The Bali agreement on global warming recognized the need for “deep cuts” in emissions, but avoided any firm agreement on number and targets. Instead, participants agreed to a roadmap for more talks by 2009, encompassing representatives of 187 countries, where the numbers will be hammered out. Key on the agenda will be the burden sharing between developed and developing countries. Even this vague conclusion was only accepted grudgingly by the US delegation, with public qualms emanating by the White House, and the great fear is that the Bush administration will try to derail future talks.
The core US objections center on references to the emissions targets and what it feels is the need for the developing world to shoulder a greater amount of the burden. And while it is true that emissions in places like China are skyrocketing, the US still remains the greatest “sinner” in this area, as the chart below (reproduced from the Financial Times) shows.
In the background, the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, representing the world’s collective wisdom on the subject, dominated the discussions, and instilled a sense of urgency and frustration. The panel, drawing on the work of 3,500 scientists, declared that evidence of climate change was “unequivocal”, that the burning of fossil fuels was to blame, and that a baseline 2 degree warming would have catastrophic implications (droughts, floods, storms, sea level rises ), especially for the poorest and most vulnerable countries. The UK-mandated Stern Report shows that, by not acting, the costs of global warming will amount to 5 percent of global GDP each year, which could rise as high as 20 percent. Acting to curb emissions will instead cost 1 percent of GDP. And yet so many Americans seem blithely indifferent to this predicament, refusing to pay at any cost, putting their faith instead in quacks and charlatans, clutching at straws in defense of the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.
The EU has been leading efforts to get countries to agree to target reductions. It had already set its own target of reducing emissions by 20 percent by 2020. At the conference, it persuaded Canada, Japan, and Russia to set their own emissions targets. They too feel that the developing world should do more as part of a global deal, but (unlike the US), they will not use this as a convenient excuse for doing nothing. Note that the developing countries are not opposed to targets, but feel that they need an element of financial aid. This is eminently just, given the role of the developed world in creating the crisis that now exists. And besides, when did did a lack of virtue in your neighbor justify a lack of virtue at home?
Bali opened the door. What happens in the future depends critically on the role of the US. It needs to look outside its own borders and narrow interests and take a more global perspective. It needs to recognize that morality centers on the recognition of our common humanity. Will it do the right thing? Let’s pray.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In