Official Texts & Remarks

Berlin
May 4, 2007

Question: You came to Berlin to do some preparation talks with your German counterparts concerning the G8 Summit in June. Climate Change will be on the agenda in Heiligendamm, what is in your words the U.S. position on this topic.

Mr. Connaughton: The G8 leaders have come together to unify the agenda of Climate change, energy security and clean development globally. And so we are working together on the next steps we can take together to advance technologies and make them available around the world to help us address these three very important issues.

Question: On Monday we had the EU-U.S. Summit in Washington D.C. you were there for the press conference where Chancellor Merkel said we have a different approach to Climate protection. What are, in your opinion, the main differences here?

Mr. Connaughton: Let’s start with the main similarities. Which is there are many paths to a shared goal. President Bush and Chancellor Merkel think climate change is a serious issue. German and the United States in particular are spending a lot of money advancing technologies. And together we are implementing policies that include incentives, subsidies, partnerships with the private sector as well as mandatory programs. In America we have mandatory fuel efficiency vehicle requirements in Germany you have high taxes on fuel. They both push the same outcome: more fuel efficient vehicles, just different approaches.

Question: And the differences?

Mr. Connaughton: The differences are the European expression of a goal is different to the way we would express a goal. There are some differences about the mechanisms. Europe has chosen to use a cap in trade for power in industry. We are choosing to use different mandatory regulations and incentives. But again we are aiming toward the same objective which is substantially reducing the greenhouse gases and substantially improving our energy security.

Question: Some newspaper comments here describe the summit results of Washington as hot air. Would you agree on that?

Mr. Connaughton: the results of the summit in Washington were hugely consequential. First was the new economic framework, which sets a foundation for enhanced trade and economic opportunity between the U.S. and the EU. With that economic opportunity comes the resources to pay for the technologies that help us solve our climate change issue and help us solve the energy security issue. And we are very tangible: its clean coal, its efficiency, its renewable fuels and capturing methane. These are top priorities that are very specific.

Question: You spoke about goals. At the Spring Summit of the European Union in Brussels at the beginning of March, the Union has announced some climate goals. One is the twenty-percent reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020. Can you imagine that the U.S. will follow these aims one day?

Mr. Connaughton: Well, the U.S. has already set an ambitious goal to improve the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent by 2012. Now that involves an increase in emissions, but at a much slower rate. Ultimately we will stop the growth of our emissions and we will reverse them, just like we've done for air pollution. We are on a different path than Europe right now because we have a growing population and we have a very significantly growing economy, so you have to take that into account. But we are showing great success in decoupling economic growth from the increase in emissions, and that's exactly what you want to see.

Question: So another darling of the Europeans is renewable energy. This shall be 20 percent of the energy mix in 2020 as well. Some days ago you criticized these ideas as "out of date." Why?

Mr. Connaughton: What we need to solve the climate change issue is advanced technologies at every source. So we need coal-fired energy that can be produced with no emissions: we need a lot more traditional renewable sources like wind and solar. But you also have to expand your use of nuclear, which is zero emissions, and we have to look to other technologies like renewable fuels that have very low carbon dioxide footprints. So we need to look at the whole package, not just one.

Question: You said also in Washington, if I quote you right, "Serious climate policy is unthinkable without nuclear energy." What is the consequence of that?

Mr. Connaughton: When you look at the technologies available to us to stop the growth of greenhouse gases, nuclear energy is the only source we have right now that has zero emissions and can provide massive amounts of clean and affordable energy. So if you're goal is to seriously stop greenhouse gases, you have to be serious about expanding your use of nuclear energy as part of a portfolio that includes renewables and includes other technologies.

Question: The last point. Ten years ago right now, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was signed. The U.S. never made the ratification, or Australia. What could be the American contribution to a new contract after Kyoto?

Mr. Connaughton: Although the U.S. was unable to participate in Kyoto because the target we had was unrealistic. President Bush has committed more than 35 billions dollars of U.S. taxpayers' money to advancing the science, advancing the technology, and on international partnerships to help control emissions. As we go forward, we're going to build on a foundation of agreements between the U.S. and the European Union and agreements between the United States and Asia partners on technology advancement, and this will provide the foundation for future discussions.

Question: Thank you very much James Connaughton for this interview.

Mr. Connaughton: Thank you so much.