Proms Podcast

Star musicians and your favourite Times writers at the Albert Hall

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

From Times Online

December 13, 2007

US rejects climate guidelines at Bali conference

You need Flash Player 8 or higher to view video content with the ROO Flash Player. Click here to download and install it.

Richard Lloyd Parry in Nusa Dua, Bali

European leaders and environmental campaigners reacted angrily yesterday after the United States rejected guidelines for reducing greenhouse gas emissions intended to check global warming.

The proposal, supported by the members of the European Union as well as Brazil, would have set out in writing an ambition to cut greenhouse gases produced by industrialised countries by up to two fifths in the next 13 years. The emissions cut would have been non-binding and subject to future negotiation, but even this was too much for the US, which opposes any reference to specific numerical goals in advance of more detailed negotiations next year.

The row has undermined the hopes of environmentalists for a strong and detailed statement of agreement among the 190 governments attending the United Nations climate change conference on the Indonesian island of Bali. They fear that without a reference to percentage targets, however non-commital, the “road map” to be agreed by environment ministers will amount to little more than an agenda and a broad timetable for negotiation.

Many doubt that there will be time to finalise a binding agreement by the projected deadline in 2009. “I do not need a paper from Bali in which we only say, ‘OK, we'll meet next year again',” Sigmar Gabriel, the German Environment Minister, said. “How we can find a roadmap without having a target, without having a goal?”

Stephanie Tunmore, a climate campaigner with the environmental group Greenpeace said: “We may end up at the end of this week with a pie which has no meat in it, and that would be disastrous. The science is telling us that we don't have time for this.”

After a week and a half of preparatory talks by civil servants, the environment ministers embarked yesterday afternoon on the final three days of intensive negotiations which are expected to run into the early hours of Saturday morning. The EU says that it will continue to demand the inclusion of specific emission goals in the final document.

But many participants in the talks, including the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki Moon, and Britain's environment secretary, Hilary Benn, indicated yesterday that the most important thing was to make sure that the US remained part of the negotiating process — even if that meant compromising the content of the final document.

The US insists that developing countries must also make large cuts in their own emissions. China and India point out that historically they have contributed almost nothing to the creation of the problem and argue that the long established industrial giants have an obligation to bear most of the burden.

Many delegates appear to be negotiating in the hope that President Bush will be succeeded in 2009 by a president more willing to accede to cuts in greenhouse gases — just as Australia's new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has immediately signed up to the Kyoto Protocol. “Politics is changing in lots of parts of the world rally fast,” Mr Benn said. “This is about not shutting the door on anybody ... and the in the course of the next two years, well, other things are going to probably change as well.”

The “road map” being negotiated this week is intended to lead to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the first treaty to impose on its signatories legally binding cuts in greenhouse gases, which expires at the end of 2012. The negotiations were given urgency by the publication last month of a report by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which gave warning of irreversible catastrophe caused by global warming if greenhouse emissions are not rapidly reduced.

The IPCC, which was jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week, gave warning that devastating climatic effects including floods, droughts and hurricanes will accompany unhindered global warming. It concluded that it was possible to limit average temperature rises to 2.4C by the middle of the century, but only if carbon emissions peak by 2015 and then start to decline. It calculated that, in order to achieve this, industrialised countries should reduce their greenhouse emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent compared with 1990 levels by 2020 - this is the figure which the EU wishes to see in this week's document.

Numerical goals on emissions are not the only way in which Bali has fallen short of environmentalists' hope. So far, there has been no agreement on another proposal supported by developing countries for a “technology fund” which would pay private companies to share with up and coming economies innovations which would reduce their emissions.

The conference has not been entirely fruitless, however. It has agreed to activate a fund that will provided money for what is called “adaptation” — helping countries already affected by climate change to counteract its effects by building sea barriers and relocating populations, for example. According to the UN Development Program, anti-disaster measures in the UK alone cost six times more than the amounts spent in all poor countries combined.

One of the prime problems with this debate is and has always been that it is framed in an intellectually dishonest and even obviously invalid way. The statement always talks about carbon production as in the U.S. produces 225 of the planet's total, without talking about corresponding benefits. In other words, only one side of the equation is considered. For instance, if I have two farmers and one uses 22% of all fertilizer wouldn't logic dictate we discuss what that farmer produces prior to condemning him as a glutton?

The fact the debate is framed so poorly and even dishonestly says much about the motivation of those framing it. The fact this all seems so obvious but is never noticed or questioned says a great deal about Kyoto proponents motivations and intellectual capabilities.

The fact is, the U.S. produces 305 of global GDP and 41% on non-governmental GDP. Further and more to the point, with 4.5% of global population the U.S. produces the lions share of innovation.

W.H. Langeman, Tucson, USA, AZ

I do agree with someone who wrote that the US public and politicians are much more environment friendly than Europenas in general. This is a fact. Having lived more than 20 years in the US and living now in Europe, I feel very comfortable making such statement.
The issue is that Americans tend to be more fact-oriented people while Europeans feel better and live more by good intentions. So, making a nice-looking agreement is all the more important for Europeans and they will sleep better with that. Verification and compliance, a key issue for the Americans, does not seem to worry the Europeans at all. Paraphrasing a famous saying -- "It's de looks, stupid!"

Joe Silva, Lisbon, Portugal

US Citizens are more aware of the global warming than people of many developed,developing and underdeveloped countries. Today, China, India and South Korea are the biggest polluters, water & air, in the world. The Global warming what we are discussing is about the future and not about the past.
History talks about the past and why India and China talk about the past.?

Ravi Nayar, Plantation, Florida

Mr. Becher of London defends the US very well, too bad he is so wrong. I am from the US, and yes there are growing movements in certain states and cities to make environmental issues more important, but the US politicians just don't have any courage to do anything that may take vision, and none of them seem to have the willpower to explain to the public what must be done and then do it. Short term gains and profits are all that matter in the US and have ever since its founding. So thinking about the future is out of the question. Even Clinton and his oh so ardent (now) vice president Al Gore refused to sign on the previous treaties for the same reason as the Bush Bunch - it may hurt profits of their big corporate backers. I live in Europe now because I can see that the EU is the future if we are to live in a world where democracy, human rights and capitalism with a human face are to be realized. Making money is all that matters in the US and always has done.Profit over principle.

J Butlerson, Torremolinos, Spain

Even if it goes unreported: The US does not oppose binding commitments to numbers. To the contrary, the US political system is not about making lofty pledges but must operate within a strict legal system governed by Congress. What the US wants to achieve in serious negotiations is a commitment by all relevant countries to binding emissions limitations that are measureable, and complicance thus objectively verifiable. Of course, all those out there whose life seems to be about denouncing the US won't care for the facts. Given that the US public and politicians are today more environmentalist, on average, than Europeans, something is fundamentally wrong in the general perception of the US as an anti-environmentalist power.

Klaus Becher, London,

China will welcome the industrial slowdown in the US and EU forced by the green/left anti-capitalism 'global warming' agenda, because it will bring them extra profits. China will persist with the argument that global warming is the result of western industrialisation, and will continue to build coal-fired power stations because the non-west will never be blamed for climate change.

michael clarke, london, uk

A couple of thoughts on how ordinary US citizens could help here. (1) Drive more efficient cars - On my recent holiday to the US I struggled to get better than 19mpg out of a small hire car - back in the UK my European made car delivers 40-50 mpg and considerably better performance than the US automatic, (2) low energy lightbulbs - not particularly expensive, last longer and use a fraction of the electricity of an incandescent bulb. I just don't understand the US resistance to these kinds of measures when they not only help save the planet but cut your bills.

Bill, Edinburgh, UK

The USA is quite right. The world has far more important problems to solve (overpopulation for instance) than a 0.6c increase in temperature over the last century, which is well within natural climate variability and still leaves us considerably cooler than during the medieval warming period. Alas, Climate Catastrophism sells, which is the only reason our ignorant and stupid politicians insist on having so many meetings about it.

Dr Robin Laundon, London, UK

I watched the Republican Candidate debate on CNN last night. At one point the lady dishing out the questions asked for a show of hands as to who believed global warming was actually happening. Not one of them had the guts to put their hand up & the audience actually cheered. What chance do we have, the lunatics are running the asylum!

Roger Southall, Wolverhampton,

Arguably the US and Europe have exported most of their heavy industry and manufacturing to China (especially) and India. The US is China's largest trade partner. Without cheap Chinese goods, US economic growth and wealth per citizen would have not increased by anywhere near as much as it has in the last few years.

The US must therefore participate (via Kyoto II) in helping China reduce emissions and making technology investment available. The EU already is, via CO2 offsetting schemes which resulted as part of Kyoto I.

For the US not to commit itself to binding targets, in the face of overwhelming evidence for the catastrophic consequences of climate change is appalling. What about leading by example? The Stern report has pointed out, fairly conclusively, that the economical impact of introducing binding targets is far lower than the economical impact of dealing with the outfall of climate change. America, you can do better. You once led the world in opportunities for al.

Jeni, Berlin,

If you were in a sinking boat in a shark infested sea, you wouldn't refrain from stuffing holes because someone else in the boat refused to do so. To say 'I'm not going to do it because he isn't' would be both childish and suicidal. I suggest that we press ahead without US (or without its government anyhow, recognising that many US individuals and states are enlightened). In the end US might be grateful!

Roger Plenty, Stroud, UK

The World burns and Bush and Co. play the fiddle. Shame on them.

Roger Southall, Wolverhampton,

Yeah, the rich countries are willing to set up a fund for "adaptation," but are unwilling to spend the big bucks to cut their emissions. The record melting in the polar region is but a harbinger. Frankly, I think that people have trouble imagining the catastrophic effect a few degrees C will have on the carrying capacity of the Earth. Wake up! The US has implicitly declared war on poor countries, because climate change will destroy developing nations. If people realized the consequences of the US refusal to commit to manditory emissions cuts, they would be desperate to save themselves and their bloodlines. Too bad it is still too abstract for most to comprehend, and therefore react to-soon it will be too late, and their genes will be ashes. America may be able to adapt to climate change in the short run, but is condemning billions of poor people (and their future generations) to a horrible death. Take the small amount of "adaptation" money, and throw your people's funeral.

Brad Arnold, St Louis Park, USA/MN

When I read most of the opinions above, especially most of those from the USA, I weep.

Just how ignorant, and arrogant, can many americans be if they cant read the best scientific advice and cant accept the USA's role over the years in pumping up our shared atmosphere with greenhouse gases. The advice is that this is a very verry serious matter.

Perhaps these writers could do some listening, then reading, before boring us with their knee-jerk assertions.

Jack

Australia

Jack Jazzer, Brisbane, Australia

I tend to agree with Jason Beveridge. The first step needs to be the prevention of any increase in per capita carbon emissions to be capped at a cut-off date. Any increase in population after this date must not result in any increased emissions for that country. The second step should be to bring a parity in per capita emissions amongst all countries. This may require some technological advances being taken out of the scope of patent regimes with one-off payments to the patent holders so that the technology holding regimes do not end up milking other countries -- something that wasn't prevented in case of HIV/AIDS medication.
Finally, we should all pray to God to Bless America -- with a leader who has grown out of playing with his G.I. Joe collection.

Barbra Ratner, Auckland, New Zealand

Now there's a surprise. As to all the knockers of the Bali conference - go and the read facts regarding current emissions and leave your Hummers at home

George, Glasgow, UK

Will people stop commenting on climate like its only consequence is a good day on a beach in Summer, the whole point here is carbon emissions!!

Michael, Westport, Ireland

"researchers have discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing."

ANDREW CUNNINGHAM, can you support this? Would you post your sources for the proof!

Michael, Westport, Ireland

For American readerâ€™s

-According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), obesity puts individuals at risk for high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, coronary heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, stroke, osteoarthritis, respiratory problems, and some forms of cancer. Poor diet and physical inactivity lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans annually, and costs the nation close to $100 billion. Knowing the facts is the first step in making healthy change. -

Hereâ€™s an idea: lose some weight and put that $100 billion into alternative energy schemes. Youâ€™ll be saving your health and the planet at the same time!

Also, take note of that very last sentence.

Michael, Westport, Ireland

I wonder how many folks in Europe will be willing to cut their use of electricity, fuel, food and travel by 40% in order to pacify the gods of climate change. I don't think many in the U.S. will. I certainly won't, and I already live where it's hot. So, how can such a goal be enforced? Are we all going to be arrested for keeping the lights on too long or running the air conditioner below 84* F?
And what if after we cut consumption to prevent global warming the Sun decides to warm the Earth some more, anyway? Will we get a refund?

BLAS E. PADRINO, ORLANDO, FLORIDA/USA

It's ridiculous to have guidelines that don't address the greenhouse gases emitted by China and India, the two most populous countries in the world. Don't blame the USA for insisting that the rules should actually be effective.

William Worsley, Arlingon, Virginia

To speak of changes on the order of 20-40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without the technology to accomplish the reductions is ridiculous. And to speak of "non-binding" goals is also a waste of time. A realistic assessment of what can be accomplished and then the ability to ensure all countries participate, both developed and developing economies, is the only way to proceed.

David Pashalidis, Tampa, Florida, USA

Implement equal trade.

For every dollar imported TO the USA, each trading country must import the same amount in trade value FROM the USA.

When that is agreed upon, we can then begin negotiations on other matters such as global warming.

The fact is there is no fair trade. There is no interest on the part of world youth to preserve the Earth.

If there were, there wouldn't be a massive amount of junk being consumed by all youth worldwide. FACT: Look at that label... it is NOT made in USA. Factory pollution is no longer from USA because virtually nothing is made here anymore.

As to USA itself on global warming, tank driving Americans will die of polluted air before they will support measures necessary to do anything about it.

The same is also true of China, India, Russia and most of the lesser developed world. So, we are all equally guilty.

Those who are teenagers today will suffer the consequences of their forefathers.

God Bless Planet Earth.
Kent French

Kent French, Washington, DC, United States of America

Honestly, I'm embarrassed to live here. I cannot believe that my own country will not take the stand to reduce emissions! There is so much waste and general laziness towards putting forth effort to stop global warming I see here everyday--we can reduce by 2/5 in 13 years. Heck, if people got off their rears and didn't watch TV 6-8 hours a day and took a bike to get to the corner store, we could probably do it in several months!

Kriek, Oceanside, USA

China and India will do nothing to reduce their smoke emissions. And they cause more of the problem than the US. But the latte and looney left won't blame India and China. It will blame the US. So why should the US bother to even try to help?
Especially given the tendency of the EU and third world to talk down to US on this, and so many other issues. Do they think Uncle Sam can't see through their rank hypocrisy? That the EU will pump out as much gas as normal, but pretend it hasn't, via carbon credit trading? That countries like Brazil will sign anything to look good, then continue to burn and chop down their rainforests?

Ike Eisenhower, Brisbane, Australia

No one has or will meet these goals. The US is just being honest about it. Maybe you should try offering us some nice juicy carrots like we always have to do to get nations to do what they should already being doing anyway.

Cherice, Santa Rosa, Ca, USA

Who are we to say that the current climate is the best for the planet? When was the best climate on the planet? 50, 100, or 1,000 years ago? Is there any data to show how much the sun contributes to the Earth's climate?

Colin, Hudson, Oh

Perhaps the Americans made this decision based on some recent FACTS. For example in data published by NASA in July of this year, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever in the US, 1934 is.

Four of the top 10 years of continental US high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell behind even 1900.

And despite the demands that we all panic about the end of the world, Satellite measurements of temperatures worldwide, and they only go back to 1979, detect a recent cooling, not warming . . .and researchers have discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing

Isnâ€™t it necessary for global warming to be established that thereâ€™s evidence that the temperature is actually going up. No wonder the alarmists try to use the (both provable and unprovable) term Climate Change. Talk about your madness of crowds.

Andrew Cunningham, Melbourne, Australia

Go for stiff targets; let the US sign after Bush. We have momentum; 1.5 years ago the population still believed climate change was debatable, based on massive disinformation; now most people and media take it seriously. Politicians have to take action because over 15% of Americans self-report taking political action to avert climate change (from signing a petition on up including what politicians they donate money or time to) - in the US the only other issues with that much activity have it split between 2 sides (like gun owners vs. gun control). 7 Eastern states that share an electric grid have a greenhouses gas cap and trade agreement. California also has a law to cap and lowers emissions, and is part of 6 Western states and 2 Western Canadian provinces working on a joint agreement (also part of a shared electric grid). 6 more US states, 3 more Canadian province and 1 Mexican state are observers that could join in.

Adrienne Kandel, Davis, California, USA

The USA rejected it because Bush refuses to listen to any advise that is contrary to his opinion. He is certain he is correct on all issues.

The goal is not unrealistic, it just requires a lot of effort and a lot of compromise. And if a 25%-40% reduction is not realized, sobeit. How much better will the world be because of our efforts if we are able to reduce greenhouse gasses by 15% or 20%? Making SOME progress is markedly better than NONE.

Bush likes to tout the USA as the epitome of democracy. Well then, Mr. Bush, if 190 nations say Yes, and 1 nation says No, then to whom should be listening?

Angel, Houston, USA

Its a completely unrealistic target, that's probably why the USA has rejected it.
I don't blame them!

Phill, The Wirral, England

When rogue nations threaten world peace other nations band together to force change through trade embargo's. The USA, through it's current stance on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is threatening the worlds very existence. Surely the other nations can force change by banding together and implementing strategic trade embargo's on the USA?
Also I believe the fairest and most obvious target to set for emissions is a per capita target. The targets should be scaled to allow developed countries to reduce emissions while at the same time preventing developing countries from significantly increasing emissions until the balance becomes more even. Also per capita targets should be set based on current populations so as to not encourage population increase.

Jason Beveridge, Mount Gambier, Australia / SA

God Bless America.
And i genuinely mean this.

Samuel Young, Paris, France