Final Score from Bali - all losers


weighing up the climate balanceWith the Bali summit finally wrapped up we’ve been reading mixed messages from around the world. Some news outlets are reporting a positive conclusion with the signing of an acceptable deal at the 11th hour, with others taking a more critical view of the results.

So what happened, and what does it mean? Here is our quick round-up.

Participating nations have come to an agreement to continue discussions over emissions reductions - not an agreement to reduce actual emissions themselves. This is in keeping with the original objectives of the Bali summit, aiming to develop a roadmap towards worldwide agreement over emissions reductions before 2009 and the end of the Kyoto protocol.

Surely that can’t be so hard to negotiate? Well..

A compromise was accepted whereby agreement in principle for binding emissions reductions was reached, without specifically mentioning hard figures. Although everybody appears to be happy, it seems that the underlying issue remains - developing nations and some industrialised nations don’t fully sign up to the idea of emissions reductions and therefore use each other as an excuse for not signing. Even Australia, who recently signed up to the Kyoto protocol after John Howard’s election defeat are still evaluating their level of commitment for firm reductions at the next round of talks.

All nations have formally accepted the science on which the recommended reductions are based, but few seem to have the political will or support to swallow the recommended medicine.

A further issue not fully resolved by the negotiations was that of ‘green’ technology transfer between industrialised and developing nations. Although agreement was partly reached, many countries will leave Bali with less than they were expecting. Since technology is likely to be the key to reducing emissions whilst maintaining economic development this could potentially be judged as one of biggest failures in principle of the whole exercise.

It is also understood that the Chinese made UN Secretary General Yvo de Boer cry after accusing him of ‘procedural irregularities’. However, this has apparently been resolved by a quick apology.

Our next post will be absolutely nothing to do with Bali.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
December 15th, 2007
6 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Commentary
News
Our Environment
Politics

Other Posts
Guest Post: Myths, lies and deceptions of climate change
Latest Bali fun and games

Tags


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Reader Comments

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
ClimateHeretic
Posted on:
December 15, 2007 at 5:35 pm

As I stated before, an agreement to have future talks. It is like agreeing to continue to disagree.

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Mark
Posted on:
December 15, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Exactly.

We also understand that the UN have stated that all further talks will be carbon neutral.

We are not sure if they will achieve this by offsets, or by just staying at home.

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
gotsound
Posted on:
December 15, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Given the fact that all 189 countries have obscenely different interests and all came to Bali with different agendas that would be of best interest to their own countries, it’s actually a relief, and I have to say an achievement, albeit a weak one, that they finally got to an agreement especially after the near-deadlock drama over the last few days of the conference. With big emitter countries including Russia, China, and India on board, and the US finally came to their senses last-minutely, we can at least cross our fingers now and hope that the Copenhagen meeting 2 years from now would produce something significant.

Bali Roadmap is supposed to be an agreement of what’s gonna be finalized in 2009, so I don’t see it as a failure that the conference produced exactly what it was aiming for. The ever-tiring negotiation process to reach a consensus is the main culprit of why the targets are not set in detail at this point, mostly due to the painstaking opposition from the US. Yes, the agreement result is weaker than we all have hoped for, but we should all see this baby step as the beginning of a global cooperation and stop criticizing just for the sake of criticizing (unless you actually do have valid points).

Oh, btw, it was UNFCCC Secretary General Yvo de Boer who cried after being accused by Chinese delegations, not Ban Ki Moon himself.

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
DFM
Posted on:
December 15, 2007 at 10:52 pm

I think it’s a fantastic development! By 2009 I’m sure the Climate Gods will have cooled things off to where even Al Gore will have to say……oops!

And why in the world should the US agree to give our technology away, if and when we have it. Last I looked we were a capitalist, free market economy. (unless of course Hillary gets elected) Who’s going to invest in this technology if they have to give it away?

Comment Number:
5
Written by:
ClimateHeretic
Posted on:
December 16, 2007 at 1:21 am

This agreement is a way to save face and say you made some progress.
It, like a carbon credit is a feel good salve for your climate soul, nice for a few minutes then you realize that it really did nothing. If no sort of document was produced then this would have been a monumental failure at the outset and nobody wants that, it is bad for politics at home.

“There is no crying in Climate Change Talks!”

Comment Number:
6
Written by:
Mark
Posted on:
December 16, 2007 at 9:36 am

>>Oh, btw, it was UNFCCC Secretary General Yvo de Boer who cried after being accused by Chinese delegations, not Ban Ki Moon himself.

Doh. Corrected.

The conference did indeed reach it’s original objectives. But the point is that it also demonstrated the fundamental underlying divide between the policies of the key players.