Today during a series of high level negotiations on article 6 of the Paris Agreement, I found the behavior of several of the delegations very interesting.
Firstly the behavior of the US delegation. The US delegation could not really be called the Trump delegation. The points they were making we’re well informed, reasonable, and in favor of the international climate regime in general. Further, the entire negotiating block that includes the US were perfectly aligned during the negotiations, and they coordinated a series of “interventions” where each member if the grouo reiterated their collective stance. I found this really interesting. Further it obviously frustrated some of the other groups, and this was brought up by the delegate from Tuvalu, who, without calling out the US by name, strongly rebuked the official stance of the US: “the United States will pull out of the Paris Agreement until such time that we can get a better deal for the American people.” This is directly at odds with the US and its allies dominating the negotiations on how to implement the paris agreement.
Really interesting – so what do you make of it? I don’t doubt that the delegates are acting in good faith, but at the end of the day, they don’t get to decide what action the U.S. will take (or not take). I guess one interpretation could be that they are biding their time and waiting for a new administration, or that they simply care about the climate and feel that a strong regulatory framework is useful, whether the U.S. follows it or not. But I suspect that both of those are too simplistic. This would be a great question to ask Liz if you see her again.