Disappointment at Bali

The Bali talks on threshing out a successor to the Kyoto protocol have turned out to be a disappointment. It is of course true that eleventh-hour developments forced the negotiators to agree on a road map to finalise an agreement by 2009, well before the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. But the way the proceedings went and the stands taken by different country-groups do not inspire much confidence in either the smooth conduct of future talks, or the emergence of a final consensus. The real disappointment is that the meet had to drop the proposal, put forth by the European Union and backed by the developing countries, stipulating 25 to 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the industrialised nations by 2020. That would have provided a basis for future negotiations to chalk out a suitable action plan, keeping in view the do-or-die nature of the task at hand. After all, the evidence of global warming has already begun to surface with the decade 1998-2007 having been documented as the warmest on record, causing weather extremes, droughts and floods the world over. Without binding commitments, and with all countries having increased their carbon emissions after Kyoto (the direct opposite of the reductions agreed to), it is hard to signal progress of the kind that was needed.

On the positive side, Bali saw two of the world's major polluters which had hitherto opted out of the Kyoto accord, the US and Australia, fall in line, with the latter even ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Though the US again chose to play the villain's role and had, at the end, to be cornered and bullied into taking a U-turn on its stand of not budging on the imposition of binding commitments on the developing countries, its participation in the talks is not without significance. The best that can be said is that, by the time a final treaty is ready for approval, a new US administration will be in place. The other major gain of the meet was to sharpen the focus on the transfer of clean, or rather green, technology and the ways to meet the costs. The trade ministers, who were involved in climate change talks for the first time, failed to arrive at any agreement on whether such technology transfer should be treated as aid or export, but the issue is now firmly on the agenda. There is every possibility that the present carbon trading-based clean development mechanism (CDM) will be suitably revamped for the benefit of the developing countries; also, one can look forward to the creation, ultimately, of an adaptation fund through a 2 per cent levy on credits earned from the CDM for financing investment in clean technology generation.

These are limited gains, but even they have been possible only because street opinion in the developed countries is now aware of the problem of climate change, and this has forced governments to fall in line. However, there is no acceptance as yet that the emission levels of the developed countries are way beyond the earth's tolerance limits, and that major lifestyle and/or technological changes are required in quick order. When this consciousness grows, climate change conferences will get even more contentious.