US under fire as CO2 deal watered down

Published on Sunday 16 December 2007 21:07

IT WAS billed as a landmark event in global efforts to curb climate change.

But as soon as the dust settled on the Bali "road map" agreement struck at the United Nations' convention on the Indonesian island, critics began casting doubt on its effectiveness.

Failure to secure a commitment that industrialised nations should reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020 has cast a shadow over any celebrations that deadlock was, in the end, broken. The final agreement reached on Saturday – following an 11th-hour climbdown from the United States – says "deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective" of avoiding dangerous climate change.

While agreement was reached to drop emissions targets, the US was persuaded to back a requirement for richer nations to help poorer ones with technology to limit emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Delegates from more than 180 countries were involved in two weeks of talks to negotiate global emissions targets as a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Further negotiations are on the cards before a final agreement is hoped to be struck at the 2009 UN climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, hailed the "historic breakthrough" made in Bali, while Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, was "delighted" with the deal.

However, campaigners said the agreement had been stripped of vital targets and criticised America's "wrecking policy", while the White House has already warned that the Bali deal does not sufficiently address the role of developing nations.

Andy Atkins, of the charity Tearfund, said: "The stalling tactics of the Bush administration and a few others snatched mediocrity from the jaws of resounding success.

"We have a process to negotiate further emissions cuts by 2020. But the fact there is no agreement about exactly how far to cut emissions means the road map is missing a vital signpost.

"An ambitious, science-based target will have to be agreed by 2009, if the new agreement is not to be fatally flawed."

Gerd Leipold, the executive director of Greenpeace International, said the US had been "shamed" by the firm resolve of developing countries such as China, India and South Africa.

"The Bush administration has unscrupulously taken a monkey wrench to the level of action on climate change that the science demands."

Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF UK, said: "We're not pleased at all."

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, said: "This is the beginning, not the end. We will have to engage in more complex, long and difficult negotiations."

Q & A: THE BALI DEAL

Why does the world need a "road map" for a new international climate change deal?

Scientists from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have told us global warming is "unequivocal", with a host of negative effects if we do not take action.

The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, the original deal that committed developed countries to an overall 5 per cent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, expires in 2012. So, for the international community to tackle climate change, a new agreement is needed. The talks were just about agreeing to negotiate a deal, and what the agenda for negotiations would be.

But it was recognised the road map would lay down the foundations for what will be discussed – and hopefully agreed in 2009.

What's in it?

The so-called Bali Action Plan acknowledges "deep cuts in global emissions" will be required in order to tackle climate change and lays out the need for "a long-term global goal for emission reductions".

The key decision is to launch the formal negotiations on achieving a post-2012 deal. An end date – 2009 – has been agreed for completing negotiations, with the hope that it will be signed at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in December.

Countries have agreed to look at a range of measures, including how to protect forests from destruction, how to help poor countries adapt to the effects of climate change and how to pass on "green" technology to developing nations.

What's missing?

The single most significant omission is a figure for the level of cuts in emissions that the IPCC has warned developed countries will have to make by 2020 to avoid dangerous climate change. The EU had demanded a reference to cuts of 25 per cent to 40 per cuts on 1990 levels, and that survived until the last morning, when US opposition won out. The mention of the need for emissions to peak within ten to 15 years and for global emissions to halve by 2050 were also ditched.

Is the deal being viewed as a success?

The priority was getting everybody – particularly the US – on board, and the UK seems happy with what it have got. The Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, described the deal as a huge step forward and it was hailed a success by UN officials. But environmental and anti-poverty campaign groups have hit out at the perceived weakness of a deal with no mention of targets.