Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Blog

I think the applause that greeted the new Australian Prime Minister during the opening of the high level segment at Bali surprised even him – it went on and on, until even the other dignitaries on the stage started to shift a little awkwardly.  And what a dream welcome to the international stage for the 10 day old Labour government: Prime Minister Rudd at the head UN table, giving an address to a packed opening ceremony, immediately after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and Indonesian President Yudhoyono.  His address was littered with the usual platitudes and calls for action that the well-conditioned audience was able to see coming from the other side of the Timor Sea.   However, those words also planted a seed that I fear indicates that Australia’s new “darling” status may (unfortunately) be short-lived.

When questioned on the Kyoto Protocol during the recent election campaign, Prime Minister Rudd emphasised that his government would indeed ratify Kyoto.  However, when pushed on the next commitment period, the official position of the Labour Party was that it would sign on only if the developing nations adopted strong and binding targets.  The PM used today’s address to re-emphasize this.  In strong contrast to the Secretary General, the phrase “common but differentiated responsibilities” was actively avoided.  Instead, Prime Minister Rudd spoke of “parallel” commitments between developing and developed countries, and the need for all countries to take stringent action without distinctions between North and South.  Not once was equity mentioned, nor the duty of developed countries to accept a greater share of the burden.  This fills me with fear that this may be the election promise to which the fledgling Australian Government has decided to stick.  If so, there will be very little difference in the medium term between the position of the Rudd Government and that of the Howard Government, and Australia will again become a thorn in the side of any real progress towards an equitable and effective post-Kyoto regime.   It will be back to the international sin bin for us.

Stephanie Niall

“David Attenborough has said that Bali is the most beautiful place in the world, but he must have been there longer than we were, and seen different bits, because most of what we saw in the couple of days we were there sorting out our travel arrangements was awful. It was just the tourist area, i.e. that part of Bali which has been made almost exactly the same as everywhere else in the world for the sake of people who have come all this way to see Bali.

The narrow, muddy streets of Kuta were lined with gift shops and hamburger bars and populated with crowds of drunken, shouting tourists, kamikaze motorcyclists, counterfeit watch sellers and small dogs. The kamikaze motorcyclists tried to pick off the tourists and the small dogs, while the tiny minibus which we spent most of the evening in, shuttling our bags from one full hotel to another, hurtled through the motorcyclists and counterfeit watch sellers at video game speeds. Somewhere not too far from here, towards the middle of the island, there may have been heaven on earth, but hell had certainly set up business on its porch.”

Douglas Adams, Last Chance to See

In 1988/1989, Douglas Adams went to Komodo Island via Bali to report on the endangered Komodo dragon lizard. Almost twenty years later, and a safe two hours flight from Komodo Island (no Komodo dragons have been known to be able to fly), representatives from 190 countries gather in Bali to avert a climate crisis that can potentially drive humankind to extinction.

That Bali is famous as a tourist destination is beyond doubt. “Under a palm tree?” asked a professor when I told him I was going to do his take-home exam in Bali. I have since extended the exam deadline. (I challenge anyone to prepare and take an exam in 24 hours during a U.N. climate change conference). Another asked, “Did you bring your swimming attire?” Swimming attire is a must with all the swimming pools and beaches at the “tourist area”.

Douglas Adams was right: Bali “has been made almost exactly the same as everywhere else in the world for the sake of people who have come all this way to see Bali.” At least everyone’s expectations about Bali would be met, and the carbon emissions would not have been in vain. Like an anodyne, the idyllic beaches and pretty landscapes at the hotels provide relief from the care and worries of life and dangerous climate change. Bali will be one of the more memorable COP ever. “With climate change there will be a beach in Poland,” joked one audience during a side-event.

Last night we walked along the beach from the convention centre to a nearby hotel for drinks. The two ladies I was walking with gushed at the romantic settings. Warmly lit trees and lounge beds on sheltered pavilions, meticulously landscaped pools and ponds, and small-built hotel staff asking “how are you?” A perfect place for a honey-moon, the ladies concluded. Pretty and manicured, the Bali resorts makes one wonder whether places like Bali model or define “tropical paradise”.

My reaction was the equivalent of a Peanuts character rolling his eyes and sighing “good grief!” In our world, ideas and fashion get reinforced through information cascades: people choose their actions based on the observations of other people. Before you know it, everyone wants to go to places like Bali for their honey-moon. This explains why I keeping wanting to go to ruins in South America like Machu Picchu (though Yale is probably the next best place to learn about the place), and why I want to travel to the poles. People have done it, and there has been so many tales about those places that I want to do it as well.

Of course, I am saying this partly because I come from Singapore, about two hours away from Bali. I have never been to Bali before, but the weather and culture feels very familiar. Understandably, the pretty resorts of Bali do not excite me as much as the ladies who were walking with me last night.

Is there a way out of our incessant desire to fill our lives with experience that is contributing like every other act of consumption to climate change? Looking at my American classmates jump into the pool or sea ever so often, I realize I forgot that they come from temperate climes. And as I put up with gas-powered leaf blowers and cold weather in New Haven, I forget that most of my friends and relatives in Singapore have never seen snow before. As we put up with the inconveniences of our particular weather, it is useful to bear in mind that there are people who long for a taste of such weather.

Bali is more than a romantic getaway. I hope tourists get a chance to explore its cultural side as well.

Qi Feng

Today at the US press conference, James Connaughton, Paula Dobriansky, and Harlan Watson had much to say about what the US wants to come out of Bali and what they are already doing at home to address climate change. They claimed that “we already have prices on carbon” because of the high price of coal, oil, and natural gas. They even claimed we have a price on carbon because of the automobile fuel efficiency standards that Congress is considering and the tens of billions of dollars it will cost to upgrade the US automobile fleet. Goals of reducing greenhouse gas intensity were trotted out as more evidence that the US is a leader on addressing climate change.

Underlying this claim of action and leadership was the reality that the US doesn’t even want emissions reductions targets in the guidelines for the Bali road map, the chief agreement that everyone hopes will come out of this conference. They worry that including emissions reduction guidelines will “predetermine outcomes” of the negotiations that will take place as part of the road map. These targets are not binding, but are simply a recognition that the IPCC has recommended these emissions reductions to keep warming below 2 degrees C. The US delegation claimed that more information needs to be collected and considered, such as the economic and technological feasibility of these targets and their effect on sustainable development goals. The difficulty of sustainably developing a submerged island nation must have been lost on them.

While many are optimistic that a road map for negotiations will come out of the conference, and some agreements on issues like an adaptation fund have been reached, discussion of the most difficult issues will be postponed. As was mentioned yesterday during a panel on climate change and human development, Bali has become an opportunity to keep open the window of opportunity, but unfortunately it appears that little else will come out of it.

Scott

Today was the start of the high-level segment of the meetings. This means the big wigs are showing up. Lots of guards with big guns and tinted window motorcades are fluttering about. The morning session started with Ban Ki-moon greeting everyone and making the usual comments on the importance of creating a clear “Bali Roadmap” by the end of the week. He also managed to get in a jab at the US for continuing its stubborn resistance to any emission reduction commitments. Afterward, a few other interesting people spoke, including Yvo de Boer (executive secretary of the UNFCCC), Rajendra Pachauri (Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Kevin Rudd (newly elected Prime Minister of Australia). Rudd was especially interesting because he said that he was committed to having Australia reduce emissions 60% below 2000 levels by 2050, which got a big round of applause. He has actually been criticized here for backing away from the EU’s proposal to reduce emissions by 20-40% by 2020 (a more short-term commitment). Hopefully he will get on board by next year’s meeting.

By the way, it’s clear that nothing too concrete is coming out of these meetings until the US gets a new administration that will stop derailing negotiations. Lets all keep our fingers crossed until 2009.

Adrian

Most of us participating in COP 13 were fortunate to celebrate 10th birthday of Kyoto Protocol. I heard that there was a huge “birthday cake”…..but by the time I reached the event venue, it was all gone. There were many people, interestingly and fortunately, many Yalies among them. Some of them could make to our reception and it was nice to meet the rest who could not make to the reception. The young men and women beautifully clad in traditional kimono were distributing buttons which said ” Kyoto Protocol Our Future” and a CD with Climate Change song from Maldives. Coincidentally, we heard a Climate Change song composed by H.E. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono during the opening session of High-Level segment today.
All in all, it has been a nice experience to be a part of this interesting point in the history of Kyoto Protocol.

Last month the 150 mph tropical cyclone Sidr hit the coast of Bangladesh claiming at least 2000 lives. More than 1 million people fled and took refuge at cyclone shelters heeding the calls of the recently set up early warning systems. This system operates with a high tech satellite tracking system on one hand, and a group of volunteers carrying bullhorns on motorbikes in the other. The deaths and losses are indeed saddening but the fact that a similar cyclone in 1991 took away at least 140,000 lives gives us some perspective on the immeasurable benefits of early preparedness. This example was given yesterday by one of the panelist at a side event on the ‘economics of adaptation’ at the on going UNFCCC conference in Bali. On this panel sat Nicholas Stern (former chief economist of the World Bank), Bert Koenders (Netherland’s Minister for Development and Cooperation), Phil Woolas (UK’s Minister in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-DEFRA) and Kevin Watkins (Director for the UNDP Human Development Report).

Several numbers have been offered as the cost of adaptation ranging from US$ 3-50 billion per year within the short term. If the Bangladesh’s example is anything to go by, then we need to pose and ask whether this is really a cost or an opportunity. Nicholas Stern is clear that it will cost far much less to not only mitigate, but also adapt to climate change. Unlike Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), which is really a goodwill gesture from the North to South, it is imperative for the developed countries according to article 16 of the Rio declaration to pay for the immediate impacts of climate change. This article is clear on the responsibility of the polluter to pay for any harmful effects as a consequence of their activity; in this case green house gases in the atmosphere.

Rumors in the corridors of the conference suggest that the developed countries intend to mix the ODA issue with the compensation for adaptation-an atrocious sin if pulled off! Development assistance is and has always been optional; after all, the non-climate related problems of the poorer countries are by and large their problem. However, based on the polluter pays principle of article 16, the compensation for adaptation should not be mistaken for a favor to the developing world. No one is politely requested to pay after running over their neighbor’s fence-they are obligated to.

I have focussed my time here on two categories of meetings: two UN committees (the AWG, charged with setting the road map/agenda of work for the next year and CMP, charged with review of performance under Kyoto to date); and side events about carbon markets run by the IETA (International Emissions Trading Association).

As you would expect the UN meetings are slow tedious, with the real substance hidden in acronyms and cross references to prior UN documents.  However if one listens carefully and spends some time at night with the links to these documents it is possible to get a sense of the issues.  The issue facing the CMP is whether the scope of review of performance under Kyoto so far is limited to the extent of compliance or whether the review can also discuss the implications of the experience under Kyoto to recommend changes for post Kyoto.  The majority seem to favor a broader review; the countries opposed such as Russia and Saudi Arabia. appear to be afraid that recommendations for the future will either change their status or the cap they are subject to.

The IETA meetings have been refreshingly plain-spoken and substantive.  Several of the sessions have included congressional staffers talking about pending legislation and the prospect that the United States will adopt a cap and trade system regardless of whether the US signs a post-Kyoto protocol or not.  Many of these meetings have had congressional staffers on the panels.  One session I attended yesterday was a round table of US and EU officials.  There were four congressional staffers on the panel and five more in the audience. 

As I think about all these meetings as a whole I am struck by the amount of energy at the bottom.  The UN, Bush Administration ans the US congress are in danger of losing control of the process of creating a  carbon market.  It is being created now, will be a principal response to climate change and the UN and US are in danger of becoming irrelevant.  These bottom up forces have already decide that we will use a carbon market rather than a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions.  Although a carbon market with an allocation auction can function very much like a tax. 

How is the carbon market being created.  In the US of course states an region frustrated by the lack of leadership at the federal level are at various stages of creating their own markets.  Their actions are clearly a major source of pressure felt by Congress, which believes that a uniform national system is better.  The EU system is almost fully operational; the CDM mechanism under  Kyoto protocol is being revised to facilitate funding of smaller projects and this should eventually generate more carbon credits.  And there is a growing private carbon market.  The credits generated by these different systems are at present no compatible and do not produce fungible carbon allowances/credits.  If the UN and nations of the world do not act soon to create a uniform system we will soon have many disparate and incompatible systems.  This will only impair our ability to reduce carbon emissions world wide.

There is a feeling of urgency here, no matter how muted by UN-speak.  I think that the delegates are feeling some of this pressure from the bottom up.  I hope they realize they are in danger of being over-run by events, of becoming irrelevant if they do not act fast enough.

Marcia Cleveland

Although side events are fascinating and informative, the real action at COP takes place in contact groups and the official SBSTA (subsidiary body for scientific and technological advice), SBI, and AWG meetings. Some of these, unfortunately, are arbitrarily closed to non-party members (which our group, as part of an NGO, is) although they are supposed to be open meetings. During the past few days, we have been refused entrance into a few meetings but many of us were able to attend SBSTA and contact group meetings yesterday. I feel like being at these meetings has allowed me to truly understand the COP negotiation process, the politics and side room discussions that must have taken place before the meeting, and how countries leverage their position to influence other countries. At the SBSTA meeting, countries were considering adoption of the 4th IPCC report among other issues. Some of the draft conclusions implied a strong sense of urgency. Some countries, including India and China, expressed concern with adopting the draft conclusions of the report because it is my understanding that if these countries adopt a document with such language, it may imply that they concede that all countries (including developing) should take on binding emissions targets in the near future. India and China’s resistance to adopt the report angered several other countries that felt that if the Nobel Peace Prize committee felt the report was valid and worthy of recognition, the SBSTA should follow suit and acknowledge the significant effort made by the IPCC’s scientists and use the report to guide their advice. Later, while discussing the issue of increasing the size of potential afforestation and reforestation CDM projects, China was sure to comment that approval of this point was a conciliatory measure given CDM forestry projects were initially approved only as a compromise. They indicated that they wished other countries would adopt a similar “flexible and compromising” attitude. The comment prompted some chuckles from the back of the room. Watching the countries negotiate and diplomatically criticize each other was fascinating for me – I am glad that I am here in Bali to watch the proceedings unfold in real time. I am anxious to see what the outcome of the high-level segment negotiations are as COP13 comes to an end.

Frustrated by UN inaction on reducing emissions from deforestation, some countries refuse to stand by and watch our tropical forests disappear. Leading the way is Norway’s Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg who announced his commitment to tropical forests, creating a $560 million fund dedicated to forest conservation.

Norway, a small country with no tropical forests, realizes that reducing emissions from deforestation is critical to any efforts to halt climate change and protect tropical forests. Its own efforts to curb emissions must extend beyond its borders and address the source of approximately 20% of global emissions. Norway has a GDP of $46,000 per person; its sizable commitment to tropical forest conservation amounts to $12 per person.

In contrast, the US Senate is sitting on a bill expected to face a vote in the next few days that would slash funds for tropical forest conservation from $100 million to $20 million – a sum that would be further split with efforts to preserve coral reefs. The bill is co-sponsored by a host of presidential candidates, including Richard Lugar R-IN, Joseph Biden D-DE, Samuel Brownback R-KS, Christopher Dodd D-CT and Chuck Hagel R-NE. This action does not match Monday’s announcement from US Senator John Kerry speaking in Bali on behalf of the US Senate. The Senator stated that the US Senate has “conviction” and will take strides to ensure that the US will become a global leader in combating climate change.

Silence in the Senate surrounding the Tropical Forest and Coral Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2007 does not exemplify the type of leadership and conviction to which the Senator ascribes. The US has a GDP of $43,000 per person. Under the bill, the US would commit a mere 3 cents per person to tropical forest conservation. As the world’s leading CO2 emitter, this price is hardly comparable to the country’s contribution to climate change.

Large emitting countries must make meaningful commitments to reducing emissions now. It is time for the US and other Annex I countries to take action and follow Norway’s leadership. Strong, national, financial commitments to reducing tropical deforestation are a critical step toward combating climate change.