After two weeks of endless political and economical arguments, rich and poor countries playing the blame game, crying officials and the host nation suggesting that the science of climate change still being up for discussion, we finally ended up with an agreement.
The politicians will return home and proclaim that they got a good deal, that major progress has been made and that they are on track to replace the ineffective Kyoto protocol by 2012. But was the UN climate conference a success? Do the politicians deserve our praise or did they fall well short of what was expected?
The answers can be found in the final conference text. Known as the "Bali road map", this 1500 word document, the combined effort of 180 nations and many brilliant minds, provides a unique opportunity for everyone to see how effectively our leaders propose to tackle global warming. Surprisingly, one will quickly discover that nothing concrete was agreed at all, which is evident by the fact that the word "will" only has been used three (3) times throughout the entire document.
Clearly, progress was made. A reference to deforestation was duly included. However, with the scientific knowledge that cutting down tropical rain forests contributes vast amounts of CO2 to global warming each year, it would have been political suicide to leave it out. "Enhanced national and international action on mitigation of climate change, including... consideration of... policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries..." was the far from convincing words that everyone could agree to.
Another aspect of the conference worth considering is the areas left our of the agreement.
a) Not one reference to legally binding targets. Neither a CO2 reduction target for 2020 of 25-40% nor a goal for 2050 of a 50% reduction were included. Blocked by the USA with indirect support from Japan and Canada, we were left with nothing but: "Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required". Most adults with access to radio or TV will be well aware that this hardly is groundbreaking news. The delegates did little more than confirm what we already know - that if we continue to emit CO2 at today's reckless levels we are asking for trouble. Without a firm timeline and binding targets, the world will have to rely on pie-in-the-sky technologies to be developed, tested, deployed and capacity built up in time before global warming runs amok. As no-one has ever produced a technological road map showing that this strategy will succeed in reducing CO2 emissions by the required 80% by the end of the century, this was clearly a long way off the mark.
b) Population growth and strategies to stabilise or even reduce the world population were not discussed. And that despite the clear scientific prediction that the continued growth of the human population will stretch dwindling natural resources to the limit. We are simply too many individuals living or aspiring to live carbon hungry lives, while our planet's ability to sustain all of us with food is under threat from climate change. With increased risk of conflicts over resources, a rapidly expanding world population poses multiple risks to the planet, and should for that reason have been addressed by the delegates.
c) Emissions from aviation and shipping were not seen as important enough and were disappointingly also left out all together.
There is a strong feeling among activists that the political process, rooted in capitalism and greed, executed in an atmosphere of blame and point scoring, has once again failed to deliver a tangible way out of our common predicament - global warming. The verdict is therefore clear. The United Nations 2007 conference was yet another wasted opportunity for the international community to work together. A spectacular failure? Yes definitely. The final conference text, diluted many times over, stands as a testimony to how divided the world is in its response to global warming and how little was achieved in Bali.
