What was the result of the negotiations in Bali?

The documents emerging from the meeting – collectively known as the “Bali road map” – contain frameworks for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, transferring clean technology to developing countries, halting deforestation and limiting the economic and social impact of climate change such as rising sea levels.

What are the chances of preventing dangerous climate change?

Scientists say that without any cuts in emissions, the world’s average temperatures could rise by 6C by 2100. This would wipe out most of humanity plus many other species. This is a worst-case scenario but dangerous climate change can be avoided only if we start making cuts soon. The Bali process has a five-year gap before it can be implemented and many people say this is far too long.

BACKGROUND

• UN chief to return to Bali climate talks

• Al Gore: free of diplomatic niceties

• Al Gore lambasts US climate obstructions

• Scorching decade claims eight hottest years

2007: worst year for the environment

As UN climate talks go down to the wire, scientists across the world says 2007 was a 'year of worsts' for the planet

• This decade breaks records in table of world's hottest years

BACKGROUND

• US rejects Bali climate change guidelines

• UN chief: act now on climate or face oblivion

• Al Gore calls for climate ‘mobilisation’

• Carbon emissions are 'higher than claimed'

• A convenient £50m for green Gore

Multimedia

• Video: protests in Bali

• Video: Going green with God

• The environment - 2007 in pictures

BACKGROUND

• Carbon stand-off puts climate talks at risk

• US 'must change lifestyle' for planet's sake

• Woodman, spare that high-carbon tree

• Act now or prepare for disaster

US laws will sap Europe’s energy

There is a serious danger that the politics of the American cornfield are again threatening trade and development

BACKGROUND

• Water shortages 'likely trigger for wars'

• Global crisis reveals big cracks in policies

• UN climate circus rolls in on CO2 cloud

• Carbon Trust not meeting the challenge

We’re not doomed yet

Should we really be listening to the views of one man just because they are eye-catchingly more dramatic than the consensus?

BACKGROUND

• Brown’s bid to seal fate of carrier bags

• Opec ponders wealth of alternatives

• Climate change panel verdict: the future is bleak

• A global warning for UN chief

Related Links

• Bali deal leaves greens in despair

• Bali's crying shame

• A lungful of carbon delusion

Why the rush?

Last year’s Stern report on the economic impacts of climate change said that the longer we left it to take action the higher the cost would be. Also, a growing number of scientists believe that we must start making cuts immediately if temperature rises are to be kept below 2C.

What happens next?

Two years of intensive negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations. Then, in 2009, the negotiators will reconvene in Copenhagen to thrash out a final deal which will incorporate significant cuts in emissions. The international community will note that a new US president will be in office by then.

Was Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, right to call it a historic breakthrough?

The inclusion of America in a deal designed to cut carbon emissions is an important success. However, the deal is severely weakened by not setting out numerical targets for future carbon reductions.

Surely reducing global warming is something everyone can agree on. What’s the problem?

Cutting carbon emissions is immensely politically sensitive for a country such as the United States. It emits the equivalent of 20 tons of CO2 every year for each person living there, double the amount emitted per capita in Britain and 20 times greater than in Mozambique. So if America is to take serious action on climate change, its citizens have a lot more to lose than most.

What significance should we attach to the Americans’ last-minute U-turn yesterday?

This is standard American tactics at such conferences. Many link it to the way politics is conducted in Washington which often involves similar brinkmanship. Such tactics go down very badly, however, with delegates from developing nations who complained of being intimidated and confused by such behaviour.

Aren’t China and India the real threats?

China’s emissions are similar to America’s, although it has a much larger population which makes its per capita figure much lower. However, both its and India’s emissions are growing rapidly, which is a big concern. The challenge is for industrialised countries to help developing ones to grow their economies cleanly.

What will the agreement mean for the UK?

Britain’s obligation under Kyoto was to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% by 2012, compared with 1990 levels. It has already managed 13.5%. Britain’s Climate Change Bill has fixed on a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, but many scientists now believe that an 80% cut is required. The Copenhagen treaty expected in two years’ time will probably demand that Britain cut its emissions by 25% by 2020.

Times recommends

• Energy-saving ideas from switched-on professor
• Rooks are as clever with tools as chimpanzees
• Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu