The UN climate talks conclude this week in Bali. Germanwatch Policy Director Christoph Bals shares his first-hand impressions of the conference, what has been achieved, and what issues and policies still threaten meaningful international cooperation on climate change.
 | Christoph Bals, Executive Director of Policy, Germanwatch"I am more optimistic than a year ago, but I also see how difficult it will be to come to a really meaningful treaty in two years." (Photo Germanwatch) |
How is everything going in Bali?
Nice and warm. Maybe too warm, many people say. It is now the decisive phase of the conference. There was a very good start to the conference, but now it is the more depressing part.
Why has the mood changed since the first week of the conference?
This is partly the usual dynamics with this kind of thing. At the beginning people come with their new ideas and suggestions, and so there is some positive movement. But you have 192 countries with mandates from their governments. Especially if there are surprising new moves by other countries, it is not possible for the lower-level negotiators to change the old mandate, and say, "yes, we accept this." But there are other reasons. The negotiations are extremely complex. The process might collapse due to its complexity, and some countries would be happy about that.
 | Climate Change Performance IndexView Germanwatch's climate performance ranking of 56 countries by following the links to "Germanwatch Reports" above |
The U.S. strategy is also clear. They are not really blocking the conference, but trying to block binding emissions reduction targets. They are using a lot of manpower and money to start these "major emitters meetings" next year. They want to set up their own negotiating process leading to voluntary targets. This is not generally bad, but it might be used to undermine the process and not support it. Other countries like Japan and Canada are hiding behind the United States.
How has China - the other big carbon emitter - approached the Bali conference?
I would say that this is the country that has moved the most at this conference. They gave out a "non-paper" (unofficial paper) saying that they would accept binding commitments on policies and measures, and on many other items, such as technology transfer and adaptation, they have made a number of constructive proposals.
What is motivating Chinese action there?
Mainly internal reasons. There are many health problems connected to fossil fuels. Polluted air is now the number-one cause of death in China. The infrastructure is still too stressed to bring all coal to power plants. The last two years, there was a big move to import coal from Australia. Only three years ago, China was quite a big exporter of coal, and now there is a strong increase in imported coal. This has changed the economics.
The third factor is that China has published its own report about the consequences of climate change, with 1,200 scientists working on it. The results were disastrous, especially regarding the water situation in half of China if the Himalayan glaciers melt. Coastal areas might see major problems due to sea level rise. These were two of the main findings of the report.
India, of course, does not have a new mandate, so they are very silent and we don't know what they will do in the last days. In that respect, the timing was not good. They expect to have a new position in March of next year. We'll see what the result will be there.
What have been the other important developments in Bali?
The very constructive moves from most of the developing countries. In the past, the entire group of least developed countries was a relatively weak and sometimes negative group in the negotiations. One reason for this was that the money for this process came from Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. But now they are a strong, positive voice, and are quite a few countries.
Many rapidly developing countries - not just China, but also South Africa, Brazil, and maybe most of all, Mexico - have also played a very constructive role at the negotiations. So, with this - along with moves from the new Australian prime minister and progress on the adaptation fund - there is a lot happening.
Are you optimistic about having a new international climate treaty by 2009?
There are still some big "buts," such as the U.S. rejection of binding targets. So you have to start negotiating with this government, and finalize in two years with another government. The rapidly developing countries are open to negotiate, but I guess they will only finalize the negotiations if the U.S. accepts absolute targets. For the next two years, we will not be able to know how positive this conference can be judged.
I am more optimistic than a year ago, but I also see how difficult it will be to come to a really meaningful treaty in two years. Before, I said there was a 25 percent chance we will reach this point. And I cannot judge until the end of the conference if this number will stay the same, but I hope that by the end, it will be 40 percent.
Many expect U.S. policy to change over the next few years. How important is this?
This is one of the points that makes me relatively optimistic. I'm 90 percent certain that we will see a major shift in U.S. climate policy, maybe even if the Republicans are re-elected. With the movement at the state level, financial market level, and industries, I just cannot imagine that the U.S. will stick to a policy like the last government. I am nearly sure that we will see a big shift, but to limit global warming to below 2 or 2.5 degrees, it must really be a major shift.
With all the headline news and awareness about climate change, do you think we will see more determined, proactive approaches to the problem?
It is not yet clear if we are moving from rhetoric to real action. There are some indications, if you look at how investment in renewable energy, efficiency, and other carbon neutral technologies is developing, or if you see how policies in quite a number of countries are developing. So far, there is not the critical mass to say that this is the beginning of a real change, but I hope that maybe in five years, we can say that yes, it was.
Sometimes I compare it to the transformation process of eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s. I think we are now in the situation when Hungary opened the borders to Austria. Nobody could really judge what the effects would be. It was clearly a sensation, but whether it would entirely change the old structure or not, it was just a hope and not more. We are in a similar situation at the moment.
It's a dramatic positive movement, but we don't know where it is leading. If you look at the last six years, the speed of emission growth has tripled in relation to the decades before. So if we look at emissions, we cannot see a positive trend. And this is what really counts in the end.
editors: Nick Tewes / Valdis Wish
publishing date: December 11, 2007
Do you have something interesting to add? Write a comment and discuss this topic with other readers. Comments should be on-topic, non-commercial, and not contain abuse of any kind.
Comment Policy
