U.K. House of Commons, discussion on the Bali Climate Change Negotiations

Prepared: 16:49 on 18 December 2007, 12.33 pm

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Hilary Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s international climate change negotiations in Indonesia.

The Minister for the Environment and I attended the 13th conference of the parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the third meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol, in Bali. After intensive, and at times difficult, talks we reached an historic agreement in which for the first time all the countries of the world agreed to start negotiations on a new climate deal for implementation after the Kyoto protocol’s first commitment period ends in 2012. These negotiations will begin next year and will be concluded in Copenhagen in 2009.

The Bali action plan represents the most significant collective agreement to protect the world from dangerous climate change since the Kyoto protocol was signed exactly 10 years ago. It recognises the need for deep cuts in global emissions as set out in the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In addition, in the ad hoc working group—or AWG—on further commitments for annex 1 parties under the Kyoto protocol, which forms part of what we agreed, we recognised the need for global emissions to be reduced by at least 50 per cent. by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, and for developed countries to reduce their emissions by 25 to 40 per cent. by 2020.

The Bali action plan commits developed and developing countries over the next two years to negotiate a long-term global goal for emission reductions, and to agree measurable, reportable and verifiable national and international action to mitigate climate change by all countries, including commitments to emission limitation and reduction objectives by developed countries. The action plan will bear in mind the different national economic and social circumstances of developed and developing countries, in line with the United Nations framework convention on climate change—or UNFCCC—principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Negotiations will take place in an ad hoc working group on long-term co-operative action under the convention and four meetings will take place next year.

In addition to the action plan, Bali resulted in some significant breakthroughs on technology transfer, deforestation, adaptation and carbon markets, which will begin almost immediately. On technology, there was agreement on an ambitious work programme covering both mitigation and adaptation. A UNFCCC expert group will examine ways and means of speeding up technology development and transfer, and its funding.

On deforestation, which, as the House will be aware, is responsible for about 20 per cent. of global emissions, the agreement in Bali will pave the way for incentives to reduce those emissions, and those will cover both wholesale deforestation and more gradual damage. The agreement will set the rules for projects that can be piloted to common UN-approved guidelines, so that what is learned can feed into a future climate framework. I announced a UK contribution of £15 million to the World Bank forest carbon partnership facility, which will assist countries to try out that new approach.

A decision was also reached on the governance of the adaptation fund, which will support developing countries to adapt to the climate change that is already inevitable. That will be funded by a 2 per cent. levy on the clean development mechanism.

On carbon markets, it was agreed to abolish registration fees and levies on clean development mechanism projects in the least developed countries, and to approve the use of non-renewable biomass CDM, which means that projects such as encouraging small cooking stoves will now be possible through the CDM. Changes were also agreed to improve the way in which the CDM and the CDM board function, and the UK announced the Africa Springboard project, in which we will work with 10 UK financial institutions to try to increase the number of CDM projects in Africa.

The success of the Bali conference was, I think, made both possible and necessary by the compelling clarity of the science contained in the recent intergovernmental panel on climate change report, by the strength of the economic case for urgent action set out in Nick Stern’s findings, and by the way in which our changing climate is changing our politics. I pay particular tribute to the leadership of the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, to the President and Government of Indonesia, to Portugal as the EU presidency, and to the recognition by every delegation that we could not let the next generation down. I also personally thank officials from across the UK Government and from the embassy in Jakarta for their extraordinary knowledge, dedication and commitment.

This agreement represents a successful outcome to extensive lobbying by the UK and the EU over the past 12 months, building on the results of G8 summits and other meetings. It very much reflects the elements of a future framework agreed by EU Heads of Government earlier this year. The hardest stage, however, begins now, and we will of course play our full part over the next two years in seeking to reach a global climate deal that will take us beyond 2012. However, without what has been agreed in Bali, there would be no negotiations and no possibility of a deal. That is the real significance of what the world resolved to do in Bali last week.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth (East Surrey) (Con): I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and thank him for it. I join him in paying tribute to Ban Ki-moon and the others involved in what appeared to be at some times tortuous and emotional negotiations.

The outcome of the Bali conference represents progress on the part of the global community, but does the Secretary of State agree that the absence of binding targets is a significant weakness? Despite the huge amount of work that went into creating an agreement, it is not quite the Christmas present for which the world hoped. On reflection, does he not think that to call the agreement historic is a little premature? What really matters now is progress on the negotiations leading up to the 2009 conference in Copenhagen. Vital decisions have effectively been deferred.

It is very good news that the United States, China and India have jointly signed up to an undertaking to work towards a new global climate accord, but does he agree that much greater political leadership is required, from the United States in particular, for the next round of talks to produce a truly historic outcome, an outcome that puts real weight behind global efforts both to mitigate the future impacts of climate change and to help those already affected?

None the less, we welcome the agreement to help developing countries with funds to meet the challenges of adaptation. Rises in global temperatures are already having an effect on some of the world’s most disadvantaged people, in the form of increased risk of flood, drought and food shortages. We also welcome the agreement to review how developed countries can share clean low-carbon technologies with the developing world. In particular, I welcome the agreement to tackle the problem of deforestation. It is vital to put a realistic value on the environmental services provided by the rainforests. I appreciate that this will not be an easy process, but it is perhaps the most essential one of all.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to take this opportunity to respond to reports that the United Kingdom helped the US to remove binding targets from the main text of the agreement. Did the actions of the Government deviate in any way from the EU position, which was to seek agreement on emissions cuts on the part of developed countries of 25 to 40 per cent. by 2020? Can he comment on the difficulties he faces in international negotiations on climate change when the UK's own carbon emissions have risen in four of the last seven years? Will he join us in working to develop a decentralised approach to energy with the capacity to reduce our domestic carbon emissions? Will he join us in seeking to strengthen the Climate Change Bill to ensure greater transparency and accountability?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the United Kingdom attempted, without success, to get aviation included in the Bali mandate? Does that not confirm the Government’s awareness of the contribution of aviation to climate change? How does he square this with the Department for Transport’s plans for a massive increase in aviation capacity?

Is the Secretary of State aware of the comments of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute in New York, concerning the United Kingdom’s proposals to press ahead with a new generation of coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage? If we go down that path, will not the benefits of carbon reduction measures taken elsewhere be negated, and the Government’s rhetoric on climate change dissolve, as it has so often before, into a lot of hot air?

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will work closely with other Departments, especially the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport, to achieve the genuinely joined-up approach that is so badly needed if we are to play an effective and honourable role in rising to the greatest challenge facing this generation?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and for his welcome for what was agreed in Bali. Of course we will need binding commitments, which is why the UK has made them, as have a number of other countries. It is inconceivable that we will deal with this problem if the largest economy in the world does not come on board. The politics is changing, including in the United States of America, as the hon. Gentleman knows: we can look at what is happening in California and Florida, and in the east coast states which will introduce an emissions trading scheme for the power sector next year, and at the Bill that has been before Congress. Different countries are at different stages of understanding and commitment on climate change. The significance of this agreement—this is why I stick with my description of it as historic—is that for the very first time every country in the world, including the United States of America, has signed up to a negotiation that recognises in its overarching document the need for deep cuts in emissions.

On deforestation, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the incentives must be changed. The forest carbon partnership facility will help to pilot ways of counting, verifying and reporting what the baseline is for the state of forestation, which will make it possible to record whether the rate of deforestation has been reduced so that we can then allow the carbon market to support that.

I can look the hon. Gentleman in the eye and say that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion made in one newspaper. I am sure that he did not really think that there was. The House will be shocked to learn that not everything that is reported in our newspapers is necessarily true. We stuck foursquare with the EU position on that, and he will see a reference to the 25 to 40 per cent. figure in the AWG report.

We will indeed have to change the way we produce our energy. The announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on renewables offers a good example of that. I look forward to working with everybody concerned as we discuss the Climate Change Bill, to make sure that it is as effective as possible.

It is true that we were unable to make progress on including aviation in the Bali discussions, and I simply say to the House that we will have to return to that. However, on Thursday of this week we will discuss the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the UK has been in the forefront in Europe in pressing for that, and for the earliest possible start date—I do not know what we will get as a result of that discussion—and for the baseline for emissions to be the 2004–06 level, which means that any further growth in emissions must be either constrained within the aviation sector or offset by emission reductions elsewhere. That is why inclusion in the ETS is so important.

The hon. Gentleman is right about carbon capture and storage, and the generation of power by coal. China is building one coal-fired power station a week. That is why steps such as the investment we are making in a post-combustion pilot project here in the UK, the EU NZEC—near-zero emissions from coal—project that we are supporting in China, and our willingness to work with the Government of India on carbon capture and storage, are so important, because if we cannot perfect this technology and apply it, retrofitting it to existing plants and building it into new plants, we will have little prospect of meeting the targets that the world will have to set as a result of this negotiation.

In conclusion, let me say that I genuinely look forward to working with all Members in this House and all Governments around the world as we take forward the agreement that we reached in Bali this week and get on with the tough task ahead. I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said about it being a tough task, but at least we now have a means of achieving that deal, which we did not have a week ago.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent’s Park and Kensington, North) (Lab): As my right hon. Friend said, shipping and aviation emissions account for a growing share of the total carbon emissions in our atmosphere, and the EU trading scheme, although welcome, accounts for a relatively small proportion of that global share. In light of the failure to make progress on this issue at Bali, will my right hon. Friend say what he sees as the next steps towards ensuring that aviation bears the full economic cost of its environmental impact?

Hilary Benn: The best next step is, indeed, its inclusion in the EU ETS, because that will impact both on airlines from within Europe and those that choose to fly into Europe. Ideally, we would want the International Civil Aviation Organisation to take the lead, but I have to say that, as Members who follow this matter carefully will be aware, so far ICAO has failed miserably to face up to the task. For that reason, leadership from Europe is important. Just as Europe gave terrific leadership in the Bali talks—for which I pay particular tribute to Humberto Rosa, the climate change Minister from Portugal, who did an outstanding job—the strength of a common European position by being committed to Europe and using its voice to provide leadership to the world is fundamental if we are to make progress. I very much hope that when we meet on Thursday, we can take a significant step forward in getting aviation where it should be—inside the emissions trading scheme.

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement. The Bali conference was an opportunity for the much-maligned politicians of the world to give the planet the most important Christmas bonus it has ever had. On our common Christmas list is a road map to a climate change agreement that is tough enough to contain global warming emissions to within 2° of pre-industrial levels, fair enough to bring developing countries and emerging economies on board, and comprehensive enough to include deforestation and shipping—and of course, it must include aviation. Due credit should be given to the Secretary of State for supporting those common European objectives.

However, were the Government playing Santa’s little helper, or were they behaving like a character from “The Nightmare Before Christmas”, helping Jack Frost to spoil the party? The Secretary of State needs to be absolutely specific with the House. While publicly supporting the common European position, which called for tough and specific targets in the action plan, did the Government have any contact with the United States Government that might have helped them to relegate those targets to a footnote? Among the genuine welcome achievements at Bali, that was a major failing. Even the commitment to measurable support for clean technology transfer to the developing world was only achieved, against initial American opposition, because of a united European Union acting in concert with countries such as India, showing real leadership in the battle against climate change.

Of course, we have been here before with the US. The Kyoto protocol was watered down thanks to US pressure, and the US did not even ratify it in the end. Let us all hope that by 2009 the American people will, like the Australians, have elected a leader who will not behave like a cartoon villain.

Our own credibility over the next two years is crucial, too. Does the Secretary of State accept that it undermines our own attempt to bring others into line with tough emissions reduction targets if we fiddle the cost of carbon, as we did over the Heathrow runway consultation, and fail to include the cuts of at least 80 per cent. that the science tells us are necessary in our own Climate Change Bill? The Government risk looking as silly as the Conservatives, who called for cross-party collaboration on green issues but then failed to back the Liberal Democrats, Friends of the Earth and the many other groups calling for such domestic targets.

May I finally ask the Secretary of State two questions, the answers to which could reassure us of his good intentions? When during the next two years does he expect tough binding targets to be agreed? Secondly, will he make contact now with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani and other realistic presidential hopefuls to impress upon them Britain’s absolute commitment to those targets and our expectation that, if elected, they, at least, will play ball? It is time for our special relationship with America to deliver for the planet.

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the agreement that we reached. He will know that the EU’s position, strongly supported by the UK, is that we should aim to keep the temperature increase to within 2°. There is not yet global agreement on that target, and my view is that the first thing the negotiations must address is the question of what we are trying to achieve. “Do you have a view on what sort of temperature increase your country could cope with? What impact will that have on crop failure, the availability of water and the movement of people around the world?” Those are very interesting questions to ask colleagues from other countries. Once we can get agreement on them, the science will tell us certain numbers and the size of the effort required. Then, the task of the negotiation will be to divide up who is going to do what.

I do not think that I could have been more specific than I was in answering the question asked by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) about what was reported in one newspaper. I talked to lots of delegations; that is my job, as part of the negotiations. I should point out to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that the United States of America has made its position crystal clear before the negotiations, at them and subsequently. It does not currently sign up to a 25 to 40 per cent. reduction in emissions by 2020, it is not a ratifier of the Kyoto protocol, and it needed no encouragement from anyone, because it made its position absolutely clear. However, what we did get in the AWG report was indeed a reference to precisely those figures, because they arise from the science; they were also referred to in the overall document, albeit by way of a footnote. Nevertheless, everyone can read the documents and see what the IPCC had to say.

On the 80 per cent. figure, I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to what the Prime Minister had to say in his speech three weeks ago, in which he said that we recognise that the science is changing. That is why we will ask the committee on climate change, when it advises the Government on the first three five-year carbon budgets, should our target be stronger still—should it be up to 80 per cent.? That is the right process for answering the legitimate question that the hon. Gentleman and other Members ask—and, believe it or not, that the Government ask themselves, which is why the Prime Minister said what he said: do we need to do more?

I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s two specific questions. He asked when we would get agreement on binding targets, and the honest answer is, I do not know; it depends how the negotiations go and how individual countries respond. I think that he was encouraging me to involve myself in the political decision that the American people have to make about who their new President is going to be—and tempting though it is, I hope he will understand when I say that that is not a job for me. However, whoever the new President is, I look forward to him or her bringing the United States into the world community by recognising its responsibility to lead, as the largest emitter in the world, by taking on binding commitments to reduce its emissions.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Scunthorpe) (Lab): I congratulate my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and their team on the success that they had in very difficult negotiations in Bali. When Opposition Front Benchers attack the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, they should note the respect with which our people are regarded internationally for the role that they played—diplomatically, technically and politically. It is true that the United States was not prepared to accept binding targets. It is hosting the major emitters conference, and many people believe that that is an attempt to advocate a voluntary approach, rather than a mandatory one. May I ask my right hon. Friend to use his influence and that of the EU to make it clear that that is not going to deliver the kind of changes that we need?

Hilary Benn: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that he did in Bali and the work that he does through GLOBE—the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment—in talking to other parliamentarians about how we can work together on this task; it makes a hugely significant contribution. He refers to the major economies process, and my clear view is this. Every contribution to dealing with this problem should be welcomed, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: pledging and reviewing, and saying, “We’ll have a go. We’ll come back later and find out whether it was enough,” simply will not do. That is the truth and we know it, so eventually, all the rich countries will have to acknowledge that.

However, one of the other difficult things that we will have to address in the negotiations is this plain fact: even if, for the sake of argument, every rich developed country went zero-carbon in 10 or 20 years, we would still be left with the threat of dangerous climate change because of the rising emissions from developing countries, in particular China and India. That is the tough part, and we all know it—including China and India—because we all read the science and see the impact that dangerous climate change will have on our countries. The real task, which in the end will be the only means by which we can bring the richest country in the world and developing countries together, is to work out a fair mechanism—in the end, this is an issue of equity—for dividing up the contribution that each will make, according to their ability. That is the heart of the negotiation.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): To achieve an agreement involving 130 countries is quite remarkable, but having read the White House press release of 15 December, I have to say that I still harbour concerns about the United States’ position: it quite likes the menu, but it does not want the prices. What diplomatic effort is the United Kingdom going to make, particularly with the partners in the United States who take a more positive view about climate change issues, to whom he referred in his statement, to bring them as individual entities into the negotiation process, so that there can be true internal pressure from within the United States to enable its Government to sign up properly to something that really does have prices and menus at the end of the process?

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the nature of the task. One practical thing that we can do is to try to connect the initiatives being taken at state level within the United States of America with other trading schemes, in particular, including in Europe and elsewhere.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtoday/cmdebate/03.htm

Kevin Conrad Haripem

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=C1fwrWc-g_A&feature=related

"And there is an old saying, 'If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way.' And, I would ask the United States: We ask for your leadership. We seek your leadership. But, if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way." (Bali, 2007)

Photo of Kevin Conrad at the Nairobi conference in 2006. (Link to original article at: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop12/nov09.html )

Peter Riggs' report on the final day at Bali

From Dot Earth, a blog set up by Andrew Revkin of the New York Times.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/voices-on-bali-and-beyond/

Comment 4. December 16th, 2007, 8:46 am

The Trade Policy Expert

This note was circulated widely by Peter Riggs, who works with cities and institutions on policies and programs fostering trade that sustains communities and the environment.

Hello Friends and Family–

As the day begins in North America some of you have probably already heard the news that a deal has been cut here in Bali at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties.

The meeting was scheduled to end yesterday Indonesian central time at 6pm (Friday), but was extended overnight, and the crucial final plenary commenced at 1:10pm this afternoon (Saturday). I wanted to write while it’s still fresh and give you all a taste of what it felt like.

Given that working groups convened overnight—finally breaking up at 4:30am—it’s perhaps not surprising that this morning started a little rough. The President of the COP, Indonesian Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar, re-convened a plenary at a time when the G-77+China—the main grouping of developing countries—was still at work on an alternative text for the critical parts of the ‘Ad-hoc Working Group’ review process, explained below.

Meanwhile, overnight, Indonesian President Bambang Yudhoyono, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, each flew to Bali to push parties to come to an agreement. So doing raised the diplomatic profile of the end-game substantially.

At 1 pm the President and the Secretary General swept into the main plenary hall along with Minister Witoelar and the Conference’s top diplomat Yvo de Boer. Witoelar proceeded to take note of what had already been agreed to—“every item on the agenda has been read over carefully, and between 80 and 90 percent of all the items have already been adopted.” This felt ominous in and of itself, because everyone in the room knew it was that last ten to twenty percent that would make all the difference. Witoelar then apologized “if I have tread on your sensibilities,”—the reasons for that statement shortly becoming apparent.

He then introduced President Bambang Yudhoyono, who noted that he had come to Bali “to make a special appeal,” asking delegates to do more to make the Bali Road Map a complete package. He noted that the High-Level Event convened by the UN Secretary General earlier this fall had created the demand for a breakthrough at Bali, a “political commitment to concrete commitments, actions, and timelines.” In his plea, President Yudhoyono noted that the “worst thing” that could happen would be for the Bali process to crumble “because we couldn’t find the right wording.”

Ban Kin Moon then took the podium. He startled the audience by stating that he was coming before us “reluctantly,” reluctant because the UN’s top diplomat was essentially forced to acknowledge his disappointment in the lack of progress at Bali. He urged us not to risk all we had achieved thus far; he praised the “strong and good draft” put forward by the President of the COP; and he said, “it’s time to decide.” Two speeches that turned up the temperature on what would happen next. And with that, these two dignitaries left the room, their entourages scurrying after them, and Minister Witoelar turned us to Item 4 on the Agenda—the crux of the Bali Road Map—the “Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention.”

An aside here to describe the evolution of text on Item 4 during the week. The first draft, put forward by Witoelar and his Indonesian team last Saturday, was really very good. It did four things. It reiterated the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”—which notes the historical responsibility of industrialized (“Annex I”) countries for virtually all emissions leading to the increase in the global atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses. Annex I countries who signed onto the Kyoto Protocol have binding reduction targets for their emissions.

The first official act of the new government in Australia—Prime Minister Rudd coming to power last month in what one Aussie noted as ‘the world’s first national election decided on the issue of climate change’—was to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Of Annex I countries, then, that left only the United States standing obstinate and alone outside the Kyoto Protocol.
The second thing the initial Witoelar draft did was to note the need for urgent action—something that even the United States embraced—on the basis of those common but differentiated responsibilities—and that’s where the devil of details lay in wait.
Third, last Saturday’s draft set a near-term target for reductions from Annex I countries of 25 - 40% reductions. While the European Union embraced this preambular language, it drove the Americans crazy. In side-meetings throughout the week, the Bush administration’s negotiators—as well as Minority staff from Congress—repeatedly and often quite savagely noted that no current legislation, not Warner-Lieberman, not any other bill, contemplated that level of near-term reductions, and they said flatly that they were not going to agree to something in text on which they saw no prospect of delivering.
Finally, the Saturday draft also noted the need to reduce total global emissions by 50% by the year 2050. As you can see, then, some elements of this initial text referred to global responsibilities, and some to Annex I country responsibilities, and overall it tried to give shape and heft to the notion of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

And the Americans immediately set about attacking the text.

By mid-week we had a text that had removed all the quantitative language except the ‘reduce by half’ language, which given the time-frame is more aspirational than operational. It was replaced with qualitative language, and included a phrase regarding the need for a “peak and decline” in emissions. Here too there was a tussle on whether that language on ‘peak and decline’ should be accompanied by a statement regarding timeframes. The science indicates that we have no more than ten or fifteen years to put total global emissions on a downward slope to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. One can imagine then that countries other than the United States—most conspicuously China—might have concerns about early-action ‘peak and decline’ language. So this too was part of the negotiating dance—how to get and keep China on board, so as not to drive them into the arms of the Bush science-deniers. (Meanwhile, at 3am on Friday morning, the United States had put on the table a pathetically awful text which tried to demolish ANY distinction between developed and developing countries—which is the way that this convention has been structured since its inception in the early 1990s. Almost none of the language in that submission survived into the draft presented to the plenary this morning.)

The first intervention in the Plenary dealing with Item 4 came from China. It was a ‘point of order.’ And while phrased diplomatically, it was basically a scathing attack on the way that the morning’s plenary process had unfolded, convening at a time when the G-77+China were still discussing alternative text elsewhere. On the dais (and projected onto the two acre-sized screens arrayed at the front of the hall) were Minister Witoelar and Yvo de Boer, puffy-eyed and exhausted. It fell to de Boer to answer, and twice during his short reply he had to stop to compose himself. Not out of anger, but from sheer exhaustion and frustration. He was trying not to burst into tears. He replied to the Chinese that he simply hadn’t been aware that the G-77 was still discussing Agenda Item 4 in side-meetings when the plenary had reconvened. His voiced drained out of him, and suddenly he got up and simply walked out of the hall, trailing a couple of very surprised aides. (Having composed himself—or possibly having laid down for a twenty-minute nap—he later reentered the hall and took his seat.)

And then the moment of truth: India presented the alternative text from the G-77+China. The essential point about this alternative text is that it takes into account “differences in national circumstances” amongst developing countries—that is, not just in relation to Annex I, but in relation to each other—but without the binding reduction commitments that the U.S. had sought from countries like India and China. From the developing world, this was seen as a compromise that indeed not all developing countries could be treated equally—the bigger emerging economies might have to do more—but it preserved flexibilities for them to pursue those commitments at a time to be worked out later—thus, the “Bali Road Map” over the next two years.

Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union, let the other shoe drop. “We support the proposal made by….India.” Deliberately echoing a phrase used by the Secretary General Ban Kin-Moon, Portugal noted that we must “travel the road together.” The room erupted in a standing ovation.

Bangladesh, on behalf of the ‘least developed countries’ (LDCs), took the floor to note that they had continued concerns about the text—it was worried about what ‘differences in national circumstances’ would mean in practice for least-developed countries. Perhaps anticipating U.S. objections to one of the two contentious paragraphs, Bangladesh pointedly noted that it was not going to block consensus on the basis of the one paragraph with which they had a quarrel. Costa Rica rose to support Bangladesh’s statement. The Philippines referred us back to already-agreed text in the Convention that precedes the language on ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’—and that is the phrase on the basis of equity. The only possible basis for a truly globally-just climate regime is emissions calculated on a per-capita basis, and it has yet to get a serious hearing in the UNFCCC process. But the Philippines brought us back to that first-principle reminder. Representing small island states, the Maldives chimed in with their support, as did Switzerland on the basis of the “Environmental Integrity Group.” (That grouping includes countries north and south that are already seeing climate-change impacts in their glaciers, water supplies, sea levels, and agricultural sectors.) Even the freakin’ Saudis rose to say they could live with the G-77 text.

And then it was the turn of the United States. Assistant Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, with only the absolute bare minimum of diplomatic language, stated flatly that the United States rejected the changes. It was not prepared to accept the G-77 text.

Then occurred one of the most remarkable sounds that has perhaps ever been heard in the annals of international diplomacy—like a collective global groan—descending then to a murmer, then increasing in volume to a full-throated expression of rage and anger and booing and jeering, lasting for a full minute, so that finally the Minister had to call the meeting back to order.

Japan, predictably, followed the United States with a statement that was completely opaque, from which we could conclude only that Japan supported the G-77 text while also supporting the “major economies” convening process begun by President Bush as a supposed counterbalance to the Kyoto Protocol. (The Americans, with almost unspeakable rudeness, issued invitations to the next ‘major economies meeting’ on the first day of the Bali COP. Sort of like making a big show of announcing your engagement while at someone else’s wedding.)

Then the backlash began. South Africa’s representative, with great eloquence, noted that the U.S. statement was ‘most unwelcome’ and ‘without basis.’ He hammered on the science and winded up by wondering how, if the administration had accepted the science, it could possibly want to block progress. Echoing Bangladesh’s earlier statement, he noted that the Developing Countries were making commitments (in one of those two contentious paragraphs), and yet the U.S. was not. Referring to redrafts from earlier in the week, Brazil noted that the EU and China and the G77 had gone along with most of the amendments offered by the U.S.—they had not blocked progress. The small island states noted their survival imperative. Pakistan’s ambassador stated that “the text before us would not have come about without the flexibility shown by the G-77+China.” Uganda lamented that U.S. views were taken into account in this redraft, and yet the U.S. was blocking. Tanzania stated the situation flatly: “the United States has the power, and that is the power to wreck the progress made thus far.”

Casting all diplomatic niceties to the winds, the representative from Papua New Guinea stood up and said: “if you’re not willing to lead, please get out of the way.” (This was a superb slap at a disgusting comment made by Council on Environmental Quality chief James Connaughton at a press conference a day earlier, when he had implied that the United States was leading, and other countries needed to “fall in line.”)

A pause. A lull. Witoelar on the dais, puffy-eyed, anxious. de Boer, returned to the stage, head in hands, peering between his fingers.

Dobriansky signals she wishes to speak, and Witoelar calls on the United States.

”We are heartened by the strong commitments made by the major developing countries here at Bali,” says the UnderSecretary. “We appreciate the contributions of Japan, the EU, and Canada in emphasizing the need to half emissions by 2050.” She went on to argue that the United States had made three commitments at Bali.

And then: “The United States will join the consensus” regarding the proposed compromise text.

A surge of emotion through the hall, and then a collective sigh of relief. No standing ovation, no cheering—but a sustained, respectful applause.

* * * * *

Let me end with two personal notes.

This is rainy season in Indonesia. When I lived here in the late 1980s, you could count on it raining in December every afternoon. A drenching rain. The rice fields were electric green. The smell was sweet. The rains knocked the humidity out of the air.

And this year—it rained only once, for perhaps ten minutes, during the entirety of COP13. In almost twenty years coming to Indonesia, I have never felt it so hot, the humidity so crushing, the air so acrid.

At dinner last night, I spoke with a young server from a village in the mountains. From a family of rice farmers. They planted in early November, anticipating the rains. But there has been no rain. The seedlings dried up. His father has had to go into debt. The son was sent from the mountains to go work in a tourist mall south of the provincial capital. Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, where this is no easy access to the tourist cash economy, families resort to other strategies to stay alive when their crops fail. They mortgage their homes and fields first. Then they sell their daughters. Climate change is now.

My second personal note is a Christmas wish. There is domestic climate-change legislation working its way through Congress. It’s not nearly good enough, far-reaching enough. But it’s also analogous to the first draft that Minister Witoelar put on the table last Saturday—a great start, destined to be hammered and picked at and watered down and possibly thrown off the bridge in the end anyway. We can’t let that happen. So family and friends, let me ask for some of your time in the coming weeks and months, to be ready to lobby, to call your members of Congress, to spend a little time on this issue, to stay with this. It’s time the United States really and truly joined the global consensus—that climate change is now.

And now, to sleep. From Bali, over and out.

– Peter Riggs
Director, Forum on Democracy and Trade