Apparently they've reached some kind of agreement at Bali. Sounds like the last 24 hours have been a real white-knuckler:
BALI, Indonesia (CNN) -- The United States made a dramatic reversal Saturday, first rejecting and then accepting a compromise to set the stage for intense negotiations in the next two years aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.
The U.N. climate change conference in Bali was filled with emotion and cliff-hanging anticipation on Saturday, an extra day added because of a failure to reach agreement during the scheduled sessions.
The final result was a global warming pact that provides for negotiating rounds to conclude in 2009.
The head of the U.S. delegation -- Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky -- was booed Saturday afternoon when she announced that the United States was rejecting the plan as then written because they were "not prepared to accept this formulation." She said developing countries needed to carry more of the responsibility.
While rhetoric at such conferences is often just words, a short speech by a delegate from the small developing country of Papua New Guinea appeared to carry weight with the Americans. The delegate challenged the United States to "either lead, follow or get out of the way."
Just five minutes later, when it appeared the conference was on the brink of collapse, Dobriansky took to the floor again to announce the United States was willing to accept the arrangement. Applause erupted in the hall and a relative level of success for the conference appeared certain.
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 6:31 pm
14 Dec 2007
More "Energy Intensity" reductions?
Permalink
Blueplanet Posted 10:57 pm
14 Dec 2007
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 11:39 pm
14 Dec 2007
"The U.S. has been humbled by the overwhelming message by developing countries that they are ready to be engaged with the problem, and it's been humiliated by the world community. I've never seen such a flip-flop in an environmental treaty context ever," said Bill Hare of Greenpeace."
"At the end of the day, we got an extremely weak agreement," said Sunita Narain, head of the Centre for Science and the Environment in New Delhi. "It's obvious the U.S. is not learning to be alive to world opinion."
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,100+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
tico89 Posted 12:57 am
15 Dec 2007
U-turn ?More like a Z-turn--turn slightly towards what your opponents want, so as to confuse them and make yourself look good, and end up going in exactly the same direction as you were before.
The US realised how bad their image would look if they were booed out of the negotiations and nothing was decided, so they caved in on what they were less concerned about, knowing the EU would then have to give in on the binding targets.
This morning the Europeans accepted a road map in which the targets were missing, as were references to the need for emissions to peak within 10 to 15 years and for global greenhouse gas output to halve by 2050.
That says it all. And as for what they did agree:
Instead the document said countries recognise that "deep cuts in global emissions" will be required, and calls for a "long-term global goal for emissions reductions".
"Deep cuts", "long-term global goal"...load of gibberish. It means nothing, it binds no one to anything. It looks like we'll have to wait for 2012, by which time it'll be too late.
Why does everyone think it was a success because they reached a compromise? A compromise is "the one solution that is most mutually unacceptable to all concerned". (I'm quoting myself there, I don't know if anyone famous has actually said that)
And as for the stance of the US lap-dogs, Canada and Japan...the half of me that is Canadian is deeply embarrassed about this government.
So, yet again, an agreement that's 95% waffle.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 1:27 am
15 Dec 2007
do Greens get credibility for being in synch with world opinion?
or do Browns get credibility for standing up to the UN and all those nations looking for hand-outs?
The partisans will see what they want to see
What do the people "in the middle" (barely paying attention) hear?
That will be the only significance of Bali
Permalink
GliderGuider Posted 1:43 am
15 Dec 2007
The mutually reinforcing social structures we have built up over the centuries to support the hierarchic and acquisitive aspects of our psychology - our economic, political, education and communication systems - appear to be in full self-reinforcing, self-preservation feedback mode.
As evidenced in Bali those forces are much, much stronger than most of us suspected. They are willing to see the the rest of us walk off a cliff, in the sure and certain knowledge that they and their familiars will be protected. In the face of the destruction of the planet's life they are fully prepared to sign our death warrants.
If this is what we can expect, there's no point wasting any more adrenaline baying at the moon. They have decided that we should die rather than live, and there is little we can do about it now. Like a rabbit in the jaws of a wolf, I have come to terms with my fate. I may kick feebly once or twice more - give another TEOTWAWKI talk, change one last light bulb for old time's sake - but really, what's the point?
We are finished.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:24 am
15 Dec 2007
--- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:32 am
15 Dec 2007
I also don't think people should get too upset about Bali, because 1) Bush is still President and 2) we probably need a pretty decent global grassroots movement going before politicians really pay attention. I don't know if the Aussie election is a particularly good sign, in that they seem to be already heading "off the cliff" and now they're moving; but maybe more publics will wake up in the next few years.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:52 am
15 Dec 2007
E.g., yesterday, in conversation with Wolf Blitzer, Glenn Beck, that celebrated son of Washington State, as well as an adult convert to Mormonism -- surely a sign of serious mental instability -- , said that what was being worked out in Bali was nothing less than an attempted imposition of socialism on the world; and that US citizens would be forced to pay taxes to the UN.
From the Wikipedia article on Glenn Beck:
<<
On 30 April 2007 on his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck made a comparison between global warming supporters and Hitler.
"Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government. You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming. Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists who say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did."
>>
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 4:05 am
15 Dec 2007
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:36 am
15 Dec 2007
Republicans save the day...AGAIN!
My Log
Permalink
tico89 Posted 4:57 am
15 Dec 2007
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 5:24 am
15 Dec 2007
You have to ask, who was challenging Beck on his all-too-disprovable comments. The media continues to be dominated by the right-wing echo chamber, and will continue to be until we put enough pressure on them to balance coverage.
Meanwhile the same polling firm shows Obama and Giuliani tied. The stakes seem to get higher with each election cycle. We have our work cut out for us!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:31 am
15 Dec 2007
It is certainly true that what comes out of Bali is not all we wanted or needed.
But, the US reluctantly agreed to go on with the negotiations about emissions and to support the general concept of technology transfers to developing countries.
True, the devil is in the details, but we have two years of tough negotiations ahead to tie the devil down (and his American representative won't be in charge much longer (grin)).
This is a major breakthrough in that the US is agreeing to do anything!!! So be happy!!!
Someone should be asking why people like Glen Beck get so much air time. Does CNN want to promote his ideas?
Here in Beijing, we heard from the Dutch ("the vibe in the room was so incredible"), the Germans (more nice words), and Chinese Greenpeace on the evening news. Everyone was positive that something came out of Bali at all (which suggests how close perhaps it was to producing nothing), and agreeing that the work is just beginning.
So, we need to roll up our sleeves and get to it.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:17 am
15 Dec 2007
Gore attended the summit and said that they should leave the emissions requirements open for now, rather than alienate the U.S. at the start, and then wait until after there as been an administrative chnage at the U.S. and then try for more stringent stuff, so it'd be more likely to get U.S. support.
Though bettin' on future politics is risky business, alot can happen in just two years, and right now it looks like we're bettin' on things changing more in our favor before the final language is written.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:01 am
15 Dec 2007
So tell me, was it an agreement in principle to show progress on the table but come back in 2008 and 2009 to hammer it out, or what?
As your humble redneck from Texas, if I can hear something simple I'll be glad to spread the word. So far the rednecks know that climate change is something to be concerned about (and I have definitely helped there). Give me some more ammo, man. I'm that serious. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:43 am
15 Dec 2007
That's the just of it. This was the first in what will be a series of conferences to determine what the final language will be in the treaty that will replace Kyoto when it expires.
As your humble redneck from Texas, if I can hear something simple I'll be glad to spread the word. So far the rednecks know that climate change is something to be concerned about (and I have definitely helped there). Give me some more ammo, man. I'm that serious. /sammie
As a fellow redneck (and greenthumb) Texan myself, I'm happy to report that we're makin' progress. Slow and at times very agonizing, but still, it's progress. Right now, it seems that our best bet to participate to the fullest extent in the new global climate treaty (and in combatin' global climate change and pollution in general), is to elect a new administartion in 2009 that'll do a better job than the current one and is more concerned 'bout environmental issues. That way, the new administration can partake in the new climate treaty before the final language is drafted and throw the United States' support behind it.
Our best bet for that appears to lie with either (most of) the Democratic candidates, or with just one of the Republicans (McCain).
That's where things currently stand.
Permalink
paulbaer Posted 5:07 pm
15 Dec 2007
The biggest surprise was China's forward-looking attitude, but again, talk is cheap.
The work is just beginning.
--pb
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:43 am
16 Dec 2007
It's like the river has broken the banks, the water is at the doorstep and the commitee to repair levees has decided to meet in another week to discuss to discuss the size of the ladle we will bail the house out with.
You got NOTHING but doublespeak and cheerleading.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:23 pm
16 Dec 2007
No agreement in Bali would mean that all of the negotiations collapsed in dissary, that there would be no world consensus about global warming, that every nation and/or bloc of nations would go their own way, while blaming each other.
In short, that probably even less would be done, and the coming crisis would be worse.
The victory in getting Bush to sign on, even to this, required some mighty lifting on the part of many of the world's peoples.
We should be thankful and appreciate it, without in any way diminishing the size of the remaining tasks.
NOW there is still a chance, and hope.
Without the agreement?????
patrick in Beijing
Permalink