tv Brookings Institution Hosts Discussion on the Paris Climate Agreement CSPAN December 22, 2016 4:14am-5:37am EST
>> military force is one of the things i think the american people gets impatient about it because they really believe they have this trump card this great military that can defeet anyone. but it's not true. it is an extraordinary military, it is very powerful but can only win in certain situations and it can only really destroy things. it can't build a new order in its place. what we don't want to do is respond in such a way that will produce more of these militant organizations. they want us to overreact. they want us to occupy muslim
countries so they can build their recruitment. they want us to torture people. they want us to do things that's going to allow them to make their case against us. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> one year ago, 194 countries signed a treaty in paris to reduce global carbon emissions. two countries have pledged the largest cuts in emissions. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> good afternoon.
it is a pleasure to welcome you to the program cohosted by the center of east asia policy studies. an initiative on energy and climate. a year ago, a long-awaited rake through took place when negotiators from 194 countries reached a climate change agreement in paris. with the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions. in less than a year, the agreement has entered -- undoubtably, the paris agreement was a remarkable breakthrough. successful hinge on the post paris agenda. we were talking about the task of implementation. climate change has been a priority item in the agenda to lobalize the alliance.
as underlined by the joint vision statement that leaders of both countries signed in april 2015. as two of the largest in the world, domestic measures adopted by the united states and japan to me the paris emission, will loom large in the overall success of the efforts. challenges are steep. we know in the aftermath of the fukushima accident, japan had to depend more on fossil fuels and the progress on her nobles has not been as fast as many had hoped. in the united states, there are fresh questions about the implementation of the climate agenda meant -- agenda commitment. a lot of uncertainty about energy policy that the incoming administration will pursue. help us make sense of the shifting situation, we have a panel of experts who will help us understand better the nature of the paris agreement and the challenges ahead to ensure successful implementation.
let me introduce briefly in the order i will ask them to come make their presentations. then i will have a conversation with all of you. i want to start with my colleague, david, cochair on energy and climate and professional -- professor of international relations. in his wider recognized work, david has combined an understanding of the science of climate change with knowledge about domestic public policy formulations process. the united nations intergovernmental panel in the united states. -- is deputy chief of the nergy in washington. japan chief negotiator for climate change. we are very much looking forward to learning his insights given that he was in
the middle of the paris negotiations. i would like to thank the embassy of japan for generous support that made this event possible and brookings commitment to independents and underscore the views expressed are those of the speakers. fellow for energy and technology, she served as deputy assistant secretary for asia, europe, and america. a distinguished career in government. not only the department of energy but the department of ommerce. she has written on energy issues. a climate policy analyst at the new policy institute. manages the climate action trackers which monitors the commitments and actions of countries and he is the lead author of the 2016 emissions
gap report of the united nations environmental program. his research focuses on national policy to reduce greenhouse gas and he has conducted extensive research on japan's post fukushima energy and climate policies. i am thankful to all of the panelists but here especially. he and his wife are expecting a child any minute now and he agreed to be here today still. thank you very much. david: sounds like we should be specially grateful to your wife in particular. thank you for the nice
introductions. i want to sit five things to we have each been given 10 to 12 minutes to talk about introductory remarks. i want to say five things in the time i have here it i want to say some nice things about the paris process before we talk about uncertainties and so on. i have written over the last 25 years a lot about why international friction on climate change will be hard to organize. i thought the agreement was an agreement designed to fail. i thought almost all of the efforts were designed to fail in one way or another. i think we have to recognize the process which is more flexible allows to make their own pledges for what they will do, start with things that are in your self interests and ratchet forward.
that is the right kind of process for a problem of this structure. it is a processor that -- process that largely mirrors the goals of the architects that created it and the united states and china here. knowing a fair bit about the japanese industry, the process is much better aligned with japan self-interest. the process looks a lot like what the george w. bush administration tried to put in place and is a replacement after all of the blowback from when they unsigned that protocol. one thing, as the trump administration goes, tweeting things about climate change, to actually governing and recognizing there are other countries going on, we will see there is a tremendous amount of support for the process. that process largely reflects u.s. interest. the introductory comment is important because we need think about ways to keep elements of paris constructive even as other parts of it even face pressure from a new
administration. what will the trump administration actually do in this area? my colleague has written a terrific piece about this question. there are a lot of interesting scenarios. they are distinct and have different options. this territory is well understood. so-called canceling or withdrawing from the paris agreement, a four-year process. options of turning down the entire house and withdrawing from climate change. other options involve simply getting engaged less in the paris process and going off and doing other things. small groups akin to what the george w. bush administration did after it would true from the kyoto.
it is crucial to emphasize, this is one of the many things we have learned, we do not know what will unfold. it is easy to look at the incoming administration and the deny lists at epa and other forces and imagine this is an administration that is hostile to climate policy. you can look at other people, the currentboss of exxon mobil. you look at treasury, commerce, you see folks engaged with a wide range of global issues and no the value of global institutions. you can imagine the cabinet discussions will be heated on this. it is difficult to figure out where the process is actually headed. almost none of this is part of the campaign. you have people who have taken power and see a mandate for change.
they see a mandate around policy, not the sign, you see folks who believe they have a mandate for change. this is the most peripheral part of the kind of change being asked for. i mention that because i think there is an opportunity to engage with the administration to find reasonable ways of disengaging or living up to campaign promises. take an aspect of this that has received a lot of reaction from the campaign, which is to cancel the funds that will go to the climate fund. to cancel the remaining $2.5 billion. there are a lot of waste to cancel it. you can say i'm taking my money and not giving it to you and we will spend it on other stuff at home and goodbye, or you can do
at the chinese are doing, to spend the money through other mechanisms. spend it in mechanisms that are more comfortable and more a lot -- more reliable. this is thinking carefully about different ways of disengaging and shifting the engagement on climate change is the real way to engage with and talk with the incoming trump administration. i am cautiously optimistic that will find a welcome audience. what will be the effects if the united states disengages by brian dunn the house or become engaged in other kinds of echanisms and so on? a clear effect will be the loss of u.s. leadership. this is an area where the united states has played a major role and the obama administration played a major role in creating a set of -- institutions that largely reflect capabilities. a playbook on climate change that is not complete.
it is instructive to remember if you look at the length of the paris agreement and the length of the decision, that lays out all of the things that were not done, the decision is longer than the paris agreement itself and lays out a lot of things that need to be done. number one on my list of things that need to be done that have not been done, number one on the list are me, is to build a review mechanism. this is what people call a pledge and review system. countries pledged to make a in omissions, and you review them and cooperation emerges as you review and learn what different countries are doing in their experiences with this. pledge and review in my mind is a good idea but it requires review and we have pledges of variable quality and no review mechanism. someone needs to step up to the plate and divide examples of how the review will be done.
interesting things came out of the g 20 meeting recently. he nice states and china had a review of their own efforts to review -- renewed -- remove fossil fuel subsidies. countries need to be there for how to review the mechanism and how it will actually work. possibly removing the money altogether, it is not a huge amount of money, $2.5 billion, but it will have us -- an effect on the confidence of the people involved in the process. especially to least developed countries, that those emissions are being honored. i think it will be harder to get a lot of other stuff done around the climate change agenda. it is crucial to remember that although the effects are moving on parallel processes i think law my leadership and possibly confidence, other countries
will not sit still. i have been struck by the extent to which the chinese remain committed to the process. i expect china to, if not have a leadership role, solidify support around the paris process. spain and norway and a bunch of thers, the chinese role is the most important and the indian role is most uncertain. we, the nine states and japan, have to ask ourselves, will that have an important mechanism that will have durable impacts on industrial economies without both of our countries, in particular this country, in some kind of a leadership role. this is geopolitics around energy and climate. the chinese role in the is really changing rapidly. we need to deal with that in a
serious and constructive way. the fourth of the five things i want talk about is policy here at home. most of the meeting is focused on bilateral relationship, but i think we need realistic expectations about what could possibly change at home here in the united states. and some things are clearly going to change, especially if the courts help the epa. we will see epa slow walk revisions to the point where the power plant is all but dead. in the news in the last 24 hours, the epa has basically given up on the trading rules around the powerplant. there are a variety of other areas where we will not see new rules and we might actually see some rollback of the existing rules. what is striking to me is how much will not change.
states doing a lot of different activities, to some degree doubling down on these activities. you have got industry, a lot of firms that are capital intensive, global firms, just because there is a wiggle on the clean powerplant, there is a tremendous amount of momentum related to the product cycle, related to the fact energy has changed very slowly there. that leads to the fifth and last thing i want to say. the trajectory of emissions in the united states. my expectation is the trajectory we are on will be unaffected by at least the first four years of a trump presidency. there might be a little more nuclear power which would help keep omissions down. marginal effects on omissions, they might attempt to roll back standards and so on but when
you take a step back and look at the whole system, the church rectory will not change much. this is a key point about the u.s. japan relationship. in my view, we are not on track to do 26% reduction admissions. i do not believe japan is on track. it does not mean the united states and japan are not doing anything. the marginal cost of what we're doing especially in japan is very high. our two countries have a tremendous common interest in shifting the debate around climate change and the paris process and other processes away from people focused on the numbers and timetables, and toward people focusing on actual costs of effort, strategies for reducing the cost of effort and making these more cost-effective. if we do not shift the debate
to that, we face a world where we are struggling to work on the climate change topic but not focused on what matters, the level of effort being made. it is an area where leadership is crucial and our countries need to find a way and japan is to help the incoming trump administration understand how important it is to be engaged in some way to review systems emerging in the area and emergent way to focus on real efforts to deepen cooperation over time. thank you very much. >> thank you for the kind of reduction. since i was a chief negotiator for japan on this agreement, zynga have to bring you why it was good, and why it was
ossible. do i just press it to change? right. i remember the moment this was adopted. the french foreign minister and french president were there and we were on the floor. i think there was about 3000 people. everyone was applauding for a long time. it was a moving moment in many ways after lengthy concerning processes, we were finally able to achieve. this kind of achievement is rare. uper busy, we started with the
conference on disaster risk reduction. we have sustainable goals. i think the united nations was very successful in the last year. this was the final push of his. the attractions of the paris agreement are actually there. first of all, everyone was there. more than 190 countries, i think it is 192 at the moment. they have already ratified this agreement. n a resell it the second attraction is bifurcation. difficult to understand at the
utset. this is simply to say, there was a clear difference between developed and developing countries. that is no longer the case. the element that made it possible is nationally etermined contributions. everybody comes up with their own contributions. hen make a pledge. you have two different meetings. other countries will look up what you're doing. the other element of review is
every five years, you have to review your own commitment. some kind of improvements are made on your policies. a third element, the third and fourth elements may not be so can the qs. these were one of the determining elements. there was a talk of 100 billion u.s. dollars worth of money from developed to developing countries both in private and public spheres. 2009, in cancun, and also, i have a strong part -- strong personal attachment. i have to get a pass in parliament to make the contributions possible. i will come back to the point later. the last element is very important. am not sure if you know why t is on the board at this less
moment. the key elements for india to come on board. you have u.s. initiative to double the expenditures. we have the india initiative to make it a lot more accessible -- acceptable. other than this, germany and france came up with -- later, the united states came up with -- this kind of initiative was very important in the success for the paris agreement. i will come back to it later.
i know many of you are aware at he time, other developed countries meaning, not only canada and others but also uropean countries, including the soviet union at that ime. though eastern european countries included their. they are bound by their agreement but not the others. this time around, everyone is bound. you can see china, the u.s., and india all combined. it is 40% off the entire world. times have changed a lot. the biggest one in china. it has developed a times our emission and the u.s. is five
point five more. india is there, those are the second tier countries. a lot of emissions. i just want to let you know the reality here. my main presentation is this. one part succeeded. i think this is a very important thing to consider when you talk about the future. first of all, there were some political elements. a sense of urgency, of france and germany playing an important role. i expect an initiative there. they did quite a lot. $100 million for the egotiations. the french government was working on this, including the president and foreign minister and her. the professor said, if a u.s.
played an important role in terms of removing bifurcation. that is very important. terrorism, as you might remember, the 13th of november, there were paris attacks. we thought it could be counseled because it was only a few weeks before. e were very much worried about that. the french government, i think the support of most of us, decided go ahead. on the 30th of november. on the 30th of november, we had head of state from about 150 countries. it was remarkable. as far as i remember, this was the biggest gathering ever
attempted why heads of state of government. hey are to show solidarity with french people and also, they wanted to show a measure to fight against terrorism. the measure is there. those are political elements. at the same time, it was compromised, because everybody ot what they wanted. european union leadership, not getting into details, this was a did -- a difficult thing. 1.45% was also there. a lot of the importance was no bifurcation. together with other countries, the u.s. fought very hard.
we tried to get them back on track here we fought very hard on this one. we had to make sure china and india are also on the board. that was very important. china and india i think they accepted the deal because this is review essentially. they had some resistance to international review of at their commitments but nonetheless. they came to an agreement. tenant will element is very important. other countries -- was very important. last year, throughout all of he negotiations, money was a
central issue. among negotiators, the cash dispenser. with all of climate and development and whatever it is, they always participate in the meetings and said we need more money. that is one of the most mportant reasons why the greement was possible. i seem to have only two minutes left. these are the commitments of major countries. this is what we are doing just for a short time. we are trying to reduce our emissions substantially, by 26%. there will be a reduction of
46% toward -- per gdp basis. 34% reduction. in the end, japan will be there. in the middle. we have left the eu, better than many other countries. actually 2025. that is about 13.3 in 2030. similarly, we are one of the best in the u.s. is there. this is again 725. 13.3 or so. 030, if the project is not damaged.
finally, the professor was talking about this corporation. i think last year, in the g 20 summit meeting, to president obama jointly announced will make a contribution of 3 billion. 1300 million. e made a commitment to 1.5 three in u.s. dollars. it was a joint initiative, part of 45% of the fund. we did it together. talking about the $100 billion thing, we clashed to shoulder something like $12 billion. both private and public.
hat we're doing is doing disaster reduction, early warning system, water supply, all these projects we are doing ere. we have a joint mechanism with 16 developing countries. i will explain it to you if you are interested so -- but i am running out of time. insured, it is a gigantic enterprise it has a lot of elements. we are in constant onsultations with american counterparts. another chief negotiator, it is one of the main topics for you. we need something like
that. we also have development issues, international health, we did have some areas where we worked together. our alliance is not just a political thing. it is a lot wider than that. global issues should be one of the areas that we have to continue working on. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i think what i would have said couple of months ago is totally a little different than what i will talk about today. i would talk a little bit about
agreements on the u.s. one were to keep in mind, that we have heard a little bit from other speakers, is uncertainty. all is uncertain. e do not know what u.s. energy policy will be. with that in mind, i think there are certain things we have to put into play, some of which we have heard today, that will affect how the united states if not the u.s. government reacts to paris moving forward. first, paris was not only about government to government cooperation anymore. there was much more of an emphasis on best practices. actions would put -- were put forward by 50,000 people who attended, a huge number.
by the city level, the state level, a lot of nonstate actors ade it clear they were going to take things on their own. even exxon mobil, our new ncoming secretary of state perhaps, called the paris agreement an important step forward by world governments and addressing the serious risk of climate change. i think the whole business community out there, many feel it is really still in their interests to be sustainable and take action. a letter was just sent i think in the last week from a group of cities in europe urging the u.s. counterparts at the city level to keep up their activities. carbon neutral city alliance. s we just heard, i think the
kyoto brought a lot of negative eelings in the u.s. because it was not universal. paris is universal. everyone is partaking and playing. perhaps a better awareness is that happens in the u.s.. i do not think everyone in the .s. realizes the big differences between paris and kyoto. we again heard a lot about technology innovation, really starting with something called the clean energy -- and some joint efforts, bilateral efforts put together while i was there as deputy assistant secretary. hina and clean energy.
ilateral efforts with indian clean energy and bilateral efforts with indonesia and clean energy, etc. we were starting to move away from just looking at the climate accord and the numbers to seeing what is it practical that we can do together. what is it in terms of technology that we will robably work on anyway that we should probably work on anyway to move forward. it is another tear that came out of that. we pledged double r&d. the u.s. department of energy spent the most and the government spends $25 billion. give or take what one ncludes. the fact is during the latest bush administration, i was at the department of energy and we were spending more r&d money on
clean energy than any country n the world. there ways to spend the money and look at it not just as climate but how it contributes to economic growth, how it pushes your high-tech industries. as we said before, it is not just u.s. government r&d, but also, if you look at bill gates and his announcement, the reakthrough coalition, it is also really looking at the private r&d that needs to be done and the investments are far beyond the reach of any of the governments that are there. perhaps china will maybe pick up the mantle and run with it. i agree with that you i'm not sure if china totally signed on
to the paris accord totally for climate reasons. i think it is mostly signed on because they see clean energy as a new and high-tech industry in which they want to be the global leaders and reap the benefits of economic growth and things from leading in that industry. others, including india issues with pollution with energy solution -- energy security. again, the activities we took under the bush and obama administration, and those two areas, are really almost the same as what we did for climate. u.s. companies will want to be a part of the global market. if the u.s. government and others do not stand up and really support that, i worry about long-term u.s. competitiveness. that said, i think we have seen the various things governor brown has said in the last couple of weeks. we want to be a part of the 285 point 9 billion renewables market that we see coming this
year. another point to keep in mind is there are estimates i have seen that there will be 145 million refugees in the world with a one meter sea rise. it is a major power in the world. the u.s. will be forced to do something with that. the emphasis might be on energy isaster, but again, it all feeds back into building a low carbon economy. the biggest question is, is there enough momentum in the world, without the united states, to keep the process moving along? i would argue there hopefully is.
we heard, whether it is merkel or abbé, who will hopefully pick up the leadership mantle and push with it, i think a lot of people like governor brown at the state level, for the u.s., will keep pushing for a lot of low carbon advances that we see. i think realistically in terms of economic growth and technological competitiveness, it would be very difficult for the u.s. to really maintain our edge in the lead in a race or a friendly competition. with china, japan, and others, f we don't invest. lastly, i think again as we heard earlier, there are some things in the energy market, the process will keep
going. i do not think we will see cole make a major comeback. gas is too cheap. one could argue that at least for the u.s. market, solar and wind are now market competitive and are getting even more so. we have a much better understanding among companies, universities, and others, that energy efficiency is not just about cutting energy. increasing productivity, saving and making money. less momentum, i do not see a total replacement for u.s. technological innovation. apan can pick up to some degree and the eu to some egree. i am sure there are scientists who keep doing what they can i think the investment we have made, we need to keep an eye on and encourage the incoming
administration to keep those investments growing. ford fire mental reasons. it is not just the climate issue. coal will be used in asia we have heard a lot about colder n the u.s. election. there is a hoped maybe that r&d money will go into sequestration. i do not know without the u.s. presence whether japan will be as successful as they would be if we joint together. making sure new: investments are as clean as possible. opportunities for u.s. japan collaboration, technological innovation i think is still an area where both of our countries excel in the world.
clean energy, work toward energy resilience, japan still needs to resolve its energy mix question after fukushima. there are areas for us to collaborate in nuclear energy and renewables, etc. capacity building together. energy resilience in developing countries. we see a huge storm, bigger storms than we see in the past coming in, at least when i was sharing our energy working group, that was a big issue on everyone's mind. building energy resilience with lectricity and other systems often means renewables, istributed energy, etc..
lastly, there is a lot of room for us to cooperate together in cyber security for the energy ystem. it is something we all have to do a lot better at. if we do not, there is a huge transformation in energy echnology and the energy conomy, while we look at the internet of things for taking off. we need to be able to ensure that we protect that environment. technology and capacity building in cyber security, those are areas i can see that we should work on together. thank you.
i would like to thank the brookings institution for having me here together with distinguished experts sitting here today. oday, i will present the implications of the paris agreement on japan's's climate policy more from a technical perspective compared to the previous presenters. i would like to go quickly through japan's climate mitigation policy. japan has national contributions by 26%, around 5% 2005.
that is now enshrined legally under the japan global warming countermeasures. a legally binding document for implementation. with regard to recent energy climate policy requirements, i would touch upon the tariff and other policies. in the last two years, japan has developed a new basic energy plan and related long-term energy and energy demand supply outlook, which became the basis for the formulation. also on non-energy-related emissions, japan has introduced law on the control, which is stringent. under the paris agreement, japan has not then it yet, but two have set up independently advisory councils and they are now developing their own dress and then they will combine and develop something that documents sometime next year. i guess you are all interested in what is happening with japan's power sector before and after a time here presenting what has happened, together with the 2030 plan described in the documents.
demand has continually been decreasing compared to 2010, power generation is about 10% lower. it seems the trend will continue for the next several years at least. when you look at the breakdown of the power generation, nuclear power has reduced from around 25% to almost zero. when it comes to coal power, for this use, hibernating coal ower plants, they have about
up to 25. at this moment, three reactors in operation. if all 25 would restart, then by 2030, these would supply about 17% of total power generation. you can see that renewable energy growth has been quite song -- quite strong partly thanks to the tariff scheme particularly for the solar technology. when you compare the recent developments with the 2030, it is uncertain whether the country is really going toward the direction that is planned. it is very uncertain. it can see that under current
policies, the agreement will remain the major generation source. he institute work together with our research organization. we have been tracking national mitigation efforts since 2009. we recently updated and analysis and you can see for japan, the target for 2030 compared to the global two degree goal, the ambition level is not sufficient, meaning that japan should set targets that are more ambitious and 26%. when you look at the climate and energy policies, the policy would not take japan to the 26% reduction. japan would have to implement more strength into policies to meet current targets. japan is not the only country. most countries around the world are not doing enough. you hear the emissions gap report. you look at the scenario in comparison to a two degree pathway, as laid out in paris agreements, the gap and 2030 is more than the total emissions from china today. you can understand the magnitude of that gap.
literature, we made the estimate of which time frame the countries would have to reach zero emissions four different categories. it would have be achieved by around 2050. and electricity has to be achieved even earlier, around 2040 or so. that is what models indicate. this is an enormous challenge. i will not discuss whether or not it is possible. it is an enormous challenge. if we want to stay on the compatible emissions pathway, we need to implement strong olicies well beyond energy efficiency improvements and address the low hanging fruit on the low cost for mitigating easures. that would include not only negatives emissions technologies but look into resource efficiency and reducing the energy service demand. if we are to be on track for the paris agreement goals, i will probably not be able to travel to washington dc for a one-day event. that would not be acceptable. i am showing an example of sector transformation that would be required to achieve paris goals. it is an example of the adoption of electric vehicles. as you can see, almost all new passenger vehicles still have to be electric vehicles before 040.
in case of the netherlands, known -- none of the advanced scenarios and organizations involved are anywhere close to that. achieving 100% or low emission vehicles by 2040 requires diffusion of unprecedented speed. it is way faster than how much the sill vehicles were adopted in the late 1990's, and way beyond japan's current target for 2030. it is an enormous challenge we are facing. when you look at, this is a particular case for passenger vehicles, there are signs that changes are happening.
you look at norway, almost 30% of new car registrations this year are electric vehicles. it is a small country and nonetheless it is quite interesting. in the netherlands and germany, there were political actions to phase out combustion engine cars by 2035. of course, it is not always finding but development is quite interesting. and for japan, the government has not set a new target -- a new target other than basic energy plan. the unit recently announced they would massively reproduce ehicles. they have always focused more on fuel-cell vehicles. this is also interesting to see. this is my last slide of the presentation. basically, we are facing an enormous challenge to stay on track for paris agreement
goals, we have to reach zero before 2050. if we want to do that, conventional analysis to marginal costs, these economic access -- assessments are just not enough. we have to go well beyond that and look into resource efficiency, into what changes our way of life, our lifestyle, all of these different aspects of the economy have to be taken nto account.
lastly, in some sectors like i showed, changes are already happening. japan can potentially lead the change together with the u.s. thank ou, very much. [applause] >> ok, so we are going to move on to a conversation among the panelists and we invite the audience to ask questions. i appreciate the presentations, they were on target and excellent and it is a challenging time to talk about energy and climate policy because you have been to panels
and one word that keeps appearing and that is uncertainty. after the presentations, despite the fact that there is uncertainty, what will be united states do? the nuclear option, engagement? i came out of the presentations with some level of optimism until i listened -- why? i think we've heard from the presentations that many other countries remain undeterred and continue reducing emissions with a commitment to the paris agreement and also because we heard that market trends, private sector investment strategies are already taking these things towards the path of clean energy. i would still like to probe on these uestions. and to ask you to go
deeper and interact with one another. the international evel, what may be the reaction from other countries, even after the recent -- the recent exit from the united states on two issues, about the paris greement or the climate change deemed under construction, we have not put the pieces together, we do not have the review part, fundamental to ultimate success. to deliver on the real part if the united states is not playing is traditional leadership role. we heard about the importance of a -- making shortly funding was there so developing countries could make progress in their
emission reduction targets. what happens if the united states is not there to provide the funds that we assumed would be there? you can address one another and your expectations of the international response and the future of the climate change regime it the united states advocates its leadership -- abdicated its eadership. >> i am grateful we will not disappear. whatever happens, i do see the paris agreement fully comprehensive, even if the united states withdraws, this will not lead to the demise of the entire structure f the paris agreement. who
will lead the process? in terms of political leadership, unless their actions next year are proved to be otherwise, european countries will continue to see initiative. we will be a part of it. people talk about china, china has their own reasons why they need to keep this agreement alive. i think they will be there. because of the technological innovations. collectively, countries will provide eadership. >> i will apologize, not trying to reach a california relaxed attitude but i throughout my back on saturday morning and no amount of vicodin could make it possible to set up. -- sit up. apologize for relaxing. i
agree with that assessment, it depends on how they exit, if they do so by disengaging, spending money on bilateral programs and calling it their contribution and doing other things in small groups, that will not be so toxic to the paris process and might be helpful in some regard by creating some mechanisms were other ideas are experimented with. it is an experimental list regimes, we do not know what works, we have lots of countries trying to do things that do not know what mechanisms will function. i do not know if that is the most ikely scenario but i think the trump administration will learn very quickly that other countries want this to work. it depends a lot on how we leave. it depends on what you mean by the word leave as clinton would say. i appreciated the scenarios of what might happen
on japanese energy policy, when we take a step back from this, the world is not on track to meet two degrees, there is no scenario essentially on this planet by which we need those ambitious goals. the entire world community starts to grapple with the fact that some things crucial to get countries to agree in paris will not be feasible and one of them is the long-term target. there is a difficult conversation it will have to happen about what our realistic goals, that does not need to happen immediately that it is overdue regardless of what the trump administration oes. >> to build upon what you just said, i like the word momentum. i think there is momentum to
keep a lot of these pieces going, especially city to city, state to state, a federal level, but i worry about when we come to that five-year point where we are exposed to come up to what was thought to be tronger commitments to reach perhaps these goals that were not -- that we are not on target to reach now. if the u.s. is not there, i am not sure how that happens. on the technology side, we played a very big role in working with other countries on their clean energy and if that goes down too much, i would worry not just about the u.s. -- very igh-tech technologies -- putting something forward to keep the momentum moving for
the country's that do not have the resources. >> i agree that the world has already gone beyond the point of no return. even if the u.s. pulls out of the paris agreement, the world will move forward. however, there will be some countries or certain sectors in countries that will think -- the u.s. is not taking action, why should we? that can happen in japan. >> i was talking about the optimistic message i heard from your presentations that wanted to address because the mystic message that was part -- has a mystic message part of the conversation -- pessimistic message part of the conversation. you showed us what a tremendous effort we would need to do, japan and the united states and other
countries to get us on track for admissions to be on target best emissions to be on target. instead of looking at numbers, we should look at the level of effort. how would that become a u.s.-japan dialogue? walk us through some discussions it would open. >> this is why leadership is needed on the review process, when we look closely on the review process after five dialogue? years, there will not already be enough data to know whether countries are implemented their policies. the first round will be a safe review process will -- where it is more procedural than substantive but this is why we need countries to show how it is done because there is no scenario by which 190 countries will agree on a consensus decision. you will not get consensus around things that
are very complicated and difficult where there will be some significant number of countries that do not want the mechanism to work, they do not want the mechanism to be intrusive, saudi arabia and russia, can you imagine them agreeing to an intrusive form of review system, it may happen eventually but it needs to start with demonstration. where countries are pledging not to make their best efforts and i m if we do not have leadership around the review mechanism, we will not know very much about the actual level of effort. i would think that is in our interest, maybe in the best interest of japan, the japanese program for emissions reduction with optimistic assumptions about the nuclear restart is a very expensive program and if you are worried about competitiveness, you have to focus on how to make emission
reduction in a way that is cost effective and link the different economist. unless you have the mechanism that reveals that information, you will not be able to get there. >> other comments? >> i totally agree, the g 20, the u.s. and china looking -- are in the process of reviewing subsidies. while the negotiation process gets underway at up and running, it took over a year for that and still not as robust as it could be so having leadership push on the review process is very important. >> the first point is our problems is in the area of nuclear regeneration, we used to have 54 reactors and then we lost 16 to fukushima -- 62
fukushima -- six to fukushima. we have restarted operations in three come it takes time. -- we have restarted operations in hree, it takes time. the cooperation between the u.s. and japan, technological innovations, this is an area where we can work together, regardless of what happens. technological investment has to come away with some kind -- on the beauty of price agreement, we have china and india on board. mainly because of the technological elements. we have to keep that. the u.s. possible withdrawal is very damaging. i am very concerned about an element --
coming from the u.s. withdrawal from international policy. >> let me bring in the audience, there will be a microphone, please wait for it. if you can say who you are and sk a concise question. >> a la lobe, attorney in washington -- alan loeb, attorney in washington, it reminds me of the clean air act i worked on in washington, there is momentum until the day there is not, at the point you get bogged down, u.s. yourself what do you do? the clean air act intentional to have backstop mechanisms so there was some sort of obstacle at one point, there was some other provision to drive things forward despite the resistance that might have appeared. one
of the things that makes me wonder is -- a quote by mark twain -- if you put all your eggs in one basket, guard the basket. in this case, we can guard the basket but the cleaner act example says that may not be good enough. one suggestion would be to have as a backstop mechanism a universal carbon tax that all countries agreed to and if somebody is a recalcitrant country and does not mean their obligations -- meet their obligations and starts tempting people with -- that people can gather together and say, everybody else i adopted a tax and this is a trade advantage, we will oppose the tax on them but they have not imposed on
themselves, what about that as a backstop activism? >> it is a blunt statement of life in international politics, there are very few backup mechanisms in foreign affairs as there are in domestic law in with such momentum, i do not think we are beyond the point of no return, i do not see us going back to the earlier days where there is nothing going on but i could see the system, if the u.s. exit the badly and other countries do not lead, the system going into a stasis. i am intrigued -- my economics training says to love the idea of a universal carbon tax. the roblem with that is it requires countries to agree. we know that they will not agree. i frankly am very intrigued by the idea of using trade
measures, there has been a lot of work and the tray lock community to broadly suggest you could deny trade countermeasures, border measures, in a way that would be wto compatible and create an incentive for countries to do something. we are not anywhere near there yet but it looks intriguing and requires enough countries who are willing to implement that and threaten that measure. those are not easy measures to threaten, the countermeasure is potentially ugly and there is still a lot of risks for the paris process right now. > this man in the front. >> we started this year with the objective to enable local communities to manage both culture, capital, and natural capital and integrated manner
which was special force in developing countries. my first question is -- how do you relate the paris agreement with ustainment development goal? are they reinforcing each other? i attended the annual meeting at the world bank and it did not appear clearly that be sustainable -- everyone was talking about connection between the paris agreement and sustainable goals. second, the united states federal government cannot do that much because the states are in charge of regulation. japan is quite advanced in many technologies, why don't you join in new projects like -- offer a unique contribution, knowledge, experience,
technology from the united states and from japan and try to address some critical issues very quickly and not talking about practical political, the european union union -- is much weaker, they lost their capacity to ask the countries to move forward. the same is oing on in france, pending the elections. and in germany. the u.s. and japan, get along, implement what you can do, and you can do a lot, and forget too much about global agreements. >> any comments? >> sustainable development of the relations between -- goals are 17 pillars, one is involvement. the link is very clear. climate change is for
the sustainable so the links are clear. yes, i think europeans are in trouble, more what is expected in a way but individual countries -- if the government does not change in france and in germany, we continued the initiative. it was meant to be the mechanism you were talking about, dcm is a financial institution that to be very flexible in terms of finance, they can do different activities involving countries. the best methodology -- i was a member of the board. the board meetings can be very rough. nonetheless -- it can play a very important role in coming up with new ways.
>> between the goals, there is emerging literature, one chapter in the report this year and other research organizations doing modeling analysis. they are not always reinforcing each other. for example, when you want to stay on the paris agreement, 1.5 degrees, you have to have a biomass technology which would require a huge amount of bioenergy which can compete with food production. there will be conflict within food security. >> it would require magical thinking, yes. >> other comments or should we take more questions? other questions from the audience? no? is there no more questions? i want to thank all the