I feel somewhat guilty for not following the goings-on in Bali more closely. A few of you have written to ask why.
It's just that every single international meeting on climate since I started covering this stuff has gone down the exact ... same ... way. It's like clockwork: everyone arrives full of hope, because now, finally, there's real momentum, people really get the problem; midway through, everyone's getting more and more pissed at the U.S. for its intransigence; the U.S. works diligently to water down every possible declaration or statement; and finally, the event culminates with everyone making the best of it, signing some weak-ass, vague piece of paper that commits no one to any concrete action.
Did I miss anything? Sound familiar?
As I watched the headlines drift past over the past two weeks, it all seemed to be playing out according to script. Even the purportedly dramatic turnaround by the U.S. on the last day was about agreeing to something it had no reason at all to oppose; the final document still contained no defined, measurable targets.
Again, the story was the U.S. using its power to block progress. Feh. It's depressing. If you want more detailed descriptions of how the events unfolded, here are a few things to read:
Reuters has a rundown of the highlights and lowlights. Among the latter is this:
"There was no need for 12,000 people to gather here in Bali to have a watered down text, we could have done that by email," Angus Friday, chair of the Alliance of Small Island states, said when talks wound up late on Friday.
John Quiggen argues, contra many other commentators, that Bali was an overall win for the planet, particularly in light of the fact that the Bush administration participated. He points out that despite the lack of hard targets, the following was achieved:
• Agreement in principle on a 2050 target of halving emissions
• Agreement to negotiate a binding deal in 2009, when Bush will be gone, and short-term targets back on the table
• Agreement to provide assistance to developing countries for both mitigation and adaptation
• Agreement by China to pursue emissions-cutting actions that are "measurable, reportable and verifiable."
David Sassoon brings us an eyewitness report of the dramatic final negotiations.
At Dot Earth, Andy Revkin has a straightforward account of what the meetings produced, and also a fascinating collection of reactions to Bali from various and sundry folks who were there. There's a lot of bitterness toward the U.S. in those comments, as you'd expect. If you read nothing else, at least read the first one, from Thomas J. Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. He says:
In Bali the Island Nations took the moral lead. But we were opposed by the world richest and most powerful countries, a coalition of oil producers and coal burners. The US, with the backing of Canada, and Japan, refused to consider any limits on their rights to burn fossil fuels. The Arab oil producing states tried incessantly to block every initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And, with the covert backing of the US, China, India, and Russia claimed that any limitations on their right to pollute our atmosphere was a plot to keep them from developing using the same destructive dirty methods as the western countries. The EU, who we counted on, backed down to the dirty polluters in order to achieve any sort of consensus.
That China and India, with their thousands of years of advanced civilization and science, should have fallen for this instead of leading the way towards cleaner sustainable development paths, is truly sad. And by placing their short sighted greed, ignorance, and stupidity first, the unholy polluting coalition of oil producers and coal burners has told the world that they don’t care who else they hurt by continuing their dirty addiction, killing reefs and drowning islands and coasts, and imperiling millions in poor countries.
Even worse, they have shown that they do not care for the rights of future generations, not even of their own people. That is why this shameful agreement is a capital crime against the environment that must be undone as soon as the Bush regime leaves office.
Seen other good stuff on Bali around? Leave it in comments.
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
gmobus Posted 4:10 am
18 Dec 2007
It would be interesting to know who the US sent and what each actually did. It would also be nice if some super hard-hitting, investigative reporter could interview some of them and ask them what they were thinking? It obviously had nothing to do with the future of their own offspring.
George
http://www.questioneverything.typepad.com/
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
rorywilliams Posted 4:57 am
18 Dec 2007
Permalink
314159265 Posted 10:33 pm
18 Dec 2007
Perhaps some satire in The Onion would be worth the journalism.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:47 am
19 Dec 2007
Who are the US representatives...
314 writes: "Who cares? Interviewing them would be a waste of time and precious brain."
I've always thought that if you have a problem you attempt to understand it so as to fix it. I'm curious as to how human beings are able to do stupid things or hold stupid ideas so that we might see a way to stop that from happening. You know - psychology?
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
314159265 Posted 3:05 am
19 Dec 2007
She is a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signatories to the January 26, 1998, PNAC Letter sent to US President Bill Clinton, in which a group of conservatives advocated a US military attack on Iraq.
(...)
In December, 2007 at the Bali summit on climate change she was booed off stage when developing nations sought to strengthen requirements for richer nations to help poorer with technology to limit emissions and adapt to climate change's impacts.
As head of the U.S. delegation, Undersecretary of State Paula J. Dobriansky objected, and was met with a chorus of long and loud booing, almost unprecedented at a diplomatic summit of this kind.
Delegate after delegate took aim at the United States recalcitrant attitude. South Africa proclaimed Dobriansky's intervention was "most unwelcome and without any basis." Meanwhile Uganda said "We would like to beg them" to relent.
Then the delegate from Papua New Guinea Kevin Conrad addressed the US delegate directly. "We seek your leadership," he said "But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way." Following these remarks, Dr. Dobriansky declared that the U.S. would agree to the consensus and be involved in the climate treaty.
[end wiki quote]
-----------------------
And the White House later disagreed,
but I don't really follow this stupid stuff anymore... (Threw away the TV after the Floridian recount, so I was lucky later to have 9/11 only on the radio. Apropos: Dobriansky sounds very intelligent, serious and charming.)
----------------------
So,
methinks she's a money & power whore. Sure she knows about those stages of grief and is beyond denialism and simple-minds psychology. The free market is inherently destructive (assuming an infintely exploitable world and disregarding ecology 101) so these neocon folks run like them stoopid lemmings towards the rim of their world disk. Just some dumb ideology that will die off sooner than later, like any other. Lets hope the death and destruction won't get too bad.
---------------------
Just for the f'n dirty fun of it, 2 quotes from http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefen ... (Sept. 2000)
p.1:
the Project for the New American Century is a nonprofit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.
p.51:
the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a
new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
industrial policy will shape the pace
Permalink
314159265 Posted 3:11 am
19 Dec 2007
Permalink
314159265 Posted 4:04 am
19 Dec 2007
George Monbiot says it, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2228609,00 ...
concluding:
So don't believe all this nonsense about waiting for the next president to sort it out. This is a much bigger problem than George Bush. Yes, he is viscerally opposed to tackling climate change. But viscera don't have much to do with it. Until the American people confront their political funding system, their politicians will keep speaking from the pocket, not the gut.
Permalink