Happy Nice Mall

WASHINGTON — As the Biden administration’s #2 global climate ambassador, Jonathan Pershing, who traveled to 21 countries last year to negotiate an international climate deal, is leaving his post next month.

Mr. Pershing embarks on an uncertain moment for global climate action.

At a UN summit in Glasgow last year, nearly 200 countries reaffirmed their views. commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). But almost none of them, including the United States, have policies to achieve this goal.

Instead, they agreed to meet again in November in Egypt, where they will pledge to take stronger action. China, the biggest polluter, did not agree to further limit greenhouse gas emissions, but signed a joint statement with the US in Glasgow and promised to work together on the effort.

Pershing, 62, a senior diplomat who has served under four presidents and helped negotiate the 2015 Paris climate deal, was a US climate ambassador before resigning at the end of the Obama administration to lead the Hewlett Foundation’s climate programs in California. He plans to return to the same job.

Long and professor bearded once had his own Twitter accountMr. Pershing is known for his vast knowledge of important details, which can easily indulge in details about a country’s energy data, national politics, or a decade of scientific work. His boss, John Kerry, described Mr. Pershing as a “walking encyclopedia”.

Mr. Kerry said in a statement that when President Biden elected him as special envoy on climate change, one of his first steps was to bring Mr. Pershing back to Washington.

“After four years of distance and insecurity, we needed not only the A team but also the A+ team to rebuild our credibility and diplomacy,” Kerry said.

Mr. Pershing spoke this week about the challenges of getting nearly 200 countries to work together to solve a global problem. Speech edited for length and clarity.

Q: Why are you leaving?

A: I wanted to come for a year. He had felt to me that the system had really been dismantled in the previous four years, that there was really nothing left. And I felt that people like me who had a tenure before, who could come at the very least and move things forward quickly, would make an important contribution to the climate change effort.

Last time I left, I didn’t think I’d be back in government. And I came back because I felt this was a moment when my ministry could be helpful. It was never intended to be a permanent exercise. It needed to be a chance to help recreate or create something new, recreate the capacity and rebuild that in a very short window.

Q: What do you consider to be your greatest achievement over the past year?

A: I think for all of us who are deeply connected to the climate agenda, the previous four years were a real setback, and during these four years the climate has not stopped changing. So it was really a chance for us to step in and really get things moving.

The one big win, I think, is a pretty important step we’ve taken in Glasgow.

We got a big move from the big players. I think there has been a real change from China.

Q: Really? from China?

A: Absolutely. Think about where we’re going in our conversation with the Chinese. China was saying, “Don’t worry, we’ve taken care of this, we’ll get back to you.”

what we have now a series of highly detailed plans. Doing everything they say may not be enough, but they are light years ahead from where they were a year ago.

My colleagues at the NGO and the academic community, which is the lifeblood of many intellectual discourses in China, said that because of the US-China joint statement, they are now fully empowered to work on the details of the implementation. . And to me, that’s what you need. Because it’s not just about saying something big at Davos or the UN, it’s about how you deliver on a technical level everything necessary to make it a reality.

Q: Countries’ targets are currently not enough to keep temperatures 1.5 degrees. The Glasgow agreement urged countries to return next year with more ambitious targets. But we’ve already seen some countries say, ‘This does not apply to us” How can Glasgow be called a success if the countries are not truly committed to returning with more ambition?

A: We make the mistake of assuming that any moment solves the problem. This is a stubborn, difficult, nasty problem. And we’ve made a lot of progress. He doesn’t say there is nothing else to do. Both of them.

About 10 years ago there was a report by the World Bank on what the world would look like – not four degrees [Celsius temperature rise above pre-Industrial levels], but at three. We’re now close to a two-degree number. And we were pretty close to a rise of three degrees. This is not enough. But for the global community the difference between two and three is very close to what is existential for many of our weakest and most vulnerable people.

There is a huge gap between where we are still and where we all need to reach. And we have to do this additional work. But I think both can be done at the same time.

Q: What is your level of optimism that countries will limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees?

A: I think 1.5 is technically achievable and politically difficult indeed.

The optimism in my mind is that there is a way. And the reason I say it this way is because I look at the world and the world is consumed by a host of global problems and other threats and political conflicts. I also see some willingness – maybe not enough yet, but a little bit – willing to put some of that aside and join the climate front anyway. And to me that is huge.

Here we were doing trips last year despite Covid. While Covid is a threat, we have been able to address this long-term crisis. And I think about the difficult relations with the USA and China or the USA and Russia. However, we went to China and were greeted in China and talked to senior executives. And we went to Moscow and got engaged to the top leadership.

The optimism, however, comes from the fact that people are ready to sit down and talk about the climate agenda in the face of other constraints.

Q: When do you think John Kerry is leaving? And do you think the next climate ambassador should have the same star power?

A: I don’t know. I don’t think you know. You should ask him.

Secretary Kerry was in some ways very relevant to the moment, a need at that moment to reflect US commitment and involvement, and her star power was crucial. I think it’s still incredibly valuable. And I hope it stays for a long time and does that for a while. But I think you can have a lot of people who can fulfill the function that the US should be projecting. I think others can. I don’t think anyone can do it as well as he did. I don’t think anyone can do it the way he did this first year.