“Keeping the global pressure up is important to eventual success”
“This represents a milestone event that set the stage for a range of globally significant issues. That said, more progress has to be made in the future by working on regional and more incremental initiatives with business, NGOs, and governments at the table.”
“There are smaller, incremental meetings in these international processes, and the drive for progress, even if currently limited, comes from the higher-profile meetings.”
“The issues are too interrelated to be broken down and addressed independently.”
“The world needs to continue talking about these issues if it [is] ever going to come up with solutions.”
The Rio+20 conference has a broad agenda, with sessions on climate change, oceans management, food security, deforestation, and a host of other issues. Do you expect any meaningful agreements to be reached on any of the problems being discussed?
- Yes (Which ones? Please specify in comments) 0%
- No 100%
"The global financial crisis led to protectionism and isolationism that has widened economic divisions between industrialized and developing nations as donor states' willingness has decreased and recipient states' needs have grown. That leaves room for little but symbolic agreement."
"If progress were actually made, there would be less need for follow-up conferences. Did someone say Bali in 2013!?"
"The world economy, political gridlock in the United States, and the intransigence of China and India are huge barriers to additional major international agreements on greenhouse-gas emissions. Negotiators would no doubt be better off focusing on incremental achievements."
"I suppose they might agree on some lower-priority issue so they can claim at least some success."
"This is the inverse of the banking rule, Rio+20 and the like are too big to succeed."
"The meeting may serve a purpose by fostering further dialogue, and keeping these important issues in the public's view, but we are not likely to close the deal on meaningful agreements while the world economy is a big question mark."
"Rarely, if ever, have these conferences produced any 'meaningful' agreements. This year will be no different."
"Sadly, even if practical, consensus-based agreements could be reached, conservatives would only ridicule them as 'evidence' of foreign encroachment."
"No meaningful agreements can be expected in these areas, there is no consensus, there are winners and losers, and no crisis or pressure-point-forcing decisions."
"And even if they say they have meaningful agreements, they will be broken almost immediately upon leaving the meeting."
National Journal’s Energy and Environment Insiders Poll is a periodic survey of energy policy experts. They include:
Jeff Anderson, Paul Bailey, Kenneth Berlin, Andrew J. Black, Denise Bode, Kevin Book, Pat Bousliman, Michael Bromwich, David Brown, Neil Brown, Stephen Brown, Kateri Callahan, McKie Campbell, Guy Caruso, Neil Chatterjee, Paul Cicio, Douglas Clapp, Eileen Claussen, Steve Cochran, Phyllis Cuttino, Kyle Danish, Lee Dehihns, Robbie Diamond, David Di Martino, Bob Dinneen, Sean Donahue, Tom Dower, Jeff Duncan, John Felmy, Mike Ference, David Foster, Josh Freed, Don Furman, Paul Gilman, Richard Glick, Kate Gordon, Chuck Gray, Jason Grumet, Christopher Guith, Lewis Hay, Fritz Hirst, Jeff Holmstead, David Holt, Skip Horvath, Bob Irvin, Bill Johnson, Gene Karpinski, Joseph T. Kelliher, Brian Kennedy, Kevin Knobloch, David Kreutzer, Fred Krupp, Tom Kuhn, Con Lass, Mindy Lubber, Frank Maisano, Drew Maloney, Roger Martella, John McArther, Mike McKenna, Bill McKibben, Kristina Moore, Richard Myers, Aric Newhouse, Frank O’Donnell, Mike Olson, T. Boone Pickens, Thomas Pyle, Hal Quinn, Rhone Resch, Barry Russell, Joseph Schultz, Bob Simon, Scott Sklar, Bill Snape, Jeff Sterba, Linda Stuntz, Christine Tezak, Susan Tierney, Andrew Wheeler, Brian Wolff, Franz Wuerfmannsdobler, and Todd Young.