UN Backs Down on Strict Guidelines as Leaders Reach Tentative Agreement
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 12.13.07
As much as we'd like to admit that we were surprised by the outcome, we can't say that we didn't already see the writing on the wall from a mile away. Yes, conceding that setting specific targets for emissions reductions may have been too "ambitious" (sad, but true), Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary General, announced that the Bali participants were ready to reach a formal agreement after the U.S. agreed to a compromise.
That compromise? Agreeing to move forward with formal negotiations to establish a new climate change accord, albeit not under the current Kyoto framework. The U.S., along with Canada, Australia and Japan, had balked at an agreement that would've established strict guidelines - cutting emissions produced by developed countries by up to two-fifths within the next 13 years.
U.S. envoys stated their opposition to any treaty that included references to specific numerical goals, also insisting that developing countries such as India and China also needed to slash their emissions. This demand essentially torpedoed any hopes the participants had of creating a strong, unified "road map" on climate change.
Indeed, both environmentalists and ministers alike are concerned that the omission of specific targets will result in a toothless, vague agenda - another impediment to the urgent action needed to begin seriously countering the dangers of global warming. As Stephanie Tunmore, a Greenpeace campaigner put it: "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.”
While it's certainly true that developing nations need to do their part to cut their emissions, using this as an excuse to reject even a mildly ambitious plan is patently ridiculous and shameful. Here's hoping (without much hope) that we won't have to wait another 2 years before we see some real action on this front...
Via ::Times Online: US rejects climate guidelines at Bali conference (newspaper), ::FT: Bali leaders move towards agreement (newspaper)
See also: ::Introducing World Future Council's Robert Turner: Bali-Blogging UN "Convention Of The Parties", ::Nary A "Very Good" In Climate Action
That's just great!
Like a band of thugs that was asked to put the guns down, they responded: We ain't stoppin the shooting until the other guys stop shooting. Look at any hood in the US or China or Brazil, look at the middle east. Have the gotten anywhere??
Stop pointing your fingers at others and start moving forward, leaders! Your people support this in great majority!
Of what kind is this stranglehold that 3 nations have on the rest of the world??
What is the common denominator between them?
Oh yeah, they are the 3 worst pollutors and energy guzzlers on the planet.
That Mindset is the true Energy Crisis, not Oil!!
I agree with RideTheFuture. You just can't count on international treaties to curb global environment abuse. There's too much finger pointing and not enough action.
Meanwhile Baird put forward his own toothless plan for Canada. Quote: Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute also criticized the government's use of so-called intensity targets. Loosely put, intensity targets are a per capita measurement system that allows a company's overall pollution to increase as long as its emissions drop for each product it makes.
"There's just a huge amount of spin ... It's extremely misleading,'' Bramley said.
"The oil sands sector will be able to meet these targets while tripling its actual emissions.''
for more: click on the name.
Wow, really? The leaders (who usually take campaign contributions from big oil) backed down? I'm SHOCKED?
Seriously, who cares. Leaders will never learn unless we make them learn, and as we all know, most "treaties" are really PR stunts. IF you don't like what comes out of this conference, VOTE. Not only vote at the booth to change the leadership, but also VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. You have more power to change the world than a watered down treaty than nobody will follow. Act on a grass-roots level, if your national govt won't do it, make your local and state leaders comply (alternative energy sources, state standards, etc).
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but did ANYONE REALLY think the US would jump on board with this, especially when Bush (oil family) is in charge?
Cheers,
Tom-tom
the key points were all raised here and yes, it is no surprise it has come to this. The west lives in a consumer culture and for some reason both canada, US, and Australia people have voted in conservatives that get most of their funds from big oil and have vested interests in big business and not the people.
Australia just voted in a new prime minister that has recently ratified the kyoto protocol i believe. Bush is 2 years from handing his office over to the Democrats i believe. And the Green party of canada is continually gaining huge leaps in popularity every election.
Its too bad really though that the big business interests cant see past their wallets.