Mr. Stern: Thank you Lauren. Hi everybody. Thanks for coming.

Let me make a few comments at the top and then I’ll take your questions.

We have moved into the second phase of these negotiations in Paris. The French presidency is now firmly in charge. Facilitators have been named. Facilitation sessions are in full throttle and Ministers are engaged.

The major issues are still in front of us including differentiation, ambition and finance. Let me make just a couple of comments on, in particular on differentiation and ambition. The real debate on differentiation is between essentially two different visions.

The first is of stark bifurcation between two categories of countries with expectations of who does what set permanently or quasi-permanently for the course of a multi-decade agreement on the basis of the 1992 division of countries into two categories. This division would stay fixed and immutable, irrespective of how advanced or wealthy or large emitters countries became.

The second vision is a differentiation that is more nuanced and flexible that is perhaps embodied, if you will, in the nationally determined contribution system for mitigation in which all countries do what they can on a nationally determined basis, urged to do the most that they can, and fully differentiated because they make their own decisions, but without countries being grouped into one category or another.

Let me also make a comment on ambition. I mentioned the last time I was here that there is a large coalition for high ambition. I referred to it as a high ambition coalition. It includes, for example, island states, the least developed countries, various progressives in the developing world as well as the EU, the U.S. and a number of our so-called umbrella group, really all of our so-called umbrella group partners.

This is a coalition that is strongly in favor of a five-year review for, and updating for mitigation targets in favor of a long-term goal, in favor of strong transparency regime with enough detail spelled out in the agreement in order to build the guide, the development of the system going forward. So those are all elements of these discussions that are going on quite intensively now, and I will take your questions.

Moderator: Thank you, Todd.

Press: Jonathan Katz with the New Republic.

I was wondering the extent to which domestic politics at home in the United States have been entering into the discussions. In the last briefing with the European Union, the name of the Republican Party is one of the influences on the way that the legally bindingness of the deal may unfold was brought up. There was the letter from the House Science Committee on December 1^st that was asking for information from NOAA. I’m wondering in your experience in the negotiations how much those elements or the pending U.S. Presidential election are actually shaping the way that this agreement might be made in Paris.

Mr. Stern: I would actually say not very much. I have not heard a lot of that in my bilats. You sometimes get questions about where we think things are going to go in the future. Of course we don’t know. But if I think about all of the many, many, many meetings I’ve had, bilaterals, plurilaterals, larger meetings, et cetera, U.S. politics is by and large not really coming up.

Press: Dean Scott, Bloomberg BNA.

Two questions really quick. One is on climate finance. I’m wondering if you can talk a little bit about, some of the key elements of post-2020 finance in terms of the way you see it, at least for that.

And on the issue of 1.5, you said something the other day that I think was interpreted a little bit as opening the door to some flexibility on 1.5. You were speaking of talking to small island nations on that very matter. I wonder if you can kind of update us on the U.S. thinking.

Mr. Stern: Sure. On your first question, key elements. Look, I think there is a basic understanding, and we have made clear, we’ve said this even in the Joint Statement that the U.S. did with China, that President Obama and President Xi did in September, that we have every expectation of strong and robust finance continuing from U.S. and others to developing countries. We see that continuing very much in the context of the same sort of criteria that existed back when the original 2009 pledge was made, and that includes that funding would come from all sources, public and private, through channels that were both multilateral and bilateral. And that financing would come in the context of meaningful mitigation and transparency. That last bit is obviously quite important here, when we’re in the middle of a negotiation for a new agreement.

So for us the provision of finance, the agreement to mobilize continuing finance is very much going to be tied up in there being meaningful mitigation and transparency provisions of this agreement. And that’s going to matter. I might have said this before, but where we see countries suggesting that you can do a transparency system in two sentences, that’s not going to cut it for us. So there’s going to need to be meaningful provisions on transparency and mitigation.

And we also see the expansion of the donor base going forward on a voluntary basis. This is not going to be mandatory. But countries, there’s different language right now, the language in the text I think is in a position to do so. A lot of people are very unhappy with that language. We are open to various formulations. But something that captures the notion of an expanded donor base is going to be important as well.

On the 1.5 question, yes, I did express some openness there. I think it’s quite clear in our view that the goal isn’t going to change. The goal is to hold temperatures to I think as far as possible below two degrees or something like that. But we are working with other countries on some formulation that would include reference to the 1.5 degrees, all as part of a somewhat larger, broader sentence. So we are working with our island friends and other developing country and other developed country friends in crafting language. So that’s in progress.

Press: Sonja van Renssen from energypost.euEU.

The EU has been pushing for binding mitigation commitments. The U.S. hasn’t been favorable to this idea. So what kind of formulation are you looking for in the agreement to ensure that the INDCs are delivered, are implemented by all countries?

Mr. Stern: Thanks. Well, we’ve been very clear for quite a while that we are supportive of a provision that was first put forward by New Zealand that would involve a legally binding agreement in many respects. There would be legally binding requirements in this approach to put forward your mitigation, your target, your INDC to include the kind of information that makes it intelligible and understandable that would include requirements for producing inventories, for reporting on your progress toward your target, for being reviewed, for various rules that would apply to how targets, how emissions are counted and the like. But not the target itself.

We’ve thought from the beginning that that would be, that is an approach that is best suited to broad participation in this agreement, not only by the United States but also by any number of other countries. We know that there are other countries around the world, probably quite a few, that would be uneasy and even unwilling to take legally binding targets themselves. So we think that having the target not legally binding but the entire accountability system that circles around the target and that has to do with whether you are in fact doing what you said you were doing, all of that being legally binding. We think that’s a very good balance and a way to get broad participation with still a lot of legal bindingness. And the fact that we really, the really absolutely extraordinary fact that there are either 184, last I heard was 184, but I heard a couple of my colleagues today in the negotiations refer to 186. So I don’t know if it’s 184 or 186 but either way, it’s incredible, and I think that’s a testament to the notion that this is a pretty good way to go.

Press: Thanks for doing this. This is Andrew Restuccia with Politico.

As you know, and I think you suggested this earlier, the G-77 came out really strongly against this “in a position to do so” language last week. Have you detected more vulnerable countries including islands and others, sort of signaling that they are in favor of broadening the donor base depending on what the language is?

Mr. Stern: I think countries like the islands and the least developed countries are enthusiastically supportive of that. I’m not entirely sure what they do or they don’t say in the Councils of the G77. But I don’t think there’s any question that look, what we’re talking about here is to create a larger pool of funds. Not backtracking by developed countries. There’s no issue about backtracking. That’s not what we’re talking about. But to expand overall, to say the developed countries are pushing ahead, but in addition those developing countries who have the capacity and self-select also contribute. That’s all good.

So I don’t have any question that poorer countries around the world are quite supportive of that idea if that can be executed, and we’re quite confident that it can be.

Press: Pilita Clarke, Financial Times.

There’s research being published today showing that global emissions didn’t just stall last year but may have actually declined this year, and I wonder if that’s come up at any stage in any of the meetings you’ve been in in the last couple of days. And also what your response to this might be.

Mr. Stern: The fact being that they declined, is that what you said?

Press: Yes. I mean it was already known that they had stayed basically flat last year, but it now appears that they may have actually declined slightly this year.

Mr. Stern: It actually hasn’t come up. That’s obviously good news. But the, it hasn’t come up in the context of the negotiations. At this point in a negotiation like this, people are pretty focused on the business at hand, so what’s going on around them, they may be not as aware as they usually would be.

Press: Matthew Dalton with the Wall Street Journal.

Could you outline a little bit more what kinds of transparency you’re wanting from the developing countries? You said one or two lines and this is not going to do the trick.

Mr. Stern: Sure. Thank you.

So, look, there’s basically three pieces of a transparency system. Inventories, reporting on the actions you take, and then review. Right now there is a very robust system with respect to developed countries. Developed countries actually report, they put together inventories every year. They do it according to the latest, most rigorous IPCC guidelines. They report on those inventories through a very detailed reporting kind of protocol. They also report on the actions that they’re taking and the progress that they’re making toward the targets such as, in the range of 17 percent target that we have to 2020, and then they go through a review process, both with respect to those actions and with regard to the inventories there’s a rigorous review that the inventories go through. So that’s the system that exists right now for developed countries. Nobody expects we’re going to jump right into that for developing countries. That’s going to take some time, and in some respects some of what goes on in that system that I just described might be something that we don’t even seek to get to.

But fundamentally you need to have those basic elements of inventories, reporting and review on the developing country side as well. People are going to have to ramp up to it. It’s not going to be created overnight. But right now you have a situation in the developing country world where inventories are done very infrequently, sometimes not much more than once every ten years or so. They’re done at a low level of, let me just say it, a fairly rudimentary level, and then they’re reported on also at a pretty rudimentary level.

The reporting on actions covers actions that countries take. So we did X and Y and Z and A and B and C and D, but it doesn’t require you to report on the progress you’re making towards the target you took. So that’s obviously a defect that needs to get fixed. And there’s a lot in the review systems that are similar, so that probably needs some tweaking there, but not as much.

So you’re not going to get exorbitant detail but you have to be able to lay out, this is what you need to do on inventories, this is what you need to do. Basically, you’ve got the inventories, you’ve got reporting, you’ve got review. Here’s the purpose of what we’re doing. We’re talking about reporting, by the way, both on action and support, in other words financial assistance given. So all of that’s got to be expressed in the way that these agreements are drafted. That doesn’t take a long, that’s not long. That’s a page or two, but it’s not a line or two.

Press: My name is Tang from China Xinhua News Agency.

Many U.S. officials have said that you are willing to do more in post-2020 finance, but why are you so reluctant to mention the specific figure of $100 billion U.S. dollars as a floor. So I want to ask, will United States accept this $100 billion as a floor?

And also you said that developing country could do voluntary contribution in finance. By voluntary, does that mean that there will not be any legally binding obligation for developing country? Thank you.

Mr. Stern: I do mean that there will not mean legally binding obligations for developing countries. That’s true.

With respect to, let me just say that there are certain obligations that are binding on developed countries and others that are not, so the developed countries provide finance under a particular article of the convention and that’s a binding obligation. But the whole pledge from 2009 to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020, that’s not a binding obligation. That was made in a decision, it’s essentially sort of a political commitment but not a legal commitment.

Look, I’ve made clear that we are prepared to continue funding at the same kind of high level that we’ve been doing, and I’ve also made clear that our being able to do that is dependent on a broader agreement that the kinds of criteria that are embedded in the 2009 decision continue. Again, that includes both that all sources be counted, public and private; that all channels be used, whether multilateral or bilateral; and that it be in the context of meaningful mitigation and transparency, including meaningful mitigation and transparency provisions and articles in this agreement.

So we have to see how that goes. I think we’re going to get there, but it’s all part of a package as far as we’re concerned. And it’s part of a package that we extend beyond just developed countries to include developing countries, voluntary basis, not required, but the developing countries, that there be some language that indicates that develping countries who are in a position to do so or some such lanhguage, it doesn’t have to be that but some such language, is included. But I think we’ll get there.

Press: Lisa Friedman from ClimateWire.

Mr. Stern: The last question. Usually you get the first question.

Press: The orange shirt trumped the purple scarf.

I have another question on “position to do so”. One of the possible phrases is “willing to do so” and Europeans have indicated that that’s just not strong enough for them. Is that something that the U.S. is willing to do? Willing to agree to?

And also on that, some NGOs have said that there should be criteria explaining what kinds of countries, what capacity they have to donate money or to put up money. Is that something that --

Mr. Stern: I’m sorry, what’s the second question?

Press: Whether there should be criteria for what kind of, what level of capacity countries should have, that put money in. Thanks.

Mr. Stern: Well, on your first question, I always make a practice of not negotiating from the microphone. So the only reason that I mentioned even what I did is because it’s something that I had already said in a negotiation session. So I’m not going to go beyond that.

With respect to criteria, no, I think that we don’t envision that, Lisa, because we think that the principle that is kind of driving this agreement in a, I hope, direction that will be successful in the end is the notion that countries are in many respects nationally determining. So they’re nationally determining their mitigation targets. They’re also in our vision of a transparency system, going to in essence nationally determine the degree to which they need to take advantage of certain kinds of flexibilities, and we would say similarly in this area of finance they’re nationally, they’re going to nationally determine, in essence make their own choice, as to whether they’re in a position to do so or whether you pick some other word, but they’re going to make their own choice. Again, it is imperative for all of our sake that we get as ambitious as possible a regime with five-year reviews and long-term goals and all of those things that I already mentioned. But the buy-in, the worldwide buy-in, which again, don’t miss that. There’s an unbelievable number of countries who have stepped forward. That is based on the notion that countries are able to make their own decision. So I think we’re going to stick with that.

Moderator: Last Question.

Press: Karl Ritter, AP.

We heard from the European Union Commissioner a little bit earlier that there seems to be some movement on their side on the issue of having the emissions targets be legally binding which has been their decision all along, but there’s some room for compromise now. Is that also the sense you’re getting in the negotiations?

Mr. Stern: I hope so. I mean this is a conversation that we’ve been having with our EU colleagues for quite a while now. We both understand that we’re getting down to the final days of this negotiation and that it is enormously important for them and us and everybody else here that we achieve a successful outcome.

So we’re talking about it on a very regular basis and I think and hope we’re making some progress, but we’ll see.

Moderator: Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and thank you Todd. That will be it for today.