During the fading days of 2007, Bali shifted in the world's attention from sandy beaches and gently waving palms to a place of high political tension and international environmental brinkmanship. The occasion, of course, was the United Nations' gathering on global climate change, an event that brought together upper-level representatives from 190 nations, important NGOs and thousands of others who were beginning the critically important task of stemming the looming threat from rising emissions of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The stakes for humanity have never been higher. And no one on the planet can consider themselves exempt from the results of this meeting. "The scientists now have done their work," said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. "I call on political leaders to do theirs." The dire reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contend we must stop the rise of emissions within seven years – despite present efforts, they are still rising – and then reduce emissions by about 85% by 2050 if we are to avoid a devastating average global temperature rise of 2°C. The objective of the Bali meeting was to formulate a framework for negotiations over the next two years so a successor agreement can replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012.
The meeting was a failure and a success. Firm emission reduction targets were not set as desired by the Europeans ‹ objections came primarily from China, India, Canada and America. But a range of targets were specified indirectly (25-40% reductions by 2020), everyone pledged to combat deforestation (the cause of about 18% of CO2 emissions), developed countries agreed to share their advanced environmental technologies with developing ones, and a recalcitrant US finally agreed to join the rest of the world community as a negotiating member on the climate change crisis – it had signed the Kyoto Protocol but later, under the Bush administration, withdrew.
Perhaps the greatest success of the Bali meeting was the sheer power of international feeling regarding climate change. The United States, Japan and Canada, the only developed countries objecting to fixed targets, eventually withered under pressure from the rest of the world. "If you're not willing to lead," said one delegate directly to the Americans, "then get out of the way." The undiplomatic language of this "emotional plea was greeted by thunderous applause from the conference" reported The Globe & Mail (Dec. 17/07). So the US backed away from yet another of its independent, ill-conceived and disastrous foreign policy initiatives.
Canada's Minister of Environment, John Baird, got "the loudest and longest ovation that a Canadian politician has received on the international stage in years" (Ibid.) when he bowed to nearly-unanimous international pressure and abandoned his position of no greenhouse gas targets for wealthy nations. He reluctantly committed Canada to a vague but symbolically significant 25-40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. This is an astounding concession from Canada considering it is currently 33% over its 1990 Kyoto commitment of a 6% reduction, and is only nationally committed to a 20% reduction over 2006 levels by 2020. The aging "new government" of Stephen Harper's Conservatives that began as a climate change skeptic has succumbed to the persuasion of scientific evidence and the pressure of concern from the global community. That's reluctant but real political progress.
The next two years of negotiations that will lead to a binding successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol will be intense. But the stakes and pressure will only increase as further scientific evidence confirms the extent and dire consequences of climate change ‹ most new evidence suggests the disruptions will be more intense than previously thought.
The mood of environmentalists at the end of the Bali meeting was reserved optimism. The United States is back in the fold as an active participant. China and India are still bargaining for special exemptions as developing nations, as is Pakistan. But the fallacy in their argument is best summarized by a short letter to the Globe & Mail (Dec. 25/07). "A rich man and a poor man are in a sinking lifeboat. The poor man hands the rich man a pail and says, 'Start bailing. I'm going to poke more holes.'"
Perhaps, more than anything, the Bali meeting has registered a seismic shift in the attitude of world community to climate change. The worry is palpable and inaction is no longer an option. "What we witnessed today [in Bali] was incredible drama," said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "I've been following the climate negotiations for 20 years and I've never seen anything like it" (Ibid., Dec 17/07).
The climate change crisis has been acknowledged. And the shock waves will be felt everywhere on the planet. With carbon dioxide hanging like a guilty conscience on all emitters, with room for excuses narrowing, and with international law moving to constrain the legality of such emissions, projects in any nation or neighbourhood that act counter to this prevailing trend will be scorned as irresponsible and immoral.
Bali has simply confirmed and accelerated a trend that will soon be felt by every Canadian. Corporate Canada is already bracing for the inevitable emission reductions that will re-shape its business and consumer models. The Canadian and BC governments will soon be setting emission caps and imposing carbon taxes. Our local municipalities are moving toward being carbon neutral. The ground swell of support from ordinary citizens is rising to meet the mood emanating from the international community. The Bali sunshine is just the silver lining in the prospect of a more hopeful future.