Athens , 16 December 2009

Ms. Georgiou: We return to the afternoon “radio newspaper” with more from Copenhagen. We are still connected live with Copenhagen, and Deputy Foreign Minister Spyros Kouvelis is on the line. Good afternoon, Mr. Kouvelis. All interest is focused on these final days in Copenhagen, with world leaders arriving at the Conference.

But if we could give a title to the work that has been done at this Conference so far, would we say that the bar was set too high – that there is much ado about nothing? Because from what I understand, we have nothing tangible so far.

Mr. Kouvelis: To put it in the form of a title, I would say that after taking inventory of the situation last week, with the first discussions aimed at finding common ground for all the countries, the bar has started to descend.

To descend, and descend, to the point where we now hope there will be a good political decision that will say, “Yes, we recognize the need for an agreement on climate” etc.

But decision- and commitment-making by all the countries as to what precisely will happen is being moved back to the coming year, either late 2010 or at some intermediate stage. That is, decisions on binding goals for limiting emissions, what will happen with funding, what will happen with deforestation and so on.

Ms. Georgiou: Let’s look at why. At a time of economic crisis, might one say that the powerful countries would be unlikely to put their hands in their pockets and provide money for the environment? Is this the reason? Or are there other reasons?

Mr. Kouvelis: That’s not the only reason. The economic problem is only one part of the picture. As I have said repeatedly, if we reduce the whole discussion on climate change to who is going to pay and who is going to be on the receiving end, we have lost the essence of the thing.

The economic aspect is certainly an issue, because funding will have to be allocated to support the shift to a different development model, to protection from the repercussions of climate change and so on.

But I think what is mainly at fault here is that many countries were either unprepared – like the  U.S., whose national legal framework hasn’t been completed because it has stalled in the Senate – or, as in China’s case, they don’t want to open up and they are waiting to see what moves other countries make, saying, for example, that they are waiting to see what the EU does: will it stay at 20% reduction? Will it raise its objectives? Let’s see what the U.S. does, and then we’ll talk.

But all this hubbub won’t lead to a result.

Ms. Georgiou: Yes, and it is reasonable that these specific countries – the U.S., China – might become the motor force behind a change in stance, a change in how we deal with the planet’s problems.

Mr. Kouvelis: Exactly.

And it gives an alibi to the developing countries, who also see all of this more as a case where they can demand development assistance funding from developed countries than as an opportunity to get in the game.

With the major producers of carbon dioxide emissions not making commitments, the developing countries are asking how they can be expected to do something when commitments aren’t being made on funding.

Ms. Georgiou: Do you have an idea of the proposals from the socialist leaders; ideas that George Papandreou will clarify in a short while?

Mr. Kouvelis: Shortly, there will be a meeting between George Papandreou and the Socialist International.

A short while ago, I was with the Secretary General of the Socialist International, Mr. Ayala, and in a bit there will be a coordinating meeting with representatives of all sides – developing countries, developed countries and so on – so that we can decide exactly how to formulate these proposals, for which there is naturally a framework.

And first of all, we want the framework to be more optimistic than the one the discussions here are heading towards. Second, a proposal that says that there must be a clear policy from the developed countries as well, and transfer of funding and know-how, without hidden agendas.

And third, that there must be sincere cooperation, because one of the things lacking at this meeting is trust. The developing countries are saying that they don’t trust the developed countries to meet their targets, and the developed countries are saying, “We don’t trust each other.” So an agreement cannot be reached.

So one basic point is for us to be able – through the intervention of George Papandreou and the Socialist International – to press for the re-establishment of a climate of trust that will lead to the taking of a substantial decision.

Ms. Georgiou: Let’s hope there is one, because I think we will be going back to Kyoto, and Kyoto hasn’t been signed by everyone. Despite expectations, we will stop at Kyoto.

Mr. Kouvelis: The objectives of which are valid through 2013.

Ms. Georgiou: Of course.

Mr. Kouvelis: It really is very important that we try to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but it will not suffice. If we stay with the Kyoto agreement, we can forget about keeping the temperature increase to between 1.5 and 2 degrees, and if we don’t do that, we are going to have very, very big problems in the future.

Ms. Georgiou: Right. Thank you Mr. Kouvelis.

Mr. Kouvelis: I thank you, and good evening.