BALI DEAL LEAVES ROOM FOR FUTURE U.S. EMISSION-REDUCTION COMMITMENTS
For Personal Use Only
WordPress database error: [MySQL server has gone away]
SELECT option_value FROM wp_options WHERE option_name = 'use_smilies' LIMIT 1
BALI, Indonesia — The agreement reached here on negotiating a post-2012 climate change treaty allows the Bush administration to argue it has not committed to mandatory emission targets, while leaving the door open for the next U.S. president to accept emission mandates before a final deal must be reached by the end of 2009, according to observers attending the talks.
“The White House can’t bring themselves to get on the train, but they have allowed the train to start to roll,” David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said in an interview.
The Bush administration also accepted some concessions in the final text that were agreed to by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change after hours of delay, including agreeing not to conduct subsequent talks in a “negotiating committee” that observers said could have significantly slowed the process toward a final treaty. Text of the agreement is available at CarbonControlNews.com.
The agreement reached on Dec. 15 for a “road map” for drafting a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, creates an outline for intense negotiations over the next two years that will include both developed and developing nations.
However, approval came only after last-minute drama when a plenary session convened to approve the road map stalled, with a highly public battle over “mitigation actions” by developing countries that left the U.S. isolated. In what sources here said was a mix of substance and symbolism, India and other nations succeeded in altering language calling for measurable, reportable and verifiable actions from developing nations.
One longtime observer of climate change negotiations said it appeared India was trying to create at least a symbolic distinction between the emission-reduction efforts of developed and developing nations. The United States opposed calls to change the underlying language, but then retreated, allowing formal adoption to proceed.
Other elements of the agreement create some breathing room for the United States — the only developed nation not to have adopted the Kyoto Protocol. For example, the portion of the text governing developed countries allows the United States to say it has not agreed to binding targets, according to one source here who analyzed the final document. The source noted the language calls for enhanced activities, but references both “commitments” and “actions” to address global warming, allowing for some wiggle room on what steps are counted under the agreement.
The central U.S. objection to including language calling for 25 to 40 percent emission cuts from developed countries by 2020 was resolved by indirectly referencing the target in a footnote in the decision document. The decision text also deletes earlier references to achieving a 50 percent emissions cut by 2050, and instead says “deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention.”
But the final language also represents a U.S. concession by referring to the scientific underpinnings of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that essentially calls for the same emissions target.
Earlier in the talks, the European Union (EU) had threatened to boycott President Bush’s upcoming major economies meetings on climate change in Hawaii next month unless a meaningful road map here was forged that included emission targets.
The decision document also states that the subsidiary body formed to negotiate the post-2012 treaty for U.N. adoption in 2009 will be called an ad hoc working group rather than a negotiating committee, as the United States had sought. The distinction is key because a negotiating committee initiates formal processes under the Kyoto treaty that allow for procedural moves to be initiated that can block progress. An ad hoc working group does not allow for procedural maneuvering.
The working group language also invites countries to submit their views on the work program by February 2008.
Additionally, the agreement states that the process going forward will be on two tracks: a continuation of talks between countries that are a party to the Kyoto Protocol and a second track for negotiating a new treaty. The EU did not want to open the Kyoto track to non-Kyoto parties, while the United States had pushed for a new agreement to replace the Kyoto process.
In a possible concession to the United States, the decision text reinstates an earlier reference to the word “national” in calling for quantified emission limits. A Dec. 14 compromise floated by the president of the Conference of the Parties deleted the reference with the support of the EU, which expressed concerns that the word would allow the United States to avoid committing to binding international actions.
“This is not the strongest agreement that could have come out of these talks, but it does set the stage for a reasonable, worldwide emissions goal in a new treaty,” said Philip Clapp of the Pew Environment Group.
NRDC’s Doniger concurred, noting that the deal satisfied objectives while also acknowledging room for improvement. “It allowed but does not require the outcome of a cap for the U.S. to be comparable to other countries,” Doniger said.
A U.S. industry source attending the Bali talks told Carbon Control News, “It is important they are coming out with a road map because it launches the next phase, not just post-Kyoto but involving all countries and including the building blocks. . . . It is an important signal to the world that everybody is moving forward together.” The source noted that a deal means the U.N. is on track to “end up with something in 2009 that will involve commitments.”
The agreement came after the United States won 11th-hour praise from delegates and others who cited new-found flexibility by the U.S. delegation that had faced harsh criticism through the two-week meeting that it was working behind the scenes to block every proposal.
German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel noted at a Dec. 14 press conference, “Of course, we as Europeans feel that this is a good situation that the United States changed their attitude . . . and fulfilled the promise of Bush during the G8 when he said he wants to bring American initiatives under the umbrella of the United Nations negotiations here in Bali. . . . We see that the Americans want to fulfill this promise.”
Additionally, U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, in response to a question about whether the United States was wrecking the talks, said late Dec. 14, “My impression is that the U.S. is showing a great deal of flexibility.”
The decision document includes significant deals going forward on forestry, adaptation and technology. For example, environmental groups say the climate talks produced historic language paving the way for new negotiations on ways to reduce deforestation and forest degradation–a priority of many developing nations including Indonesia, the host country for the talks. The language allows “positive incentives” to stop such deforestation. The agreement is not explicit on the question of whether such incentives should include crediting of such environmental activities in carbon markets. The Union of Concerned Scientist’s Peter Frumhoff said at a Dec. 14 press conference that the issue was left for future discussions.
On the subject of technology transfers–a longtime priority of developing nations–one knowledgeable source said negotiators took steps that include an agreement to politically elevate an existing “expert group,” with instructions to examine issues such as intellectual property rights related to technology transfers and mechanisms for overcoming the incremental costs of installing cleaner energy alternatives. The language also calls for the group to focus on performance indicators for measuring progress on the issue.
On the issue of adapting to climate change, negotiators agreed on “enhanced action,” including consideration of risk management and disaster reduction strategies, and integration of adaptation action into sectoral and national planning. One source tracking the issue, however, said that while the language sets up a framework for action, “There is an immense amount of work to be done to make it meaningful.”
Officials earlier in the talks agreed on the structure for an existing adaptation fund, financed by a tax on the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, a move that officials here said would pave the way for the first release of funds in 2008. However, environmentalists said the fund is only a fraction of what is needed to develop low-emission projects in developing countries.
Filed by Catherine Tsalikis under The Environment, Climate Change