Devil is in the details of what that arrangement is.

More "Energy Intensity" reductions?

The agreements on deforestation are good, but no binding targets, no reduction in emissions (they won't even peak until 2020). If global warming is as serious issue as we are constantly told where is the urgency?

credibility

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

I was holding onto a slim thread of hope that the multi-factorial global crisis was finally immediate enough to overcome our psychological discount function and prompt some action.  Alas, it appears that my suspicions about the ability of our evolved psychology to shield us from the empathic acceptance of any threat to those outside our familial/tribal boundaries were correct.

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.

The US domestic politics regarding Bali puzzles me, ce1907.  Right-wing visceral prejudices against the UN are already hard enough to understand; and now, apparently the adoption by the UN of GW-mitigation as a cause of paramount importance is driving our friends on the right nuts.

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.

But the US does seem to hate/mistrust the UN, not just limited to beings like Berk, thinking it's a threat to their sovereignty, and while the US hates the UN, we're not going to get anywhere.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

Did I ever mention the striking similarities between your name and the Spanish word for 'warthog'? Just wondered.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

    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

...they just agreed not to set mandatory cuts at this particular conference.  We still have a few years and a few other conferences before the final language of the next treaty is written.  This was just the first in a series.

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.

It would be nice to hear an unvarnished synopsis of Bali here, and without a lot of greenian hoo-doo.  But the impression I got was this Paula chick from the US was a major pain in the whatossie.  

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

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?

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.

With limited exception, I think the events were fairly predictable. The US held its breath until it turned blue and then allowed something innocuous to be put in the document. But they are under no obligation to negotiate in good faith going forward, and no reason for anyone to assume they will.

The biggest surprise was China's forward-looking attitude, but again, talk is cheap.

The work is just beginning.

--pb

   Kyoto has had only mixed success largely because everyone wouldn't go along.  To address GLOBAL warming as a global issue will take something approaching consensus.  If the compromises made to get the US to stop dragging its feet even a little seem terrible to you, imagine the alternative.

   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