MODERATOR: Thank you and greetings to everyone from the U.S. Department of State. I would like to welcome our journalists who have dialed in from across the globe. Today, we are joined by U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, who will brief us on the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Talks. We will begin with brief remarks from Special Envoy Stern and then we will turn to your questions. At any time during the call, if you would like to ask a question you must press “* 1” on your phone to join the queue. Today’s call is on the record and will last approximately 30 minutes. And with that, I will turn it over to Special Envoy Stern.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Thanks very much, hello everybody thanks for joining the call. Let me just give you a few words up top, and then we can get into questions. Before I get directly into Bonn, a little context. The U.S. has been working very hard on the road to Paris, President Obama and Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and others all pushing hard at home and abroad to tackle this issue, and we are committing to an ambitious outcome in Paris as projection by all countries to reduce carbon pollution and spread the growth of a clean energy economy. There is a great deal to be done in Paris and we are at this point optimistic that we will get what we need. Leaders around the world are committed to this, I think we’ve seen a lot of momentum in the form of the target, the so-called INDCs that have been put forward by 152 countries representing over 85% of global emissions so far.

That’s a very big step forward but that said we’re obviously not there yet in terms of what needs to get done for Paris. The discussions in Bonn this week represented a mass formal negotiating session before Paris, although obviously by no means the end of diplomatic activity. Countries considered a negotiating text that was submitted by the co-chairs of the process while there were serious differences expressed and discussed, this is by no means unexpected at this stage in the negotiations. Between Bonn and Paris there will be a so-called Pre-COP Ministerial meeting the French will host November 9 & 10 and I don’t know the exact number of countries. I’m sure it will be over 50 and I will be doing extensive bilateral, multilateral work over the coming weeks.

Let me stop right there and open up the questions.

MODERATOR: Thank you ladies and gentlemen, if you do extend a question please press * and then 1 on your touch tone phone. You will a tone indicating that you have been placed in queue and you may remove yourself form the queue at any time by pressing the pound key. For your questions you may queue up at this time by pressing *1. First in queue is Alex Morales with Bloomberg News. Please go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi Todd, thanks very much for giving us this call. I don’t know if you’ve followed the plenary at Bonn but they ended it by saying this text ended in a week but was not the text that you would like to be done in Paris and I was wondering if you could characterize this (inaudible) view on how challenging it is given the text on the table now.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Look, the text that we have now is one that has moved through various stages this year. For a long time it was in the 85 to 90 page category of essentially a compilation of everybody’s wish list, that has then got whittled way down in a very short form, documents were put out on October 5 and then in Bonn you saw reaction from a number of countries that felt that some of the options that they wanted weren’t included and so the text expanded a good deal. I think the text in the agreement now is in the range of 30-ish pages, and that will then undoubtedly shrink back down quite a bit as we work through Paris.

Again I think this is fully to be expected at this stage of the negotiations, there are a number of issues where parties have differences and in some cases parties reacted to what they saw in the shorter version by wanting to push back in everything that they hoped for. Even though nobody’s going to get everything they’ve hoped for, and language with respect to the various open issues will undoubtedly get (inaudible) down and refined. I wouldn’t describe myself as at all worried or concerned about what we have now. What we have now will absolutely have to get refined and (inaudible) down, whether it’s exact text that we want to bring into Paris or not, I think it’s what we have and we’ll go to work.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Our next question will come from Lisa Friedman with Climate Wire.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Hi Lisa.

QUESTION: Hi Todd, thank you for doing this.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Sure.

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you could talk about, so much of this week sort of came down to the issue of differentiation and I’m wondering if you feel like things are moving backwards. We saw the developing countries inserted all over the place in the text in certain points, G77 had a big press conference and told us we’re being told that the world is different and it’s not. Do you feel like things are moving backwards from where you tried to get them?

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: I wouldn’t actually say that. I think that what you’re seeing is that this is an issue that as you know has been one of a lot of stress and debate over the years. We are trying to do an agreement with a somewhat different architecture because we’re trying to do an agreement that’s going to be effective for years to come. And so the structure that we have put forward and I think a great many countries support is a structure that has a lot of differentiation built into it, where countries are differentiated across the spectrum of countries. But not in the fixed kind of 1992 categories in this sort of Kyoto style where one takes action and the other doesn’t take action. I think there’s been a lot of progress, the fact that you have 152 targets put forward is an extraordinary thing. If you wind the clock back a little bit it’s not that long ago that we were in a time when again developing countries didn’t see a need to put forward any such action on their own, so I think that’s quite meaningful. And all through the agreement there are, for example, the Nationally Determined Structure for Mitigation and other elements of the agreement. You have differentiation built right into the agreement.

I think that any time you’re trying to do something that changes the status quo you’re going to get a good deal of back and forth and that back and forth is not over with yet, but I think we’ll end up in a good place.

MODERATOR: Thank you Todd, our next question comes from Valerie Volcovici with Reuters.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Hi Valerie.

QUESTION: Hi Todd. Kind of a broader question, but do you think there’s kind of a gap between the momentum that seems to be building on a political level outside of the negotiation room, and then what’s happening in the negotiations? And how do you bridge the gap between what seems to be two different levels of momentum, at least that’s the appearance?

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: That’s a very good question and I think that there is genuine and real momentum that is building and has been building during the course of the year. And even we can go back to the announcement last November between Presidents Obama and Xi, I think that was a big moment and boost to the negotiation. I think that’s been continuing with the drumbeat of INDCs that have been put forward this year. So I think that you are right in pointing out that kind of development, it is also true and I always see this at both levels. You are very right in pointing out these two different levels, that when you have to go (inaudible) the big momentum and the big political moment is great but you still have a text that you’ve got to do and you still have a text where the different issues. Whether they’re mitigation or transparency or adaptation, loss of damage, finance, whatever it may be, you’ve still got to hack your way through specific language. And when you get to specific language it gets pretty sensitive and it gets sometimes pretty contentious and that is not so much in contradiction of the larger momentum because that larger momentum does play a real role. And it’s important in the context of the text for negotiation.

But, the textual negotiation is hard and it doesn’t stop being hard just because of the kind of macro level momentum to get the thing done. The tough textual stuff still happens but the macro level momentum is actually essential and enormously important. But it does give you the impression that there is kind of these two different levels going on, and I think you’re right about that.

MODERATOR: Thank you, as a reminder you can press *1 on your phones to join the question queue. Our next question comes from Seth Borenstein with the AP.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Hey Seth.

QUESTION: Hey Todd. In terms of the bilateral negotiations that you’re going to be having between now and Paris where there’s a pre-conference before the actual conference, are there specific goals that you have to achieve in that time period? And is one of them sort of stomping out what you call the fixed 1992 categories, the Kyoto style, the not developed developing long time rift out there?

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: I wouldn’t exactly say that, what our goals are going to be over the next five weeks with respect to all of the key issues and there are a number of them, is to partly continue what we’ve been working on this year, but it gets at some level more…it sort of intensifies now as we draw closer to Paris, to try to work on potential landing zones and try to socialize potential landing zones with respect to the various issues. There are issues that have to do with the mitigation system, there are issues that have to do with the kind of transparency regime that we’re trying to get set up, there’s issues that have to do with financing in the post 2020 world, and adaptation and so forth. There are not 20 issues there’s a handful of them, there may be 20 issues if you count everything. I’m more focusing on the big things and so we will be meeting with all manner of different players. One of the things that both interesting and challenging always in these negotiations is there’s lots of different players with lots of different perspectives, but ultimately we have to find where we can give a little, where this that and the other guy can give a little and find some space in the middle on a given issue where we start to think we can get it done. And we won’t, I think it is unlikely that we will have it all done, like that one’s wrapped up, put that down, tie a bow around that one, now let’s go onto the next one before Paris.

What I want to try to do is again develop the landing zones, socialize those with countries so countries go into Paris, even if they haven’t yet said yes we’re okay with that, people can see in their minds where this thing can go to land it, and then you have to land it in Paris.

MODERATOR: Great, our next question will come from Dean Scott with Bloomberg.

QUESTION: Hi Todd, thanks for doing this.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Yes.

QUESTION: So in Bonn one of the conclusions in this draft text that a fair amount of NGOS are pointing to is making bright spot in the language sort of scattered throughout the text on ramping up or ratcheting mechanisms to find more effort to find more ambition here. While it’s a little unclear because there’s still plenty of brackets and like I said it’s really scattered throughout what they’ve done here. I wonder if there’s something missing in ending that for the US that you think still needs to be done to make this a real effort that addresses climate change in Paris.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Thanks Dean, essentially I think there are things missing in the text. I think what we by in large, the most recent version came out recently so I’ve read an earlier one through the weekend, the very last thing that has come out so I don’t want to say that everything we need is there, but by in large what we care about is reflected there. We think that there are several elements that are very important from our point of view with respect to ambition, the first of course is the initial INDCs, and I think everybody recognized that they’re not perfect and by themselves they don’t get us two degrees, but I will say that the recent report by Climate Action Tracker, is very interesting because in the space between now and a year earlier with the thing that has happened in between, being the 152 INDCs, their projection has gone from about 3.6 to about 2.7 degrees Celsius. And 2.7 is not good enough yet but that’s a big movement in terms of what’s projected out across the century in this year.

That’s a key step, second is what you were just talking about which is a big priority for us which is to have a ratchet mechanism up. So a ratchet mechanism just means that this isn’t a one off deal, there need to be periodic new rounds of targets, if you will, and the new rounds of targets have to be moving upward in ambition, so that’s a key element for us. We’ve also pressed for the notion that countries be called upon to do mid-century, people call them different things, strategies, scenarios, internally I tend to call them whitepapers because that’s how I sort of see it. It’s not a commitment by a country but it’s the work the sort of policy thinking to say if we want to get to X by 2050 or so what do we need to be thinking about from the point of view of our power sector, of our transportation sector and so forth. That’s a good exercise. A long term goal would be a fourth element, and then all of the activity that the French have grouped in so-called Pillar Four, which is state and local, private sector, collaborative activity between countries. All of that stuff is kind of outside the targets themselves but they still ratchet it up further, is also part of the equation in getting us down two degrees over time.

Your specific question was on the ratchet mechanism and we think that’s critical.

MODERATOR: Thank you Todd. As a reminder you can press *1 on your phones to join the question queue. Our next question comes from Karl Ritter with the Associated Press.

QUESTION: Hi Todd, thanks for doing this.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Yes.

QUESTION: You mentioned the excess of the INDCs and I wonder what you would say was the key moment or development that unlocked this process so that more than 150 countries actually put forward targets, many of them developing countries to maybe just a few years ago were quite reluctant to do anything like that. What was the turning point?

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: I guess I would give you a few recent turning points, there is probably a little bit longer history to it but I think in terms of the recent past, I think three things. First of all we have the right structure in this agreement and it’s a structure that the United States has led on and was our proposal which is first of all that the structure had to be bottom up, it had to be naturally determined. Once you have an agreement that was going to be applicable to all and that’s part of the Durban Mandate. You can’t get 190 countries around a table negotiating each other’s targets and timetables. It’s just not possible. The bottom up structure where everybody knew they could self-determine, they could nationally determine what they were going to do as opposed to having something forced upon them, I think was a critical first step.

Second, we proposed a notion that countries put these targets forward early as opposed to walking in for the first time, walking into Paris and putting the targets down sort of at the 11^th hour. We wanted to do that because frankly we wanted a mechanism that would put, if you will, salutary pressure on countries to urge them to do the best they could, because they were going to be exposed to the sunlight, to the views of other countries and to the press and the think tanks, and society and everybody else. That timing kind of mechanism has been helpful.

I think the fact that the United States and China at the presidential level joined arms and stepped forward in November of last year – kind of in the ramp up to 2015 if you will – and put forward strong targets together. These two kind of historic antagonists at the presidential level were a big shot in the arm to the negotiations. I think led countries generally to have a belief that these negotiations were actually going to get done. That is not obvious in climate change, and so I think that was also really important.

Then as more and more countries started to come forward, with every additional one whether it was the EU or the U.S. or Mexico or whoever it was, the thing seemed started to seem more and more real, and the fact that countries have gone to the work. You don’t just pull the INDC off the shelf; you’ve got to do analytic work to develop it. The fact that countries have done that and put it forward is the best sign you could possibly have that countries around the world think this is going to happen. You don’t have 150 countries putting forward targets, doing the work to develop the targets because they think this negotiation is going to fail. They have done it because they think the negotiation is going to succeed.

MODERATOR: Thank you, and our last question is from Matthew Carr with Bloomberg News.

QUESTION: Hello, I’ve just got a question on the transparency mechanism and also market (inaudible). How far is the US willing to go in letting some from the UN body have influence in sort of overseeing markets and bilateral deals that result in trade and also the transparency mechanism. How much is the U.S. going to give in that respect?

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Well let me take transparency first, and on markets, Matthew if you want to follow up I’m going to put you in touch with my deputy, one of my guys on markets. I don’t have anything to give you new on the markets front. But, we can get back to it if you’d like.

On transparency, listen we’re one of the prime movers, one of the prime components of a strong transparency system which has to be built on the premise that all countries are going to report and be reviewed on the progress their making in implementing their targets. That’s the core of it. We, as in all places in this agreement, we are very mindful of the different capacities and capabilities of this large range of countries worldwide and particularly of the developing countries. So we see a transparency system and we pushed and advanced this for a long time now. It needs to have flexibility built into it so that countries in need have some capacity to report on a somewhat different timetable, to report at a different level of detail. But with that flexibility based on a country’s capacity, and if you look at the joint statement that President Obama and President Xi did just this past September where there was a section, there was a whole section of that statement on the Paris negotiations. There was a paragraph in there about transparency and that concept that there would be flexibility for those in need based on their capacity is exactly what was inviting in that statement.

Yes, we’re for it, we’re 100% for it and we think it’s not just that we’re for it we think it’s a lynchpin of an effective agreement.

MODERATOR: Thank you so much Special Envoy Stern, and thanks to all of our reporters for participating in todays call.

SPECIAL ENVOY STERN: Thanks very much everyone, bye-bye.

MODERATOR: Thanks Todd. That concludes today’s call and I’ll turn it back over to the operator.