“The President delivered a firm statement of America’s willingness to make commitments on policy and funding, and he correctly insisted that other nations must make commitments to ensure accountability,” she said in a statement that touted the climate bill the House approved in June.
Here’s American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard, who is not a fan of Democratic legislative plans:
“We agree with President Obama on the importance of addressing global climate change. However, Congress’s leading proposals could destroy millions of jobs, drive up fuel prices, and, by shifting much of our refining capacity abroad (along with refinery greenhouse gas emissions), substantially increase our reliance on foreign supplies of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum fuels,” he said.
Rep. Earl BlumenauerEarl BlumenauerKentucky Dem lawmaker questions Trump's mental health A guide to the committees: House Democrats raise questions about Trump’s mental health MORE (D-Ore.), who is part of the bipartisan House delegation at the talks, tells AFP that it wasn’t Obama’s best. “The fact is there was nothing new and maybe a little of a harsher tone,” he said in the AFP account.
And here’s Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of several people quoted in The Globe and Mail:
“I think the speech may have been calibrated not to put some things on the table at this point, because of the hard-ball negotiations going on, the state of play he was flying into. I know they were considering some additional elements which weren't forthcoming,” he said.
“We're hopeful that the (subsequent China-U.S.) bilateral may have cleared some of the air and laid the groundwork for agreement on some of the issues. If China and the United States see more eye to eye on some of the flashpoint issues that has to be helpful.”