Bali Summit Analysis by New Scientist

Reposted from: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19626353.900-analysis-how-the-climate-drama-unfolded-in-bali.html

Analysis: How the climate drama unfolded in Bali

• 22 December 2007
• From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues
• Fred Pearce Nusa Dua, Indonesia

THE Bali climate conference had everything, from beaches to the UN's top climate diplomat fleeing the platform in tears. There were charges that the science underpinning the event had been reduced to a footnote, and even a rescue mission from the UN secretary general as the all-night final session extended long into the following afternoon. To top it all, a booed and humiliated US delegation was forced into a U-turn after being unable to find a single supporter in the face of a vitriolic attack from Papua New Guinea.

Between the tears and ultimatums,

the conference may also have ensured that both the US and China become fully engaged in humanity's most pressing task of the 21st century - reining in climate change.

On the face of it, nothing happened that will immediately affect the atmosphere. Almost 24 hours after the scheduled close, with ministers already leaving for the airport,

a deal was reached on the "Bali roadmap" - a document setting the agenda for two years of negotiations that should culminate in a Copenhagen protocol to govern global greenhouse gas emissions after the Kyoto protocol lapses in 2012.

The key question is whether the roadmap will prevent dangerous climate change.

European nations wanted it to state a "destination" - a target of emissions cuts by industrialised countries of between 25 and 40 per cent by 2020, and for total global emissions to peak within 15 years and halve by 2050.

The US - in its one clear victory of the fortnight - joined with Canada, Japan and Russia to veto this text, saying it prejudiced the coming negotiations.

They secured a compromise reference to the necessity for "deep cuts", with a footnote mentioning several pages taken from a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describing scenarios for reducing emissions.

Here the story gets murky, with the science repeatedly being taken in vain.

The EU and many environmentalists claimed at the meeting that the 25 to 40 per cent plan was the recommendation of the IPCC, and that to reject it was to reject the science. In fact the referenced pages do not make such a recommendation. They simply say that cuts within that range would likely be required to limit concentrations of greenhouse gases in the air to the equivalent of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide. They give equal prominence to two other targets - 550 and 650 ppm - that require less stringent cuts.

Most delegates left the meeting believing that the footnote embraces a 450 ppm target. The Americans know better.

There is a further complication. Delegates repeatedly asserted that

keeping atmospheric concentrations below 450 ppm would prevent global average air temperatures rising by more than 2 °C from pre-industrial levels, which is often seen as a threshold beyond which dangerous climate change will occur. It might. But according to studies presented in Bali by the UK's Met Office, there is only a 20 per cent chance of 450 ppm delivering that.

Uncertainty about the climate's sensitivity to extra greenhouse gases is still so great, said Vicky Pope of the Met Office, that

450 ppm could cause warming of 4 °C or more (see Graph).

The best that can be said is that the significance of keeping below 2 °C is more a political construct than a scientific fact.

None of this detracts from the urgency of dramatically lowering emissions of greenhouse gases.

Once in the air, the lifetime of CO₂ is measured in centuries, so climate scientists in Bali argued that only near-zero emissions by mid-century or soon after will begin to make the world safe from climate change.

It is not an impossible target. Three nations publicly committed themselves to bringing their emissions to zero: Norway, New Zealand and Costa Rica. The last says it can get there by 2021.

This was the first UN climate conference at which countries talked confidently about making emissions cuts on such a scale. They are being pushed by the remorselessly alarming science, but also drawn by the assurances of large corporations that such cuts are feasible. Germany last week announced plans to cut its emissions by 40 per cent below 1990s levels by 2020. "This is not altruism, the German economy will benefit from the plans," said the environment minister.

Bali was also the first UN climate conference to take place without a chorus of industrialists warning of economic doom if emissions are corralled. Instead, many are demanding firm long-term emissions targets to help them plan future investment. For them, the failure to enshrine a 25 to 40 per cent cut is a blow.

Bali was also the moment when large developing nations such as China for the first time committed themselves to what the roadmap calls "measurable, reportable and verifiable... mitigation actions".

This did not amount to pledging actual emissions cuts, but it was at least divergence from business as usual.

This commitment, unthinkable only a couple of years ago, did not happen easily. It nearly derailed the conference at the start of its unscheduled final day.

In return for their promise, developing countries demanded that they also receive "measurable, reportable and verifiable" help from the rich world, in the form of money and technology. The European Union swiftly conceded the point, but a suspicious US blocked it.

Just a few hours before, a procedural cock-up had resulted in a chastised and sleep-deprived Yvo de Boer - executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - leaving the platform in tears. Then the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon entered to read the riot act and demand a deal from bickering delegates. Coming after such a tense and fractious morning, the US's one-nation attempted veto caused outrage.

It seemed set to wreck the deal.

But then, in a moment of unscripted high drama rarely seen at UN conferences, Papua New Guinea's head of delegation Kevin Conrad rose above the barrage of appeals to the US delegation and simply commanded them: "If you are not prepared to lead, get out of the way." And they did. If the world finds a way to counter climate change, that will be a moment for the history books.

"Papua New Guinea simply said to the US delegation: 'If you are not prepared to lead, get out of the way.' And they did"

The scale of global emissions cuts now regarded by scientists as essential means that developing nations including China, India and Brazil will need to curtail their emissions sooner rather than later. US delegate Jim Connaughton put the emissions maths most succinctly.

Assuming even a conservative rate of global economic growth, business-as-usual energy technologies will raise global CO₂ emissions from 22 billion tonnes to 37 billion tonnes by 2050. Meeting the Bali aspiration of halving global emissions will require cutting emissions to 11 billion tonnes. That is a reduction on business as usual of 26 billion tonnes - more than current total emissions.

The scale of the task was so great that "even if developed countries went to zero, it would still require major developing countries to halve their [projected] emissions," Connaughton said.

One barely discussed element is that the Kyoto protocol appears to have been consigned to the dustbin of history even before its main provisions come into force in January. Nobody talks about a second round of Kyoto targets any more. The Bali roadmap mentions the protocol only once, noting that the new negotiations "shall be informed by... experience in implementing the... Kyoto protocol".

This provides a face-saving way back into the climate fold for Kyoto-refusenik, the US. Nobody is saying so, but it may also wipe the slate clean for countries likely to fail their Kyoto targets. Canada in particular is expected to have emissions 38 per cent above 1990 levels by 2010, rather than the promised 6 per cent cut. Moreover its government has said that it will not, as required by the protocol, buy carbon offsets to make up the difference.

Under the protocol, Canada faced swingeing penalties in a future round of emissions targets. It may now escape them. Likewise Australia, which finally signed up to the Kyoto protocol in Bali seemingly unconcerned that it has no hope of even approaching the target it agreed back in 1997.

Meanwhile the "Berlin Wall" within the Kyoto protocol, which divided the list of industrialied nations with targets and the rest, has disappeared. The roadmap text talks simply of developed and developing nations, without defining them. De Boer says this creates greater flexibility. It also creates new complications.

The one unquestioned promise in Bali was that negotiations on the successor to the Kyoto protocol will be concluded in 2009. That could prove the hardest thing of all to achieve.

(See editorial comment)

Climate Change – Want to know more about global warming: the science, impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.

From issue 2635 of New Scientist magazine, 22 December 2007, page 6-7

Tackling climate change - Bali summit

Reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139676.stm

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has opened high-level talks at the climate change conference in Bali with a call to action.

He said that if no action was taken, the world would face impacts such as drought, famine and rising sea levels.

Delegates are hoping to agree a "Bali roadmap" leading to further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions when the Kyoto Protocol targets expire in 2012.

The US and Canada are among countries opposed to further binding targets.

The UN itself wants developed countries to commit to cuts of 25-40% from 1990 levels by 2020.

'No plan B'

"We gather because the time for equivocation is over," said Mr Ban.

"Climate change is the defining challenge of our age. The science is clear; climate change is happening, the impact is real. The time to act is now."

It's no good accepting that something is a problem and then failing to do anything about it Andy Atkins, Tearfund

The newly-elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd handed documents to Mr Ban confirming his government's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

"The community of nations must reach agreement," he told delegates.

"There is no plan B; there is no other planet any of us can escape to."

The Australian decision leaves the US as the only industrialised nation outside the Kyoto process.

Security at the summit was enhanced because of the car bomb attack on UN premises in Algeria, which left at least 26 people dead.

Replacing Kyoto

Negotiators have been trying to map out a two-year process that would result in a further set of emissions cuts to replace the current Kyoto Protocol targets.

Broad building-blocks have already been agreed, but much of the detail remains contentious, in particular how much weight to give to the heavy emissions cuts recommended by the UN's panel of scientists.

In a major assessment this year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that emissions should peak and begin to fall within 10-15 years in order to avoid damaging impacts.

While acknowledging the science, the US argues for voluntary agreements rather than a global system of binding cuts.

Dealing with drought Enlarge Image

There has also been debate about adaptation - how to help developing countries protect their societies and economies against the worst impacts of climate change.

Studies indicate that the sums needed run into tens of billions of dollars per year, but funds committed so far amount to tens of millions of dollars.

"The main issue we've been trying to get across is that climate change is already hitting the poorest - it's not something for the future, it's something that's happening now," said Andy Atkins from the development charity Tearfund.

Mr Atkins said that in Niger, farmers have seen a rainy season shrink from three months each year to just six weeks.

"People in Bali are accepting adaptation will have to be part of a deal," he said. "But it's no good accepting that something is a big problem and then failing to do anything about it."

From Kyoto to Bali

The UN negotiations later this year need to build on the last 15 years of international climate talks. So how do we get a good outcome?

Tony Juniper

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

All Tony Juniper articles

May 15, 2007 1:00 PM

The most important contribution that Tony Blair has made to environmental politics during this time in office has to been to propel the climate change issue into international arenas. He started this ball rolling in earnest with a September 2004 speech that signalled his intention to use the UK presidencies of the G8 and EU for this purpose. In both cases, some progress has indeed been made. This is good news, because to stand a reasonable chance of avoiding temperature increases of more than 2C (4F), then emissions need to peak and then quickly fall in under a decade.

Earlier this year, the EU heads of state signed up to an emissions reduction target of 20% by 2020. Friends of the Earth argued that to be in line with its commitment to play its part in preventing temperature increases of more than 2C that this target should have been at least 30%, and indeed the leaders said that if other countries would step up to the challenge, that the EU would be prepared to go that far. In terms of what the other big polluting countries will now do, there are two meetings this year that will in large part signal what is possible by when. The first is the G8 meeting in Germany in June and the other is the Bali UN climate change negotiations in December.

The G8 process was a calculated political move by Blair to create a "safe" discussion forum for the Americans and some of the big polluter developing countries (especially China and India). These and other nations have been terrified (for differing reasons) that they might be pressured in a formal UN process into taking on binding targets. Blair's idea was to get them talking in an informal setting where binding commitments were not on the table. This is in large part why the G8 discussions, kicked off before Gleneagles in 2005, have been so concerned with technology and trading schemes, rather than targets and timetables. Although we will ultimately need a formal agreement that sets out who is going to do what, I think this is OK, up to a point.

The G8 process has, for example, helped to inch George Bush a little further forward on the climate change question, accepting that it is happening (grudgingly) and getting words agreed about the role of technology. Having said this, the main force in moving Bush has undoubtedly been the dramatic shift in the US public opinion that has taken place in the last couple of years. From state and city leaders to the heads of corporations and from the Christian right to scientific institutions, the US establishment has moved and left the Bush administration isolated.

The president has clung to his old scepticism, however, resolutely refusing to admit an urgent challenge or the need for a coordinated global response. And that remains the case. Moving the Whitehouse to the next stage must not only involve diplomacy but also a hardening of the mood back home in the US, which is happening and which is a cause for optimism. Blair and others need to recognise this political dynamic and to build on it, not only talking with the president, but reaching out to the vast range of other US opinion formers who are fast changing the political landscape there.

Even if Bush does signal some acceptance of the science, however, it is still a big leap from there to getting multilateral agreement on targets and timetables. And this is the real danger. If Blair sees his main job as getting Bush to acknowledge the problem, then the urgent need to get a legally binding deal in the UN might, in a diplomatic and political sense, be neglected. There have been signs of this for some time. For example Tony Blair has repeatedly signalled that he sees a future Kyoto-style agreement as unachievable (definitely a US-centric view) and has suggested that something else might work better. This kind of talk is unhelpful, especially since the most important UN negotiations on climate change since the Kyoto accord in 1997 are set to take place after the G8, later this year in Bali. That meeting needs to agree legally binding targets and timetables, as well as voluntary action from some of the big developing countries' emitters, backed with assistance from the developed countries.

Getting a deal in Bali must be seen as the real prize. Certainly the G8 can be an important milestone, but the political strategy needs to see Bali as the main opportunity. If there is to be any real chance of staying below two degrees of warming, then Bali must build on the last 15 years of international climate talks, and all the finely honed nuances contained in the Kyoto mechanisms, to set out a new future deal. Of course Kyoto is flawed, but it is the best we have and it will not be replaced by a more effective agreement coming out of the G8 talks.

So how do we get a good outcome at the UN? Well the G8 can certainly contribute by underlining how the latest science dictates the need for a global response underpinned by clear formal rules. The EU can do its bit as well, by putting in place the measures to meet its own Kyoto targets, and then moving toward the more ambitious 20% recently agreed to. This needs to be done by the EU as a whole and by individual governments as well. The UK is in a good position to take a lead.

Earlier this year, Friends of the Earth's Big Ask campaign succeeded in persuading the British government of the need for a domestic legal framework to manage scientifically determined cuts in emissions. A draft climate change bill was published in March and is now being consulted on. It has widespread support across the political spectrum, from business and a whole host of civil society groups. If this bill is made strong, with legally binding annual emissions reduction targets, if it includes a scientifically determined 2050 reduction target (of at least 80%) and if it includes international shipping and aviation, then it will be a genuine source of leadership and will undoubtedly lend credibility to British efforts to secure a global deal.

To move forward on climate change, the world will still need individual leaders to show the way, however. When Tony Blair steps down, who will take up the torch to light up the climate change issue on the global political stage? Angela Merkel is one contender. Perhaps too is Gordon Brown, although he has shown relatively little interest in the issue, certainly compared to his work on poverty alleviation. But he could do it, if he wanted to, not least on the back of domestic leadership coming from a good bill turning into a strong act of parliament, and thus gaining what Tony Blair has sometimes lacked: the credibility that comes from taking decisive action yourself.

Whoever seeks to fill Blair's boots on this subject will perhaps have the most important political legacy in all of human history, for whoever can broker the breakthroughs needed on climate change has the opportunity to save human civilisation. I think that is a legacy worth having.