Bali – Success or Failure?

Gareth Jones explains what the Bali conference was and gives his view of what it achieved

politicians gathered at a small island in the Indian Ocean to work out the next step in saving the planet Perhaps the conference didn't bring the type of commitment the activists wanted, but at least the ball is now rolling

According to the author of the UN Development Programme report, Kevin Watkins, if the developed countries can rapidly cut carbon emissions by 80% we have a 50:50 chance of preventing the world's core temperature from rising the 2ºc, an amount which would be devastating to life on earth. Climate change is real.

In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was introduced, an agreement among countries around the world to monitor, report and reduce their carbon emissions over a period of 15 years. As of November last year, 174 countries had joined the agreement. Within it, many (though not all) of the developed countries agreed to meet specific targets, recognising their leading responsibility in lowering overall emissions of greenhouse gases. The protocol is, however, due to expire in 4 years' time.

In December last year the world's politicians and media gathered for two weeks at a small island in the Indian Ocean to work out the next step in saving the planet from climate chaos. It was to be the first in a series of discussions with the idea that a new protocol, and a new set of targets, will take over from those set in 1997. So, what happened?

There was, at first, a lot of talking. Audiences and followers heard the updates from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; the world's experts of the science. This worked to reassure everyone listening of the importance of the conference, and of the urgent need to do something about the world's rising heat, but, as the days went by, I found myself wondering when real commitments would come into sight.

Debate centred on whether or not to include real figures in the roadmap which was to come out of the meeting, with Europe pushing for the industrialised nations to commit to cutting CO2 levels by 25-40% by 2020. It was an idea that would have forced nations to take real and radical action, but was blocked by three important industrial forces; China, Japan and the USA. In the final moments, worried that no agreement would be made at all, the EU agreed to drop the proposed targets and also, along with China, promised to tone down the explicit language in the report, regarding commitments required by developing countries.

Even with these compromises confirmed, the USA deliberated about whether or not to accept the amended text, but was finally, perhaps reluctantly, convinced when a chorus of 'boos' rang out across the conference.

At the end of the day all we got was a document, with a fairly subjective acknowledgement that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective", presumably to avoid dangerous climate change. What it does state, however, is that any delay in reducing emissions will make severe climate impacts much more likely.

Perhaps Bali didn’t bring the type of commitment the activists and informed scientists wanted, but at least the ball is now rolling. We need to keep pushing and pressurizing our governments to set and meet targets so that 2009's climate change meeting in Copenhagen will result in some more solid figures and 2012 will see a real push in preventing any further climate change disaster.