Bali to Copenhagen

Bali convinced me that agreeing a new phase of Kyoto is by far the most important objective for clim

By Mark Lynas Published 03 January 2008

I have no idea whether or not, as the tourist guidebooks insist, Bali is beautiful. In common with most of the 11,000 negotiators, journalists, lobbyists and campaigners attending the UN climate-change conference in Nusa Dua resort, all I saw of Indonesia's Island of the Gods was the monotonous inside of the International Convention Centre. This is not to say that the jamboree was a gigantic waste of time (and carbon), as cynics insist. On the contrary, Bali convinced me that agreeing a new phase of Kyoto is by far the most important objective for climate-change stabilisation.

Most commentators now agree that the first phase of Kyoto has been a qualified success at best, and is unlikely to lead to any measurable cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions. But Kyoto was agreed in 1997, and those were very different days. This time, the EU and many other parties came to the Bali conference with a science-led agenda calling for a peaking of global emissions in ten to 15 years, 25-40 per cent cuts by developed countries by 2020, and a halving of worldwide emissions by 2050. These are astonishingly ambitious targets, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that they are necessary if the long-term rise in temperature is not to go more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. For the first time, the agenda at the UN climate talks was being set not by what everyone considers politically possible, but by what the scientists suggest the earth needs. This is a seismic shift in international climate policy.

The change has come about for three reasons. First, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report showed that the science of climate change is now so conclusively settled that objections on the basis of "scientific uncertainty" are no longer tenable, and even the Americans have given up that line of argument. At the same time, the climate sceptics have dwindled from being a major political force a few years ago to a lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists and mavericks today.

Second, there has been a shift in global public opinion. Climate change leads the agenda in many countries, and clearly swung the election in Australia. Some governments are implementing policies to limit global warming that would have been unthinkable a couple of years ago, as the UK is with its climate-change bill.

Third, the power of international business is no longer being wielded against action on climate change, as was the case at Kyoto and for many years afterwards. Most of the world's largest corporations now speak in favour of mandatory emissions limits. In effect, business is demanding that it be regulated - a position that would have been unthinkable until very recently.

So why, given that negotiators should have been pushing at an open door, was Bali not an unlimited success? There were some victories - an agreement to bring tropical deforestation into the climate process will be hugely important, and developing countries will benefit from a decision on how to manage funds for adaptation to the impact of climate change. There were also signs that China and India will soon accept their own targets, a critically important shift. But the main Bali road map still shows a formidable obstacle: the United States. Although the final text was widely reported as being a defeat for America, given its eleventh-hour volte-face amid extraordinarily emotional scenes at the concluding plenary, the US did succeed in deleting the EU's numerical targets. Instead, a footnote refers to three pages of the Fourth Assessment Report, which themselves merely assess various scenarios for temperature stabilisation.

But this is the tail end of a dying US administration. In just one year, a new president will move into the White House, with a new climate policy. By the time negotiations conclude in Copenhagen in 2009, the political landscape could look very different, leading to a consensus on long-term targets that includes every government in the world. The road begins in Bali, but ends in Copenhagen. Start planning now.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Bali

View the discussion thread.

13 comments

Mon, 2008-01-07 17:44 — VC

My Lynas; keep going, its a long way.LOL

http://www.rense.com/general79/chna.htm

Thu, 2008-01-24 14:07 — Pat T

I wonder, if the warmers really had such a low opinion of the skeptics, why it is that we skeptics force them to chang their story so frequently?

First the MWP happened but was 1-2 degrees C above present temps (which was the universally-accepted climate history, literally from the time it happened up until the climate had become a political issue), but "this time it was different." But people kept pointing to the MWP saying the world didn't end then, in fact humans prospered, and CO2 levels were lower then, so clearly something else is the driving factor. Then they "got rid of" the MWP with the Hockey Stick - without ever explaining how any of the dozens of events that had since they occurred been explained as resulting from a warmer climate in fact happened. Then McIntyre and McKittrick pointed out many problems with the Hockey Stick and its version of events - not the least of which being the question, how can "unprecedented" warming cause "unprecedented" glacial retreat that reveals archaeological finds from 1,000 and 2,000 years ago? Then it was "some areas were warmer but because it didn't become universally warmer all at the same time, the MWP wasn't a truly global phenomenon" - which flies smack in the face of their explanation that the lack of uniform warming now actually proves that the present warming IS a global phenomenon. Now it's "medieval temps were warm but only as warm as temps in the first half of the 20th century, not the second half."

Even if that last version is correct, you warmers would still be arguing one of the other versions if it weren't for us skeptics pointing out the flaws in them.

There have been significant shifts in the warmers' positions, and each of them has been forced on them by the skeptics' pointing out the flaws in the earlier positions.

So, even if you ended up being right (which looks ever less likely), we'd still have still played an important role.

But I don't think you'll end up being right, and I think people will abandon this fad like so many others - William Miller's ascension robes come to mind. Yes, it may be the fad now to "cycle in the rain" like Mark, but people will soon wake up and come in out of the rain. People will realize that abandoning incandescent bulbs for bulbs that contain far more mercury, in the name of a slight reduction in CO2, is pure insanity.

At least I hope they do.

Tue, 2008-01-08 09:54 — Jim1

I am somewhat a little optimistic for the positive trend in taking action against the warming. And what the US decides to do in the nearest years will be crucial for this issue. We now know that there are fast growing will in many states for a sustainable future and that will eventually give the politicians mandate to take strong actions. But the problem may be the time since the political system has not been challenged by such a huge
and emergent issue before on a global level, and may not able to respond as fast as needed.
The scientific concensus can not be questioned no longer, and that makes me feel comfortable. And we should take it seriously because we and our kids have to live with it. I wouldn´t go for the "wait and see"-alternative, just like if my doctor told me that I had a 95% risk to have a heart attack next week then I would take the precautions now.

Sun, 2008-01-27 15:10 — Lucy C

Right Pat - that would be the same heartland institute, who have recieved over $791,000 from exxonmobil http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41. Oh and who claim that smoking is good for you - definitely a source to be trusted... Nice blog Mark - great to see such a positive feeling coming from the Bali conference.

Fri, 2008-01-04 00:50 — VC

Hi Mr Lynas....this was a green trip???? Did you really need to go???lol

Never mind Mr Lynas, you are young enough to face your mistakes.

Fri, 2008-01-04 02:26 — anita brunson

"climate sceptics have dwindled from being a major political force a few years ago to a lunatic fringe of conspiracy theorists and mavericks today."

Mr Lynas - what a stupid comment. Why not read Dr Whitehouse's devastating article on this very website where he concentrates on data and not, like you, petty name calling.

He has somthing to say that I can see would be inconvienient to you but then he's a scientist and you are an 'activist.'

Tue, 2008-01-08 22:04 — VC

"THE SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED ON LONGER".

http:www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=5116675

This top scientist don`t get his paycheck rom the NWO.LOL

Sat, 2008-01-05 01:15 — VC

anita, most of the public comment on this elite forum does not believe in the global waring construct as peddled by the establishment...it takes a brave scientist to buck the NWO global warming mantra when his funding and job are on the line.

Mr Lynas is a lost soul, you however are a member of some sort of sect who has lost the ability to reason. I am looking foraward to a warm dry summer...like the ones we had in the 80`s, when the weather forecasts were reliable enough to plan a trip without heavey rain showers, low tempreatures and so on....the US is still waiting for a summer which will beat its record breaking summer in the 1950`s....thats right, it was that long ago and NASA had to admit its numbers were wrong.lol

Mon, 2008-01-28 22:09 — Pat T

Lucy, by your logic, we can dismiss anyone who ever received a grant from an anti-energy-industry group.

That would leave us with about six people combined that were allowed to debate this issue.

Wed, 2008-01-23 07:42 — taghioff.info

Carl Jones, if there is a consensus out there, and you guys are not part of it, then yes, I am sorry to inform you that you have indeed been reduced to a fringe.

This is a wierd reversal, since your views have until very recently been backed by the most powerful government and richest companies on earth.

The greenies like Mark have been growing veggies and cycling in the rain for years, and only now seem to have become mainstream, after years in the wilderness.

There is some justice in the world after all.