Bali High: Agreement Reached

UPDATE: Here's the opening graphs of the New York Times story:

The world’s faltering effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions got a new lease on life on Saturday, as delegates from 187 countries agreed to negotiate a new accord over the next two years — pushing the crucial debates about United States participation into the administration of a new American president.

Many officials and environmental campaigners said American negotiators had remained obstructionist until the final hour of the two-week convention and had changed their stance only after public rebukes that included boos and hisses from other delegates.

The resulting “Bali Action Plan” contains no binding commitments, which European countries had sought and the United States fended off. The plan concludes that “deep cuts in global emissions will be required” and provides a timetable for two years of talks to shape the first formal addendum to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change treaty since the Kyoto Protocol 10 years ago.

The Times story, and a later one from the BBC quoted the White House as insisting--as U.S. negotiators did--that the developing countries (India and China chiefly) commit to reducing emissions, and not only the developed nations. It's currently heads you win tales I lose whether the biggest greenhouse gas polluter in the world is the U.S. or China.

The Guardian report emphasized the drama of the final session, and had this report on the decisive moment:

But the road was extremely rocky. Talks stalled as Paula Dobriansky, head of the US delegation, signalled that America opposed calls from poorer countries for technological and financial help to combat climate change. It seemed any agreement was doomed. Then Papua New Guinea took to the floor and, in a highly charged speech, its delegate challenged the US: 'If you're not willing to lead, get out of the way.'

Minutes later, in an astonishing reversal, Dobriansky returned to announce, to cheers from the hall: 'We will go forward and join the consensus.'

While the need for the developing world to join this effort is real, the U.S. position on helping these nations do so, especially with technology, was stupid and venal. Such a tradeoff between the nations that chiefly caused global heating and the nations that are likely to be its chief victims is simple fairness, although it doesn't really do justice. And I'm reminded that even in the late 1980s, when James Burke created his After the Warming scenario of the climate crisis future, the rough justice and certainly the practicality of such an arrangement was obvious.


The reports are starting to come in at this hour that the nations of Earth represented at the Bali conference have agreed on a way forward in negotiating a climate treaty by 2009 to follow the Kyoto Accords. One Indonesian official referred to the agreement as "a breakthrough."

It's not clear yet exactly what they agreed on, except that there are no hard targets set for emissions cuts by developed countries--those are to be negotiated for the treaty itself-- and some indication that developing countries will participate. But the first reporting expresses that the long, hard negotiations resulted in some emotional moments towards the end. China was recalcitrant, but it was the sudden reversal of the U.S. that allowed agreement. (Apparently the U.S. team suddenly realized that they'd gotten what they asked for. Obstructionism can become a automated response. )

An earlier story did say that agreement had been reached to include forest conservation in the treaty, and apparently to organize stronger efforts internationally to halt deforestation, a major cause of CO2 emissions in the developing world.