EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Deal in Sight at Bali
PENANG, Malaysia - As a major United Nations 'framework convention' on climate change (UNFCCC) crossed into its second half on Monday, the official view is one of optimism that progress has been made in laying the ''building blocks'' for a future agreement.
But others say the discussions are hopelessly deadlocked and that proposals could fall far short of the drastic emission cuts required to curb global warming.
Speaking at a press briefing at the end of the first of two weeks of negotiations, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said the conference needed to do two things: ''First of all, it needs to deliver on a number of ongoing issues that are of particular importance to developing countries. For example, we need to advance on the question of adaptation, we need to advance on technology transfer, we need to strengthen capacity-building and we need to move forward on the issue of reducing emissions from deforestation."
''And secondly, it needs to launch a process on climate change action beyond 2012 when the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol ends.''
No final deal on a future climate regime will be concluded on the famed Indonesian island resort. The goal is merely to launch negotiations, to set an agenda on the ''main building blocks'' of a future agreement and to set an end date for conclusion of the negotiations.
According to de Boer, three divergent views have arisen. Some countries wanted legally binding targets for developing countries. Others said developing countries could limit growth in emissions provided incentives are put in place. Another major discussion centred on whether industrialised countries should accept legally binding targets or national-level targets.
"There's good progress in the future-oriented discussion on three of the four building blocks: good progress has been made on mitigation, adaptation and technology,'' added Boer. He pointed out that the fact that there has been less progress on finance did not mean the issue was difficult ''but simply points to the fact there hasn't been enough time to discuss that issue yet".
De Boer said he had observed a strong willingness on the part of countries to get a successful outcome from Bali.
But Malaysia's leading environmentalist Gurmit Singh, when contacted in Bali, had a different assessment. ''They always give a rosy picture,'' he told IPS in a telephone interview. ''I think the discussions are still deadlocked because no unanimous position has emerged.''
Much of the debate centres on technology transfer, he said. ''Larger developing nations such as China, India and Brazil are holding back. They want developed nations to show they are actually reducing emissions.''
The problem is that the developed countries say they will wait because the Kyoto Protocol only commits industrialised countries to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions between 2008 and 2012.
In the meantime, emissions from countries such as China, India and Brazil -- and even Malaysia -- have been increasing, says Gurmit, the executive director of the Centre for Environment, Technology and Development Malaysia (Cetdem).
For instance, the U.N. Development Report indicates carbon emissions soared by 221 per cent from 1990 to 2004 in Malaysia -- the fastest growth rate among the world's top 30 carbon dioxide emitters.
Malaysia's largest conglomerate, Sime Darby, which is mainly involved in the oil palm, property, energy and motor vehicle sectors, has adopted the tagline 'Developing Sustainable Futures' and says it is going green as concern mounts over the levels of deforestation caused by the drive towards bio-fuels.
Budget airlines in South-east Asia, on the other hand, are rapidly expanding their services across the region, oblivious to the emissions they are causing. .
Peter Hardstaff, head of policy for the Britain-based World Development Movement, in his blog from Bali describes an encounter with Pacific Islanders who are already ''in big trouble'' due to rising sea levels. He wrote of one member of the Cook Islands delegation who was ''gob-smacked by the fact that there is such strong (and currently successful) pressure to exclude aviation from emissions cuts in the next phase of the Kyoto deal.''
''He told me that it was only in the 1990s that cartographers started remembering to put his homeland on world maps because it is so small. He reckoned if the aviation industry has its way, we might as well take the Cook Islands off again,'' said Hardstaff.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has forecast a rise in global energy demand of 50 per cent by 2030. Much of this will come from rapidly growing economies such as China and India. If no climate policy is put in place, it could lead to a 50 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions
''That's why the developed countries especially the United States are saying, 'Why should we reduced emissions because China's emissions are now about the same level as the U.S.?''' says Gurmit ''They are going to put the blame on the big developing countries for any failure in reaching an agreement.''
''So it's left to be seen if the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) recommendations -- and the EU itself -- which call for massive reductions in emissions by 2020, can be achieved. That means not only developed countries, but also developing countries, have to reduce emissions.''
Earlier this year, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol agreed to a range of 25-40 percent emission reduction targets by 2020. De Boer said these targets would be "an important reference frame for these discussions."
The big political question, says Gurmit, is how to ask developing countries to reduce emissions when they are not being given the technology transfer and financial aid promised in the UNFCCC, to which even the United States is bound because it has ratified the convention.
''You cannot ask developing countries to reduce the energy they need to eradicate poverty and raise the quality of life unless you give them the technology that will allow them to use more renewable energy so that they can become low-carbon economies.''
The U.S. has already declared that it would not be announcing binding emission targets at Bali, dampening any chance for the agreed 25-40 percent cuts being included in any final agreement that may be hammered out on Dec.14, when the Bali conference ends.
As the arguments swirl, Hardstaff grimly laid out what's at stake: ''The science says that with an 80 per cent cut in carbon emissions -- the absolute upper limit that is even being considered here by the politicians -- we have a 50/50 chance of keeping the rise in average global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius beyond pre-industrial levels.''
''Think about that for a second. The absolute maximum effort many governments are prepared to make will give us a worse chance of success than if we were playing Russian roulette. That's insane!''
© 2007 Inter Press Service
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
5 Comments so far
Show Allanother large carbon footprint and more hot air,at the end it will be echo nothing but words and BS
Put Bush in his place.
http://www.merch-bot.com/product_info.php?products_id=1076
With all that we (and his dead victims) have had to put up with, …
I say the face on the paper hardly goes far enough.
We need him chained up under the seat, up to his neck in it.
This is alot of bullshit. They aren't even going to meet their Kyoto requirements that they signed up for. What a load of hot air!
How much I like the call to optimism, to human adventure and responsible action. I rings like the bell of the angels and like so many how write her I am happy for those of you out there that will say, now , now be optimistic. More people at Bali should get these vibes and act responsibly. Having said that I have written here on the problem and tried often to get the powers to be accept we have a really serious problem. I worked at the UN and UNESCO in Europe.
I must say, I loathe the establishment because my concerned friends it comes down to vested interests, greed and the economy as so many know here. I am afraid that we have lost this little game of truth or consequences. But if the truth really be known, the power elite and the one percent who have everything and own everyone really don't care if some three billion people on this globe perish.
This is the reality of the circumstances of this situation of climate change and its results, my friends who write here. The carbon producing industry want to burn every resulting carbon atom they can release, the atomic energy plants will continue mining uranium and its horrendous amounts a carbon produced to provide the fuel and the last tree in the Amazon will be cut as well as every other rain forest.
Bali will end with vows to create better adherence to the extension of Kyoto but like the RIO conference in 92, which I attended there will be lack of adherence and the levels of CO2 will surpass those allowed by the treaty. After Rio we were to cut emissions by 50% by now they have doubled. Climate change and its feedback loops will accelerate and the possibilities for future generations will continue to decline.
Bali goes on as the Rio conference, which I attended went on, Agenda 21, Kyoto Protocol, and so many organizations and NGOs which I work with trying to reduce the harm multinationals, the G8, WTO and the varied alliances that are aimed at increasing human misery for greeter profit go on. WE need to reduce toxins reduce the economic and carbon footprint on this globe is shouted everywhere because we are very clear on the fact that we must do this if the human race is to survive. We have responsible people on the globe doing all they can to fight against the power elite to end this madness that we see happening.
I have been watching the advertising con-job these big oil companies have been using to try to obscure the fact that they are doing something but we know that they are not! We know that are trying to look green over their black profits which will as it is heading exterminate life on this planet.
The oil companies say that renewable in their wisdom will only account to 30 percent of the energy budget for the globe, but even that much, but I am certain it could be greater, coupled with conservation and increasing populations who want to go back to the most efficient lives possible would make the difference in keeping the carbon footprint down while breakthroughs in new conserver technology are brought on line.
These corporate con-men are selling us death and destruction of this planet. They are the most irresponsible of the corporate voice and the most cynical. We need their investments not in advertising to hoodwink the world to believe that they care but their resources invested into green solutions to the reduction of the use of the hydro carbons in the ground or a sequestration of the carbon if the resource is to be used.
The entire condition of life on the planet is skewed. The need for ever larger and more of everything is based on a conception of economics that is out of touch with survival strategies for the human population.
We are going down the road to extinction along with the systems we have created that have put us out of touch with all life including our own.
The end for wall street and its ideas of value and reason for being which is endless growth can not continue. There is no such thing as perpetual motion or growth. When we experience growth that is out of control in the human organism it is called cancer and we die. On that note since 1970 the incidence cancer has increased 100% in people over 60.
the idea of human valuation is based on money and thinness; that too is out of touch with human needs for survival. All systems are reaching critical mass. The giant human extinction process has begun. It may lead to the end of all life on this planet.
Bali goes on as the Rio conference, which I attended went on, Agenda 21, Kyoto Protocol, and so many organizations and NGOs which I work with trying to reduce the harm multinationals, the G8, WTO and the varied alliances that are aimed at increasing human misery for greeter profit go on. WE need to reduce toxins reduce the economic and carbon footprint on this globe is shouted everywhere because we are very clear on the fact that we must do this if the human race is to survive. We have responsible people on the globe doing all they can to fight against the power elite to end this madness that we see happening.
I have been watching the advertising con-job these big oil companies have been using to try to obscure the fact that they are doing something but we know that they are not! We know that are trying to look green over their black profits which will as it is heading exterminate life on this planet.
The oil companies say that renewables, in their wisdom, will only account for 30 percent of the energy budget for the globe, but even that amount, I am certain could be greater than projected, and coupled with conservation and increasing the desire of populations who want to go back to to living with the most efficient lives possible, would make the difference in keeping the carbon footprint down. All this while breakthroughs in new conserver technology are brought on line.
These corporate con-men are selling us death and destruction of this planet. They are the most irresponsible of the corporate voice and the most cynical. We need their investments not in advertising to hoodwink the world to believe that they care about the greening of oil and coal, but their resources invested into green solutions to the reduction of the use of the hydro carbons in the ground or a sequestration of the carbon if the resources are to be used.
We are the problem in that we need all these great inventions that are created so that we can do everything faster, and have ever more of everything. Who here who is writing will reduce their wants by half and try to try to help half the needs of those around us do the same?
The entire condition of life on the planet is skewed. The need for ever larger and more of everything is based on a conception of economics that is out of touch with survival strategies for the human population. more of everything, greater GDP, more clothes, food, houses and consumption of every descriptionWe try to export these ideas globally so all will buy from the western world and adopt these values. The people in the West want the world to require the same things it's called globalization! Well my friends China and India have caught on and they want this as well.
We are going down the road to extinction along with the systems we have created that have put us out of touch with all life including our own.The end for wall street and its ideas of value and reason for being which is endless growth can not continue.
There is no such thing as perpetual motion or growth. When we experience growth that is out of control in the human organism it is called cancer and we die. On that note since 1970 the incidence cancer has increased 100% in people over 60.
The idea of human valuation is based on money and thingness; that too is out of touch with human needs for survival. All systems are reaching critical mass. The giant human extinction process has begun. It may lead to the end of all life on this planet. We have less than ten years to make the major shifts necessary to survive.
How much I like the call to optimism, to human adventure and responsible action. It rings like the bell of the angels and like so many who write here are optimistic. I am happy for those of you out there that will say, now, now be optimistic. More people at Bali should get these vibes and act responsibly. Having said that I have written here on the problem and tried often to get the powers to be accept that we have a really serious problem becoming more serious.
I work at the UN and UNESCO in Europe. I must say, I loathe the establishment because my concerned friends it comes down to vested interests, greed and the economy as so many know. I am afraid that we have lost this little game of truth or consequences. But if the truth really be known, the power elite and the one percent who have everything and own everyone really don't care if some three billion people on this globe perish.
This is the reality of the circumstances of this situation of climate change and its results, my friends who write here. The carbon producing industry want to burn every resulting carbon atom they can release, the atomic energy plants will continue mining uranium and its horrendous amounts a carbon produced for fuel to provide the electricity for ever more production. The last tree in the Amazon will be cut as well as every other rain forest.
Bali will end with vows to create better adherence to the extension of Kyoto but like the RIO conference in 92, which I attended there will be lack of adherence and the levels of CO2 will surpass those allowed by the treaty. After Rio we were to cut emissions by 50% by now they have doubled.
Climate change and its feedback loops will accelerate and the possibilities for future generations will continue to decline. Regardless of who says what ever in government, or in the news, we don't have more than one and half degree of warming for the feedback lops to begin, if they already are not in motion, as James Lovelock believes.
The changes we have made to the atmosphere are melting the poles with the hydrocarbons we pump into the atmosphere. Most of the carbon we put into the air lasts 100 and the remaining amount in the atmosphere can last 1000 years. the UK plans to build enough coal fired electric plants to increase their footprint in sufficient ways to help Bali appear to be a wimper for change no one really heeds.
Why isn't the Guardian talking about that? Is is that the Guardian wants to stay away from the issues that are really important in the UK? Below find the conclusion of JIm Hansen's letter as a private person to the government of the UK. This should make you all sit up and think!!
James E. Hansen
Kintnersville, Pennsylvania
— James Hansen wrote: Final page
" Further actions will be needed to achieve a rollback of the net climate forcing. These actions(http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.3720.pdf) include reduction of non-CO2 climate forcings and improved agricultural and forestry practices. These actions are important and have multiple benefits, especially in developing countries, but they do not have the great urgency of halting construction of new coal plants without carbon capture. Power plants have long lifetimes, and once their CO2 is released to the air, it is impractical to recover it.
Energy departments, influenced by fossil fuel interests, take it as a God-given fact that we will extract all fossil fuels from the ground and burn them before we move on to other ways of producing usable energy. The public is capable of changing this course dictated by fossil fuel interests, but clear-sighted leadership is needed now if the actions are to be achieved in time.
Tipping points and positive feedbacks exist among people, as well as in the climate system. I believe that the action with the greatest potential to initiate positive feedbacks, and lead to the benefits that will accompany a clean energy future, is a moratorium in the West on new coal-fired power plants unless and until CO2 capture and sequestration technology is available. Such a moratorium would provide the West with sufficient moral authority to sit down with China and other developing countries to find ways, likely including technological assistance, for developing countries to also phase out coal use that does not capture CO2.
As shown above, responsibility for the first step rests with Great Britain, the United States and Germany. Despite lack of government leadership, citizens in the United States are stepping up to block one coal plant after another, and the next national election is less than a year away.
If Germany and Great Britain halted construction of coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester the CO2, it could be a tipping point for the world. There is still time to find that tipping point, but just barely. I hope that you will give these considerations your attention in setting your national policies. You have the potential to influence the future of the planet.
Chancellor Merkel, we cannot avert our eyes from the basic fossil fuel facts, or the consequences for life on our planet of ignoring these fossil fuel facts. If we continue to build coal-fired powerplants without carbon capture, we will lock in future climate disasters associated with passing climate tipping points. We must solve the coal problem now.For your information, I am sending a similar letter to Prime Minister Brown.
James E. Hansen