The Observer's Anushka Asthana has a pithy and helpful Q & A on the just concluded UN Climate Change Conference in Bali:
"What was the point of the Bali conference?
It was a chance for policymakers from more than 180 countries to hammer out an international agreement on what cuts in greenhouse emissions were required, which countries needed to make them and what the deadline should be. It aimed to create a 'roadmap' for a future climate change deal - a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
What was the Kyoto protocol?
After two and a half years of negotiations, the Kyoto protocol on climate change was adopted on 11 December 1997. Although most countries signed up to it, some chose not to, most notably the US, despite the fact that it is one of the world's largest emitters of carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, the Kyoto treaty came into force in February 2005 and required each developed country to reduce emissions by an agreed level between 2008 and 2012.
Was the Bali conference successful?
A 'roadmap' was agreed, laying down the path for two years of negotiations. The final destination will be Copenhagen at the end of 2009 (via Poznan in Poland the year before), where a climate treaty will be drawn up. The deal promised to give poor countries more money to help cope with the harmful effects of global warming and agreed to a review of how rich countries could spread green technology. Delegates accepted the principle that poorer countries should be rewarded for protecting forests and supported the idea of businesses being able to trade in carbon allowances.
What was missing?
Countries committed themselves to talking about climate change and to pursuing a post-Kyoto agreement, but did not set in place any commitments. Although a fund was agreed for poor countries, no figure was mentioned. The EU fought for a clause committing developed countries to reduce emissions by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 but it was blocked by the US, Japan and others. Bali was a small step in the right direction, but to prevent the destruction predicted by scientists, much more must be done."
Meanwhile, over at Time, it dissects who won and who lost in Bali. BBC News reports on the outcome of the conference here.
"What was the point of the Bali conference?
It was a chance for policymakers from more than 180 countries to hammer out an international agreement on what cuts in greenhouse emissions were required, which countries needed to make them and what the deadline should be. It aimed to create a 'roadmap' for a future climate change deal - a successor to the Kyoto protocol.
What was the Kyoto protocol?
After two and a half years of negotiations, the Kyoto protocol on climate change was adopted on 11 December 1997. Although most countries signed up to it, some chose not to, most notably the US, despite the fact that it is one of the world's largest emitters of carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, the Kyoto treaty came into force in February 2005 and required each developed country to reduce emissions by an agreed level between 2008 and 2012.
Was the Bali conference successful?
A 'roadmap' was agreed, laying down the path for two years of negotiations. The final destination will be Copenhagen at the end of 2009 (via Poznan in Poland the year before), where a climate treaty will be drawn up. The deal promised to give poor countries more money to help cope with the harmful effects of global warming and agreed to a review of how rich countries could spread green technology. Delegates accepted the principle that poorer countries should be rewarded for protecting forests and supported the idea of businesses being able to trade in carbon allowances.
What was missing?
Countries committed themselves to talking about climate change and to pursuing a post-Kyoto agreement, but did not set in place any commitments. Although a fund was agreed for poor countries, no figure was mentioned. The EU fought for a clause committing developed countries to reduce emissions by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 but it was blocked by the US, Japan and others. Bali was a small step in the right direction, but to prevent the destruction predicted by scientists, much more must be done."
Meanwhile, over at Time, it dissects who won and who lost in Bali. BBC News reports on the outcome of the conference here.
Comments