being covered to more than 40% being covered.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

So let me just interrupt you right there, because critics have been saying about the China US accord that it won't really reduce CO2 levels. So what do you say to that?

[Robert Stavins]

You've got to look at the long term in this, and it's terribly misleading to look at the short term. Emissions had to be reduced. In fact, they actually have to get to zero eventually and probably even remove carbon from the atmosphere by the end of the century. The question is, what's the best way and the fastest way of getting there? It turns out that focusing on a very narrow set of countries, as we did in Kyoto, and looking for aggressive emissions cuts in the short term doesn't do anything. What we need is the right foundation, and in my view, the promise is definitely there. We've got the right foundation for meaningful steps going forward, and we didn't have that before.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Betsy, what do you say to that?

[Elizabeth Kolbert]

Well, I think that, you know, unfortunately, as with all climate talks, the proof is going to be in the pudding. I agree with Rob that You know, we were getting nowhere. So you have to say that on some level, the U. S. China agreement is a very major step. It really removes an argument against climate action in this country which was always, well, the Chinese aren't participating, so it doesn't make any difference. And I do think that's a politically very important step that's been taken. But first of all, the US Is pushing that these not be binding commitments, that these all be voluntary commitments. And, you know, binding commitments were not all met even at the point that they were made. So maybe that doesn't make any difference. But obviously, if this next round is just voluntary commitments, then we have to see whether anyone lives up to them. And that's one question. Then the next question is, okay, China has committed to having its emissions peak in 2030. Even if they live up to that, the question is, what does it mean? And there's a distinct possibility that by 2030, Chinese emissions could basically equal total global emissions right now. So we are taking steps, but as Ross suggested, also the steps that we need to get to, the place that we need to get to is so distant that it's very, very hard to know how far we've gotten here.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Also, isn't it somewhat appalling, Rob, that after China, America is still the world's second biggest polluter? You know, we talk about developing nations, but here we are. So what are the most significant advances this country has achieved in the last decade?

[Robert Stavins]

Well, the first thing to recognize is that, you know, we don't have a parliamentary system, and the fact that our head of state has a particular view does not mean that the Congress has that view. And they recognize that this administration, and I'm bipartisan, but this administration, let's acknowledge, has done as much as it can possibly do on the climate change front. Given the polarization in the Congress. What has it done in particular? It's accelerated the heightening of fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles, which have brought down emissions tremendously and will have profound effects from now to the year 2035. In addition to that, it's put in place a proposal, a very important one called the Clean Power Plan in June of this year that would reduce emissions in the electric power sector. Now, that's not going to be finalized until a year from now, and it's going to be subject to litigation. And obviously, things could change tremendously depending upon who wins the White House two years from now.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Betsy, what about all that?

[Elizabeth Kolbert]

Well, I think the question of moving forward and the question of whether the US can really continue on this path and make meaningful progress. One of the key elements of what the US has put forward is its own commitment, once again, voluntary, which you can interpret as, you know, the best possible situation in a very, very bad possible world. But the commitments that the US has made are all the result of the CAFE standards, as Rob said, of fuel efficiency or of the power plant regs which are being working now their way through the epa. Those regs are open to legal challenge. We now have some pretty serious legal challenges to the EPA's authority that are going to go to the Supreme Court, which I don't think anyone is very happy to see. But can you proceed? Can you really get the kind, even the kind of reductions that Obama promised, even if all the regs are put into place? I think most people would say you can't. And then the second thing is, can you really start making real progress on this issue if you don't have buy in from Congress, which is essentially, I have to say, the buy in from the American people. So while I really think we have to applaud the administration for saying this is the best we can do in a bad situation as a country, we have to ask ourselves, really, is this the best we can do?

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Okay, we're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back after a word from our sponsor.

[Squarespace Advertiser]

This episode of the Political Scene is brought to you by Squarespace, the all in one platform to create your own professional website, portfolio or online store. Squarespace is simple and easy to use with beautiful design and 24. 7 support through live chat and email. When you sign up for Squarespace, make sure to use the offer code SCENES C E N E. You'll get 10% off your first purchase and you'll also show support for this podcast. Go to squarespace.com scene now back to Dorothy Wickenden.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Rob, what about public opinion in the United States? How much has public opinion changed? And at a certain point, doesn't the pressure of that affect Congress and some of these measures?

[Robert Stavins]

Well, in the United States, concern about the environment generally and climate change most recently has always been a second order issue at best. So it usually shows up after, you know, the economy. The economy and then a few other things. So the opinion has changed in terms of the mean, that's certainly true that climate change is now accepted by a broader swath of the population. So public opinion has changed. What I think is more striking, really, is that there has been a change in public pronouncements from people in the Republican Party, elected officials in Washington and the House and the Senate, and that is that for quite a long time it was deniers or climate skepticism. It's not really a problem. And then we went into this period in which the talking point was, well, I'm not a scientist, so I don't know. And it was me agnostic. We're seeing something different now, actually, and that is that it is a legitimate problem. And now the discussion is more on, well, what's the effective path forward. Questioning the agreement with China, talking about the cost. At least that can lead to a more intelligent debate in Washington. I'm obviously trying to be positive here.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Yes, you are, Rob, you are an environmental economist. And one of the questions is whether there's any economic consensus on how strong measures to limit carbon emissions will affect economic growth.

[Robert Stavins]

I think that it's fair to say that the economic consensus in the US of mainstream economists is supportive essentially of what came out of a interagency task force in the Obama administration and what they call the social cost of carbon. What that refers to is what are the damages of each unit of CO2 that goes up globally in economic terms, and therefore that tells us what the carbon price should be, whether it's through a cap and trade system, a carbon tax, or some kind of a conventional standard. And that number is about $40 per ton. There's also, I should say now, an emerging consensus in the economics community that what we need to worry about is not just what the expectation is, what's the most likely climate change, and that's the $40 number. But what if it turns out that we're wrong? What if it turns out there are positive feedback loops in the environment that as a result of climate change, then we get melting of tundra and more methane releases as an ex low probability, but catastrophic events. And that's also now mainstream thinking from the economics community.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Getting back to Lima, Rob, what kind of agreement, if any, do you expect to emerge from those talks?

[Robert Stavins]

Well, what I expect to emerge from Lima is going to be something more than an outline of what the Paris Agreement will be, and that will set next year. That's a year from now. That's the deadline essentially for establishing an agreement that would then go into force in 20 when the Kyoto Protocol second commitment period sunsets. What I hope to see come out of this is going to be the building blocks of the 2015 Paris Agreement that combines nationally determined contributions with some meaningful monitoring, reporting, verification and comparison.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Betsy, any final word?

[Elizabeth Kolbert]

Well, the one thing that I would say from my viewpoint here, as I am in Europe right now is the Europeans are pretty disappointed. I mean, they feel like they have gone out on a limb. And I think that while once again, I do want to try, it's not my nature, but I do want to try to take a half full outlook here. And I do think that the Obama administration, the Chinese government, deserve a lot of credit for the agreement that they reached that set the ceiling on commitments. And so now all the commitments that we're going to have going forward are going to be in relationship to that. And so while it was a breakthrough, many, many people would argue it wasn't a good. And I have to stress, unfortunately, when you're talking about climate change, you're talking about irreversible effects. As Rob alluded to earlier, we're not talking about things that can be reversed. So you have to take this very, very seriously. And as Rob also alluded to, you have to take into account the possibility of things low probability, and we don't even know exactly what, how low probability, but very, very devastating consequences. So I think, unfortunately, while there are a lot of good things to point to, and I think things are in some ways more upbeat than they have been, the bottom line is when you actually look at the numbers which are all that count, they're not that hopeful. You know, we're baking in a lot of climate change, even if we live up to these commitments. So it's a very, very mixed picture. And it's not easy for people to wrap their minds around the sort of good news, bad news element. But I'm afraid that both are there.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

Okay, thank you both. This has been the political scene from the New Yorker. Elizabeth Colbert is a staff writer and Robert Stavens is a climate change expert and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This podcast is produced by Jill Dubeuff and Alex Barron. From newyorker.com I'm Dorothy Wickenden.

[Squarespace Advertiser]

You can subscribe to this podcast and other free New Yorker podcasts in the iTunes store. The weekly audio edition of the magazine is [e-mail] New Yorker subscribers can access the digital edition for tablets and phones at no extra charge from the App Store or from Google Play.

[Katie Drummond or Michael Colory or Lauren Good]

I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's Global Editorial director. I'm Michael Colory, Wired's Director of Consumer Tech and Culture.

[Dorothy Wickenden]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show Uncanny Valley is all about the people, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[Katie Drummond or Michael Colory or Lauren Good]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives. So each week on the show, we get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech.

[Robert Stavins]

Right?

[Katie Drummond or Michael Colory or Lauren Good]

So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you. Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you don't miss an episode.

[Elizabeth Kolbert]

From prx.