US Shows Signs of Backing Away From Bali Deal

From the “it was bound to happen” file, Agence France-Presse reports the White House is already expressing “strong concerns” about the minimalist climate change deal reached at Bali.

As negotiators headed home after two weeks of intense haggling, the White House complained that the agreement did not do enough to commit major emerging economies such as China and India to big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

It underlined lingering division over how to confront the perils of global warming, which scientists warn will put millions of people at risk of hunger, homelessness and disease by the end of the century if temperatures keep rising at current rates.

An isolated US delegation had backed down during an unplanned 13th day of talks and said it would finally accept the deal, but hours later US President George W. Bush’s administration counter-attacked.

The White House said any Kyoto successor treaty must acknowledge a nation’s sovereign right to pursue economic growth and energy security.

While there were several positive aspects to the Bali deal, it added, the “United States does have serious concerns about other aspects of the decision as we begin the negotiations.”

The drama of Bali will be minor compared to the poker game when talks on a new treaty reach crunch point, said Fernando Tudela, Mexico’s under-secretary for environmental policy.
“The mother of all battles will be in 2009,” he cautioned. “This is just a warm-up.”

 

The EU Turns Its Back on Bush

Poor little Georgie Bush can’t get no respect anymore. Folks just aren’t at the Clown Prince’s beck and call today.

Shrub got bitchslapped in Bali today by the European Union whose reps sent a message to the little peckerhead that they won’t be showing up for his “Major Economies Meeting” in Hawaii next month unless the US gets with the programme at the Bali climate summit.

Germany’s enviromin, Sigmar Gabriel, put the EU position bluntly, “No result in Bali means no Major Economies Meeting.”

“The best we hoped for was that the U.S. would not hobble the rest of the world from moving forward,” said Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-profit American organization. “Our delegation here from the States has not been able to meet that low level of expectation.”

The head of the American delegation, levitating over the facts, said America is working very hard to achieve consensus – there’s no question there. Unfortunately by consensus she means capitulation and by climate plan she means stay the course.

 

No Caps for Washington/Ottawa

The United States has said it will not accept mandatory carbon caps at the Bali summit. It says it will come up with its own plan instead, some time around mid-2008. Yeah, right. Our sunken eyed, knuckle-dragging Enviromin, John Baird, then jumped in on cue to say that Canada wouldn’t sign any pact that didn’t include the US. Baird compared a binding carbon deal without the US to unilateral nuclear disarmament. He said it would amount to “environmental Armageddon” to ink a deal that didn’t impose binding targets on China and India.

My question. The intransigence of Washington and Ottawa is so transparent and disingenuous why did Baird and his American counterpart, Harlan Watson, even go to Bali at all? Oh yeah, I forgot, they needed to be there to torpedo any chance that the rest of the world might reach a deal without them.

Scumbags. They really are scumbags.

 

Leading Thinkers Speak Out on Bali Summit

The Guardian today features the views of a number of leading figures, each suggesting what will really boost the fight against climate change.

Kofi Annan:

They must sustain a two-pronged approach: mitigation and adaptation. The only suitable response is a binding international framework to curb greenhouse gas emissions beyond the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012. We have to take steps to increase the resilience of vulnerable communities to the impact of climate change.

Richard Branson:

The most positive but realistic thing that governments could agree in Bali is to halt the cutting down of virgin tropical rainforests with immediate effect and agree a method by which the major economies, big multinationals and other carbon offset groups could pay for it. The next five years of carbon emissions from burning rainforests will alone be greater than all the emissions from air travel since the Wright brothers first flight in 1903 until at least 2025.

Leon Feurth, Security Advisor to Vice-Pres. Al Gore:

The single breakthrough that would be a game-changer is technological: it would involve an efficient method for trapping carbon dioxide as it is generated, before it can enter the atmosphere. But even such a breakthrough would have to be coupled with a profound change of mind about relying on massive consumption of carbon-based fuels.

Isabel Hilton, Editor, Chinadialogue and Open Democracy:

The most important breakthrough – which must form the basis of action – would be acknowledgment that policy must follow science, however difficult that is. We must agree that concentrations of greenhouse gases should not be allowed to rise above 400-450 parts per million, CO2 equivalent. Few leaders have had the courage to make this commitment. Without it, we are plagued by shifting targets and lack of clarity.

George Monbiot – Columnist and Author of “Heat”

There should be an equal allocation, worldwide, of the right to produce carbon dioxide. Our rations can be tradeable – people may use more than their share if they are prepared to buy it – but the revenue should be returned to those who use less. This system works because it is just, easy to understand, requires very little policing, and creates powerful incentives to use low-carbon technologies.

Sir Nicholas Stern

We need a global agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with the rich countries leading the way on targets and trading. The rich countries should aim for at least 80% – either made directly or bought via a global mechanism for trading emissions. Trade in emissions has the benefit of keeping costs down and providing glue for the global deal.

In reading these views and the others in the Guardian article, I thought about which of them was right. The simple fact is they all are.