VZCZCXRO9054
OO RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL RUEHSR RUEHVK
RUEHYG
DE RUEHSM #0567/01 2471427
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 041427Z SEP 09
FM AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4687
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING IMMEDIATE 1065
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 0143

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 STOCKHOLM 000567 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE ENTIRE TEXT, PLEASE HANDLE ACCORDINGLY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV KGHG PREL SW
SUBJECT: CLIMATE - ENVIRONMENT MINISTER WANTS TO KEEP PRESSURE ON 
U.S. FOR TACTICAL REASONS, BUT PRIME MINISTER TRYING TO GUIDE PUBLIC 
STATEMENTS 
 
¶1.  Summary:  On September 2, Environment Minister Carlgren told the 
Ambassador that the EU Troika meetings with U.S. Special Envoy Stern 
were very useful in increasing EU understanding of U.S. thinking. He 
put his public statements that the U.S. needs to do more on climate 
change in context by saying they were being necessary to pressure 
China do more, pressure EU countries to adopt a 30% target, and 
pressure the U.S. to use the full possibilities of the Waxman Markey 
bill to reduce emissions and finance mitigation efforts in poor 
countries. Carlgren said he hoped that by the time of the U.S.-EU 
Summit, the U.S. would have made sufficient progress on Waxman 
Markey so that the U.S. and Europe could speak with one voice to 
press developing countries. On September 3, the Prime Minister's 
office separately told us that the Prime Minister's office had 
issued guidance for Swedish officials' public remarks on U.S. 
climate change efforts; the guidance notes the positive contribution 
of Waxman Markey in the long run.  It appears to us that Carlgren 
was defensive in his meeting with the Ambassador as a result of 
being on the receiving end of the Prime Minister's guidance. End 
Summary 
 
 
¶2.  In a September 2 courtesy call with the U.S. Ambassador, 
Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren began by stressing the 
importance of working with the United States.  He said he 
appreciated his time with Special Envoy Stern, which  allowed him to 
understand more of U.S. thinking and how difficulties in the U.S. 
Senate limit what President Obama can announce.  Carlgren hoped that 
Stern also got a greater understanding of EU thinking, and the 
problems of getting agreement among 27 countries all with differing 
views. 
 
¶3.  Carlgren said that the informal meeting of EU Environment and 
Energy Ministers in Are, Sweden in July had given Sweden a basis for 
discussions with Stern and others, including a mandate to clarify 
that "we need as much as possible from the United States, and need a 
process to confirm that we have achieved comparability." 
 
¶4.  Carlgren explained that the work of U.S. and European experts 
could make it possible for the U.S. and EU positions to come closer 
together, understand each other, and be on fully common ground as to 
whether the American pathway to the long-range target is really 
credible and consistent with the 2 degree target and the 2050 target 
of 80%.  Carlgren said he would like personally to say that there 
are different pathways to the 2 degree target, and had listened 
carefully to the U.S. presentation he received in Washingotn, but 
European experts were needed to say the U.S. path is credible. 
 
¶5.  In response to the U.S. side's question on whether this 
assessment would be political or scientific, Carlgren said it would 
be both, but related to science as much as possible. 
 
¶6.  The DCM countered that the Waxman Markey bill is the best 
possible from the U.S. political system, and does get to the 
emissions targets through a steeper path.  He said Europe can help 
the U.S. achieve this by getting China and India to participate. 
Carlgren responded by saying it is important to confirm that Europe 
understands some of the US difficulties, and important that the US 
understand European difficulties. 
 
Why the U.S. Can Do More 
------------------------ 
 
¶7.  Carlgren explained that he publicly says "we need more from the 
U.S." because Waxman Markey is more than President Obama has 
announced, and within Waxman Markey, there is a range of 
possibilities. He said the additional possibilities include more 
that the U.S. could do domestically within the cap and trade system, 
more that the U.S. could do domestically outside the cap and trade 
system, and more that the U.S. could do internationally.  Carlgren 
said experts had told him that Waxman Markey contained the 
possibility for clean development credits whereby the U.S. could 
help meet global targets by supporting mitigation efforts in poorer 
countries.  Carlgren said that when he said the U.S. could do more, 
he was careful not to use any numbers and not to discuss these 
possibilities because he did not want to make Senate passage more 
difficult.  He claimed it was Sweden's role as EU President to push 
the U.S. to make full use of the range of possibilities within 
Waxman Markey because the rest of the world would have to undertake 
greater reductions to mitigate global emissions if the U.S. did 
less.  In pressuring the U.S., Carlgren claimed he was sending 
messages to China and Europe. 
 
¶8. NOTE: Prime Minister Reinfeldt was interviewed by Berlinske 
Tidene, a major Danish daily, on August 31.  In the interview, he 
lowered expectations for COP-15 outcomes, saying that a COP-15 
agreement might only be a step on the way to the goal of limiting 
temperature increases to 2 degrees above pre-industrialized levels. 
 
STOCKHOLM 00000567  002 OF 003 
 
 
He said that the EU might have to lower its expectations if it wants 
to have some form of agreement coming out of COP-15.  His statements 
were heavily criticized in Denmark over the next few days, although 
the Danish Government refrained from commenting on them.  The Prime 
Minister's office told the Embassy that the interview created a lot 
of extra work for them.  At the root of the Danish reaction seems to 
be that Sweden breeched the implicit agreement that Sweden takes the 
role of the hard-hitting EU Presidency country, keeping pressures on 
all other actors to deliver ambitious targets; while Denmark can act 
as the honest broker and strike the decisive compromise at COP-15. 
End note. 
 
¶9.  For Europe, Carlgren said Sweden's goal was to move its EU 
partners to the 30% target.  Carlgren conceded that it is absolutely 
more important to get China to commit than to get the Europeans to 
agree on the 30% target, but claimed that publicly saying the U.S. 
position was acceptable would also make it harder to China and 
India. 
 
China Serious About Reaching an Agreement, India is Not 
----------------------------- 
 
¶10. Carlgren said Sweden and the EU were as concerned as the U.S. 
that India and China might not do anything to reach agreement, and 
so far they have not.  While developed countries had moved in the 
MEF, developing countries had not. 
 
¶11.  Carlgren said China really wants to do something on climate 
change. He said that the EU is pushing China to do more than the 
U.S. is asking.  The U.S., he said, says China's current efforts are 
sufficient but China must commit via an internationally binding 
agreement.  Carlgren said he understood why the U.S. needed China to 
be bound by an international agreement in order to persuade the U.S. 
Senate, but that the EU thought a Chinese commitment to do more via 
domestic legislation would be acceptable because it would be linked 
to an international agreement via a low carbon growth path. 
 
¶12.  Carlgren said Sweden had pushed the Chinese hard to do more, 
telling them they could really "shock the Americans" and create a 
different situation if they were prepared to deviate 30% from a 
business as usual path. 
 
¶13.  Carlgren said China has recognized that in passing Waxman 
Markey through the House, the U.S. made much quicker progress than 
China could have expected, and China feels the pressure as a 
result. 
 
¶14.  The DCM noted that Copenhagen was not the final step in the 
negotiations, and that if we get China committed to the 
international process we can incrementally press them to do more 
next year.  He also noted that Europe seemed to be pushing on the 
easy target in criticizing the U.S., a country committed to reducing 
emissions while ignoring China which was not even committed to an 
international agreement. 
 
¶15.  Carlgren responded that he had made strong statements during 
his visit to China, which made headlines in China and Europe, just 
as the statements he made after visiting the U.S. and after speaking 
to the European Parliament committee on September 1 made headlines. 
 
 
¶16.  Carlgren said that India is much more difficult because its 
bureaucracy was much more negative on an agreement. He said India's 
Prime Minister was criticized at home for having made concessions. 
He said India has an efficient negotiator who could be constructive 
and achieve a lot if given the right instructions. He said that 
although India may not be constructive, it would not block an 
agreement.   He noted that the British were in India now, and the 
Swedish officials would be there for talks in  November. 
 
What is Needed to Speak with One Voice 
------------------------------- 
 
¶17.  The Ambassador repeatedly stressed the importance of developed 
countries speaking with one voice.  When he asked Carlgren what was 
the likelihood of the U.S. and Europe speaking with one voice to 
pressure China, Carlgren acknowledged that the U.S. and Europe were 
on the same side on climate change, but said it would be 
counterproductive for the EU to accept lower U.S. ambitions now 
because it would give China an excuse not to deliver enough. 
Carlgren conceded that China wanted the U.S. and EU to lay all their 
cards on the table with 100% of their commitments before China would 
begin to talk. He agreed that this posed a problem in the 
negotiations, but would not agree to the Ambassador's point that 
by speaking with one voice we could affect China sooner.  When asked 
when the EU planned to move from pushing both the U.S. and China, to 
working with the U.S. to push China; Carlgren said it depends on 
 
STOCKHOLM 00000567  003 OF 003 
 
 
where the U.S. is in the Senate process.  Carlgren said experts 
would look at the U.S. pathway in September before the EU finalized 
the Council conclusions October 21, so that hopefully at the U.S.-EU 
Summit planned for the beginning of November, if the U.S. had made 
progress in the Senate, and the experts deemed the U.S. pathway 
comparable, the U.S. and EU could speak with one voice at the 
Summit. 
 
Financing 
--------- 
 
¶18.  Carlgren said that in Washington he had raised fast track 
financing for climate change to provide the poorest countries 
financing for mitigation and adaptation to climate change.  He said 
this was most urgent in the G-20 discussions, and the EU really 
wanted to work together with the United States. 
 
After COP-15 
------------ 
 
¶19.  Carlgren repeatedly bandied back the Ambassador's efforts to 
discuss where we will be post Copenhagen, but finally conceded 
Sweden and the EU look forward to working with the U.S. after 
Copenhagen, and know that there will be more work to do, and that 
Sweden had earlier said COP-15 was the start of the process, not the 
end.  Examples of future work, he agreed, were technology 
cooperation such as was being discussed in the MEF process. Carlgren 
noted that he had discussed solar technology sharing with Stern, and 
how that could be a promising area to pressure China, India and 
other emerging countries. 
 
MEF Agenda is Vague 
------------------- 
 
¶20.  Carlgren said the EU would appreciate hearing more about the 
MEF agenda since State and NSC officials had been vague during the 
Troika visit.  He said Sweden was prepared to discuss the Australian 
proposal, although that was not an EU position. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶21.  Carlgren's audience for saying the U.S. must do more is not 
just Europe and China, but Swedish voters in next year's 
Parliamentary elections.  Carlgren's party, the          Center 
Party, has made achieving a successful agreement at Copenhagen a 
public litmus test of Sweden's success as EU President, and success 
as a government.  His public criticism of the U.S. is therefore 
likely to also have a domestic political motive. 
 
Prime Minister's Guidance 
------------------------- 
 
¶22.  The Prime Minister, however, seems to recognize the need to 
guide the message coming from Swedish officials. On September 3, the 
Prime Minister's office contacted the Embassy to report that the 
Prime Ministers State Secretary Gustav Lind had approved a so-called 
"language-rule," laying out approved GOS language about U.S. efforts 
in the climate area.  The decision came from increasing concerns 
within the GOS about too many actors making public statements on the 
climate issue, and some recent reactions to Swedish public 
statements - from the United States and Denmark.  The language-rule 
puts forth Swedish government-approved language on U.S. efforts on 
climate change. It says the while the U.S. is not sufficiently 
contributing to the shared Annex I  undertaking to reduce emissions 
by at least 25%, it will in a significant way contribute to the 
long-term goal, based on the Waxman-Markey Bill's proposal to reduce 
emissions by over 80 percent.  The language-rule further states that 
the GOS recognizes that the U.S. political system does not allow any 
simple path for the President to make additional commitments to step 
up the level of U.S. ambition regarding the mid-term target for 
¶2020. 
 
 
BARZUN