It had been a long, hot night in Bali, a few weeks before last Christmas, and talks on a new climate deal had dragged past the scheduled finish, through the small hours and well into the morning.
The fate of the world remained in the balance. Faced with grim predictions from the world’s scientists, environment ministers from 192 countries were trying to agree how to tackle global warming. The deadline to agree on the so-called Bali roadmap had come and gone, and rumors were rife that saving the planet would have to be suspended to allow cleaners to ready the rooms for a pre-booked event later that day.
Exhausted campaigners, officials and journalists waited for news like expectant fathers as delegates — with guilty looks and mumbling apologies — began stumbling into taxis for flights home.
Then, inside the cavernous hotel auditorium hosting the negotiations, something extraordinary happened. Faced with angry accusations from the Chinese that he was allowing parallel discussions outside the room, Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate official, broke down in tears and had to be helped from the platform. A ripple of supportive applause swelled to a standing ovation — a rare moment of unity that appeared to nudge the talks back on track. A few hours later, the world’s politicians were able to agree and head home.
De Boer takes center stage again this week as the UN climate talks resume in Poznan, Poland. The meeting is likely to provide fewer fireworks. The Bali talks launched negotiations on a new climate treaty, and aimed for them to be completed by this time next year, when the UN climate circus rolls into Copenhagen. Poznan, the halfway point of that process, will probably see countries tread water, with the real action likely to begin in the second half of next year.
“This is not an exciting meeting in the way Bali was,” de Boer says. “But we really haven’t got an awful lot of time left to agree what comes next. It is important that countries in Copenhagen reach a political agreement that is a response to what the science tells us needs to be done.”
Some progress is still possible at Poznan — countries could agree on how to free hundreds of millions of dollars of funding to help poorer countries cope with the effects of climate change. There could also be movement on a scheme to pay tropical countries to protect forests.
The negotiations that will climax in Copenhagen are the first attempt to reach a meaningful international agreement on climate change since the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the first phase of which expires in 2012. Analysts say a new agreement is needed by the end of next year for it to enter into force in 2012, to give countries a couple of years to ratify the new treaty.
Anything other than a seamless succession from Kyoto could spell disaster for emerging carbon markets — seen as a crucial mechanism to cut future carbon emissions. The involvement of the US and China — the two biggest carbon emitters — is fundamental.
As one European official put it: “The new climate agreement is a deal between the US and China. The rest of us are there for lubrication.”
US president-elect Barack Obama has said the US will “engage vigorously” in talks on a Copenhagen deal and “help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.”
The US signed Kyoto, but then-president Bill Clinton never submitted it for ratification to a hostile Senate, which made it clear it would oppose, on economic grounds, any deal that did not set binding targets for the developing world — code for China.
US President George W. Bush distanced the US further from what he called a “flawed treaty.”
PESSIMISTIC
But negotiators do not expect the Obama administration to signal its true intentions on climate change until spring at the earliest. Some Washington observers are more pessimistic, believing an Obama administration will be unlikely to focus on global climate change commitments before enacting domestic legislation. The incoming chairs of the Senate and House of Representatives, Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman respectively, both have said they plan to introduce legislation early next year, but it is unlikely to become law before Copenhagen.
John Kerry, the former Democratic presidential candidate who will lead the Senate delegation in Poznan, said last month that the US was now in a position to play a leading role in negotiations. But he also warned that the incoming administration would be constrained by the economic crisis in offering incentives to countries such as India and China to commit themselves to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
The rest of the world expects more than engagement from Obama, however vigorous, and British officials will expect the US to take on the kind of binding targets it rejected a decade ago. For that to happen, it seems certain that the US will demand mandatory emissions commitments from large developing countries, principally China, India and Brazil.
China’s position has not fundamentally changed since Bali and it will resist internationally binding goals for emissions reductions.
“I don’t think it is realistic or feasible to set a specific emissions target at a national level,” a member of the Chinese negotiating team said. “Politically, I don’t think it is possible to set targets.”
Before taking that step, the source said, China would seek assistance to build up a system to measure, report and verify emissions. This is a challenge in such a large country but negotiators argue it is pointless to set a target if there is no accurate way to gauge compliance.
China has set non-binding domestic goals on energy efficiency, renewable energy use and the reduction of pollutants, including several greenhouse gases. Foreign diplomats praise the targets, but they say implementation is patchy.
In Chinese academia, there is a growing debate on the issue, with one prominent government adviser, Hu Angang (胡鞍鋼), urging China to score diplomatic points by fixing binding targets. But this is a minority position.
The Chinese government stresses that the main responsibility lies with developed countries. Before setting binding targets, China wants its economy to catch up more with the West. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) recently called on rich countries to abandon their “unsustainable lifestyle,” saying the financial crisis was no excuse for inaction on climate change.
China has said developed countries should contribute at least 0.7 percent of GDP to help poorer countries acquire clean technology and cope with floods, droughts and storms created by rising temperatures. Few wealthy countries stump up this much cash for their entire aid budgets. In negotiations, China and other developing countries are likely to seek a lower but still substantial sum of several tens of billions of dollars.
UK Environment Secretary Ed Miliband said Europe needed to agree on its own carbon targets at a meeting in Brussels this week to smooth the negotiations. Italy and Poland have complained about the cost of the proposals, which had to be agreed to by European leaders yesterday.
Miliband said: “When I think about Poznan, the backdrop at present is a positive one because of what president-elect Obama has said, but it will be much more positive if we get agreement in Europe, and much more negative if we don’t.”
Henry Derwent, who stepped down as UK chief negotiator on climate change this year and is now president of the International Emissions Trading Association, said it was “too extreme” to view the US and China as the only major players in the negotiations.
He said: “Those two will have to be satisfied, but China does not simply own India and cannot deliver India, nor the rest of the G-77 [group of developing countries].”
Shyam Saran, India’s special envoy on climate change and lead negotiator at the UN talks, said that India is not a “major emitter” of greenhouse gases and will not volunteer to take on responsibilities that would see it accept legally binding limits. He said capping emissions would threaten its growth and prevent it from alleviating “energy poverty” that sees 500 million people live in darkness.
“In India, I need to give electricity for light bulbs to half a billion. In the West you want to drive your Mercedes as fast as you want. We have ‘survival’ emissions, you have lifestyle emissions. You cannot put them on the same basis. I am trying to give a minimal commercial energy service, whereas you are not prepared to give up any part of your affluent lifestyle or give up consumption patterns,” he said.
The diplomat, who was appointed earlier this year after successfully negotiating a key nuclear deal with Washington, said India also had concerns that the global financial crisis would see climate change fall off the political agenda, and expressed surprise at the ease at which money had been found to cope with the slowdown.
“What we are saying is that if in a compelling crisis governments are able to find the resources amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, then what about climate change?” he said.
CONVENTION
The Indian government has repeatedly pointed out that, under the UN framework convention on climate change adopted in 1992, developed countries promised that poor countries would get cash and know-how to deal with climate change. Yet little has arrived.
Derwent said the Chinese statement about rich countries paying 0.7 percent of GDP to poorer countries was “quite an optimistic sign compared to what India and others are saying.”
He said: “They are talking in negotiating language, even though their initial demand is outside the comfort zone of those on the other side of the table. It’s a negotiating commonplace that once the other guy starts talking numbers or timetables, even if the numbers are ridiculous, you have passed a milestone.”
In contrast, he said the early talk about mandatory reduction commitments for countries such as China from the Obama team were “absolutely miles away” from what developing countries might accept.
Derwent said: “It’s a hunch, but I think there is much, much more understanding that has to go on in the minds of the new presidential team that what they’re asking for is simply not available.”
He said the key issue in Copenhagen would be what countries were willing to sign up to in the short term, rather than ambitious pledges to act by 2050.
“You’ve got to get people talking about a next commitment period, might be five years, eight years or 2020, against which that can be judged,” he said.
One problem, Derwent said, was that countries would probably not put such numbers on the table until the last minute.
“That’s quite possible. And if you did get that then the chances [of an agreement] would be quite low,” he said, adding: “The problem with Copenhagen is that there is simply so much to do.”
Bob Watson, chief scientist at the environment department, Defra, and a former White House adviser in the mid-1990s, said it could be possible to adjourn the Copenhagen meeting if agreement is not reached.
“If there’s major agreement but they can’t get everyone to sign on the dotted line, they might have to come back a few months later. I say let’s really push for Copenhagen, but there may have to be what I call a ‘Copenhagen plus one,’” he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath