Subtitle: Earth as the Hostage in the Negotiations
After obstructing the process until just before closure, Paula Dobriansky, who lead the U.S. delegation, stated, “We will go forward and join consensus.”
Ban Ki-moon delivers a special address to the conference, which went on for an extra day.
A compromise was reached on a ‘Bali road map’. Two major compromises were announced:
- The road map from Bali avoids setting mandatory targets for emissions cuts (25-40% by 2020) as demanded by the EU and the G77, but calls for them.
- The road map from Bali avoids denying the need for efforts by major developing countries like China either, as demanded the US and others.
*O.K., fine,” observes Jesse Jenkins, “China may have surpassed the US in terms of total annual emissions…”
But: a) the United States effectively “offshores” all of the emissions associated with the goods we import – much of it from China; and b) since carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, cumulative emissions what drive climate change, and the US is responsible for the most cumulative emissions and will be for some time. So the US is still the nation most responsible for global warming.
The China objection was basically bogus; a reason to have a reason without admitting the true reason, which is Emperor Fossil wants to continue to poison the planet as always (until the end).
Richard Graves:
“At Bali, the Chinese government and many other developing countries came forward with real proposals to act. They came in all seriousness, recognizing the urgency of action, and the United States and Canada blocked CHINA and other developing countries from acting. If the Bali conference puts a stake in the heart of that dirty little lie, it will at least have done something positive.”
The Biopact team reports that the consensus decision “includes a clear agenda for the key issues to be negotiated up to 2009.
The key issues identified by the consensus reached at Bali are:
- Action for adapting to the negative consequences of climate change, such as droughts and floods;
- Ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions;
- Ways to widely deploy climate-friendly technologies and financing both adaptation and mitigation measures.
Concluding negotiations in 2009 will ensure that the new deal can enter into force by 2013, following the expiry of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol.
Checking green house gases could limit an increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) while taking no action would result in drastic consequences.
“Drastic consequences, that’s what we like to hear, hey, Chain Gang?”
Responses from Bali:
-
We now have a Bali roadmap, we have an agenda and we have a deadline. But we also have a huge task ahead of us and time to reach agreement is extremely short, so we need to move quickly.
– Rachmat Witoelar, Indonesian Environment Minister and President of the conference -
This is a real breakthrough, a real opportunity for the international community to successfully fight climate change. Parties have recognised the urgency of action on climate change and have now provided the political response to what scientists have been telling us is needed.
– Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change -
The public can understand that we brought the United States into the negotiations. It’s a framework that is quite weak but which still moves forward.
– Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, Deputy Ecology Minister of France
5 Comments
In true consensus, one can stand for or stand against a recommendation. If any participant stands against, then no consensus.
There is an option for those that stand against something. Instead, one can choose to stand aside.
Up until the last day of the agreed upon period for the IPCC conference in Bali, the United States stood against commitment to certain targets.
The other day I heard an NPR sound bite, where another participant challenged Dobriansky to “Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell Out of the Way” (the motto of the U.S. 8th Army). David Roberts also reported the confrontation during contentious last-minute climate talks in Bali:
Conrad’s blunt declaration was met with applause by the other participants. In other words, up until the final day, the U.S. delegation was unwilling to stand aside on a key issue. American readers might think this a proper stance for a world leader. While in terms of anthropogenic GHG emissions, the United States is the leader, it is the laggard when it comes to efforts at mitigation.
US ranks down near the bottom (#55 out of 56 possible)
Philadelphian Treehugger John Laumer reports that in the Climate Change Performance Index for 2008, just released in Bali, the U.S. ranks down near the bottom, 15 steps below China.
Joe Romm’s take on the Bali bourgeois is that “since no hard, near-term targets were agreed to, I’d still call the conference an utter failure, by any reasonable standard, given how urgent the climate problem is.”
While how to achieve the goal is complex, the goal itself can be explained with a set of simple numbers:
“2 and 445″ and “25 to 40″
Said Angus Friday, chair of the Alliance of Small Island states, when the talks had wound up, “There was no need for 12,000 people to gather here in Bali to have a watered down text, we could have done that by email.”
Now that the conference in Bali has come to a close, David Roberts relays some commentary.
One Trackback
[...] recently noted in a post-Bali analysis, how to achieve the goal of mitigating climate change is complex, yet the goal can be explained [...]