Climate deal sealed by US U-turn

[eppur_se_muova]

Source: BBC

Delegates at the UN summit in Bali have agreed a deal on curbing climate change after days of bitter wrangling.

Agreement was reached after a U-turn from the US, which had wanted firmer commitments from developing countries.

Earlier, the EU and US agreed that industrialised countries would not set firm emissions targets at this stage.

The "Bali roadmap" initiates a two-year process of negotiations designed to agree a new set of emissions targets to replace those in the Kyoto Protocol.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7145608.stm

[niceypoo]

1. I dont believe it for two seconds.

We have heard this shit before. Bush admits problem then does nothing.

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Smirk, so I am a flip-flopper after all. Smirk." - Commander AWOL

[cal04]

3. Bali climate talks reach agreement

Source: Associated Press

World leaders overcame bitter divisions Saturday and agreed to reach a new deal on fighting global warming by 2009, turning a corner in mankind's race to stave off environmental disaster caused by rising temperatures.

The contentious, two-week U.N. climate conference on the resort island of Bali ended with the United States, facing angry criticism from other delegations, relenting in its opposition to a request from developing nations for more technological help fighting climate change.

The new deal does not commit countries to specific actions against global warming. It simply sets an agenda and schedule for negotiators to find ways to reduce pollution and help poor countries adapt to environmental changes by speeding up the transfer of technology and financial assistance.

Despite an aggressive EU-led campaign to include specific emissions reduction targets for industrial nations — by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 — the final road map has none.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_sc/bali_climate_conference

[Teaser]

4. story is wrong about targets

They are included in a footnote to the preamble. But they are included.

[Briar]

5. Would you like to quote this footnote?

n/t

[Barrett808]

6. Yes indeed, I'd love to read it

Are these binding targets? Cuz that would be cool.

[Teaser]

7. I doubt they're binding

and Bush will use the excuse that they are "just footnotes".

But his likely Democratic successor will not (I believe).

[Teaser]

8. Here's a link

to the story, as I *don't* have a copy of the Bali document yet. When I do, I'll post the actual text.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-sci-bali15dec15,0,711988.story?coll=la-home-world

[Briar]

9. Thanks

some revealing paragraphs in this story:

"The footnote refers to three pages in the final IPCC report detailing emission reductions that will be necessary to restrict global warming to no more than a two-degree-Fahrenheit increase from current levels.

"The European Union, in particular, had been attempting to get negotiations rolling with that temperature target firmly in delegates' sights, going so far as to threaten a boycott of the meeting of the 17 largest polluters planned next month in Hawaii by President Bush if explicit emissions targets were not included.

"The White House intended the Hawaii meeting to allow each of the countries, which account for 80% of the world's emissions, to set their own voluntary targets for reductions.

"The eventual compromise of placing the targets in a footnote, suggested by Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar, was hashed out overnight Friday and allowed the delegates to save some face. His compromise did not commit any country to a firm reduction in emissions or, in the case of developing nations, to limits on growth of emissions."


So - no binding targets. No reduction of emissions. No action on this front against global warming. But politicians' faces have been saved. Hurrah.

[Teaser]

13. I never expected binding targets

nothing can happen until our current leadership is expunged. Even if explicitly binding targets were enacted, the Bushies would not obey them. I'm surprised they even agreed to the footnote.

[rodeodance]

10. Global warming pact set for 2009 after US backs down

Source: afp

Global warming pact set for 2009 after US backs down

by Shaun Tandon 2 hours, 8 minutes ago

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (AFP) - World climate negotiators set a 2009 deadline Saturday for a landmark treaty to fight global warming after two weeks of intense haggling led to a climbdown by an isolated United States.
................

Following gruelling all-night talks, the conference of 190 nations finally launched a process to negotiate a new treaty for when the UN Kyoto Protocol's commitments expire in 2012.

It comes after a year of stark warnings from Nobel-winning scientists, who say millions of people will be at risk of hunger, homelessness and disease by 2100 if temperatures keep rising at current rates.

The United States, the only major industrialised nation to reject the Kyoto treaty, reached a compromise with the European Union to avoid mentioning any figures as a target for slashing greenhouse gas emissions.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071215/wl_asia_afp/unclimatewarming_071215162039

[dipsydoodle]

11. They all made the broad assumption

that once Dimson is out of the way, in a years whatever time, his replacement will show more sense. More than SFA shouldn't be too difficult.

[Briar]

12. But already the US is trying to wriggle out

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7146276.stm

[NickB79]

14. Fate of billions sealed by US screw-job

Should have been the actual title. It would have been quite a bit more accurate, too.

[humus]

15. national fluff

A change of heart or of values without a practice is only another
pointless luxury of a passively consumptive way of life.

[cal04]

16. 'Serious concerns' about Bali climate deal: White House

The United States Saturday voiced "serious concerns" about a deal reached at the UN climate conference in Bali, emphasizing the need for major developing countries to be included in greenhouse gas emissions targets.

In a statement following the end of the global conference, where the United States found itself isolated in battling against new emissions goals for developed countries, the White House renewed its call for emissions targets for countries like China and India.

And it said that any new agreement to succeed the UN Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, must acknowledge a country's sovereign right to pursue economic growth and energy security.

While there were positive aspects to the conference's deal to seek a new treaty by 2009, the "United States does have serious concerns about other aspects of the decision as we begin the negotiations," the White House said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071215/pl_afp/unclimatewarmingusbush_071215220634

[cloudythescribbler]

17. Who's going to organize push for net NEGATIVE CO2 emissions??

All this talk about 80% reduction by 2050 is nonsense -- we need to do MUCH more than that MUCH sooner.

LONG BEFORE 2050 humanity will need to curb virtually all CO2 emissions, and start to INCREASE global forest coverage and build millions of giant air filters to filter OUT global warming gases, including CO2

Otherwise, the world is likely to end up like the anti-utopia described in Walt Whitman's "Respondez! Respondez!"

Well, how about it?