Negotiations have finally closed up north, with limited progress made toward, well… anything. If you’re as bored as I, you can read the officially adopted statement here. Otherwise, let me round up the juicy parts:
- Not a single solid ‘number’/'figure’/'goal’ was included. No determination for 2050, let alone 2020.
- In fact, the only numbers you’ll find in the document indicate the dates of the next meetings of a newly formed sub-committee on climate change. Beginning April ‘08.
- All countries agree that “deep cuts in global emissions will be required”
- All countries agree that “long term co-operative action” is needed “now, up to and beyond 2012″ (when Kyoto expires), “on the mitigation of climate change”, “adaptation” and “technology development”
Yup. I get the feeling even my brothers u14 cricket team could have reached the same conclusions.Mostly, it appears to have been the fault of the US that anything material be gained out of the meeting. The EU and Australia both appeared to have agreed to 40% cuts by 2020, only to be rejected by the US, and indeed, anything even suggesting a figure was quickly abandoned by Bush’s negotiators. Indeed, the U.S stance is best summed up by a quote from their chief negotiator: “Once numbers appear in the text, it predetermines outcomes and it can really drive negotiations in one direction.
“Erm… like, perhaps, toward reducing teh emissionz? mmmm…..
And to be fair, it would seem the US is the only outpost left now Australia has joined the Kyoto fold. From the official UN site: “An avalanche of countries took the floor in support [of reaching a consensus], many asking the US to state their reservations separately and not block a consensus”
And state their reservations they did.
There were some good things to come out of Bali: bipartisan federal support. That’s right, the coalition seems to have agreed to cuts by 2020. This is particularly exciting news in the land of oz, where such consensus would have been impossible less than a month ago. Kudos to Greg Hunt (shadow minister for the environment and CC)
An interesting reaction to the progress made in Bali has been the suggestion that any negotiations be delayed until post November ‘08, in order for the US to get rid of that pesky Bush team. Firstly, my browsing of US blogs and mainstream media over the last few days has left me doubtful that anyone actually noticed Bali. Nothing significant over at Huffpost, nothing at NY Times, nothing at Washington Post. In fact, I could find only two mentions that Bali existed. One, in the form of criticism of the Canadian position (the minister was wearing TEH FLIP FLOPS!) over at Huffpost, and good old Jim Lehrer doing a feature on negotiations up to day 3 (do Americans actually watch PBS anyway?).
Secondly, such a response leads towards the expectation that the Dems take over. Aside from the fact that they’re by no means a walk in, I thought it was worth checking out the main contenders’ positions…
Hillary Clinton:
- “Significantly reduce emissions” (No targets… sound familiar?)
- Drive reductions through industry incentives, rather than mandatory caps.
John Edwards:
- Mandate reductions
- 80% reduction on 2010 levels.
Barack Obama:
- Mandate reductions
- 10% less by 2020 (of 1990 levels)
- 80% less by 2050 (of 1990 levels)
So unless we end up with teh black muslim terrorist, the U.S position is unlikely to change much. Perhaps with Edwards (unlikely anyway), but even then, 2010 levels??? That’s still THREE years more to grow their emissions so much that 80% would be useless anyway.
Anyway, I’ve had enough on this for now.(with contributions [grammar] by Naton.)
...read me... 