The Age of Global Warming: A History
Page 48
Ten days after taking office, Kevin Rudd flew to Bali and handed Ban Ki-moon Australia’s instrument ratifying Kyoto. Moments later, he addressed the conference and ‘all people of goodwill committed to the future of our planet’. Climate change was the defining challenge of the age, Rudd said. It was imperative for the conference to agree to work together on a global emissions goal, one that recognised the core reality: ‘We must avoid dangerous climate change.’[72]
* For a semi-anonymous civil servant, Mottram shot to national fame for telling a fellow civil servant: ‘We’re all fucked. I’m fucked, you’re fucked, the whole department’s fucked. It’s been the biggest cock-up and we are all completely fucked.’ He wasn’t talking about climate change but the resignations of his department’s senior media handlers. David Graves and George Jones, ‘Sixsmith stands by story as infighting continues’ in the Daily Telegraph, 25th February 2002.
* It was hearing from the British Antarctic Survey about the ozone layer that had persuaded Margaret Thatcher to throw her support behind international efforts to cut emissions of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.
[1] Hans Blix interview with John Norris, MTV, 13th March 2003 http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index5.jhtml
[2] Press Trust of India, ‘Global warming has hit the danger point’ 23rd January 2005.
[3] UNFCCC, ‘Time series Annex I – Total CO2 Emissions without Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (2011), http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/time_series_annex_i/items/3814.php
[4] UNFCCC, ‘Time series Annex I – Total CO2 Emissions without Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry’.
[5] International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion Highlights (2011), p. 46.
[6] Dieter Helm, ‘Forget the Huhne hype about wind power’ in The Times, 6th February 2012.
[7] International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion Highlights (2011), p. 109.
[8] Hans Blix interview with John Norris.
[9] Robert May, ‘Threat to tomorrow’s world’ 30th November 2005 http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/60/1/109.full
[10] Richard Mottram, ‘Careful Science can help fight climate change’ in the Financial Times, 29th July 2008.
[11] David A. King, ‘Climate Change Science: Adapt, Mitigate, or Ignore?’ in Science, 9th January 2004, Vol. 303 No. 5655, pp. 176–7.
[12] James R. Lee, ‘Global Warming is just the Tip of the Iceberg’ in the Washington Post, 4th January 2009.
[13] http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/carbon/low-carbon/
[14] Lee, ‘Global Warming is just the Tip of the Iceberg’.
[15] Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security (October 2003), p. 7.
[16] ibid., p. 2.
[17] ibid., p. 16.
[18] Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report (February 2010), p. 84.
[19] ibid., p. 85.
[20] Gerhard L. Weinberg, A World at Arms (1994), p. 2.
[21] Paul Ames, ‘European Union warns US, China over climate change, saying it could impose sanctions’ Associated Press, 14th March 2008.
[22] Ames, ‘European Union warns US, China over climate change, saying it could impose sanctions’.
[23] Klaus Töpfer, ‘The Spectre at the Feast’ 16th February 2005 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=426&ArticleID=4719&l=en
[24] Australian Associated Press, ‘Kyoto pact is useless and harmful: PM’ 6th February 2005.
[25] John Howard interview with author, 28th November 2011.
[26] The Federal News Service, ‘Remarks By Presidential Economic Adviser Andrei Illarionov at a Press Conference on Results of The Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol Seminar In Moscow’ 8th July 2005 www.sysecol2.ethz.ch/Articles.../Illarionov_Interv._9.Jul.04.pdf
[27] Andrei Illarionov, ‘Russian Ministers’ decision to ratify Kyoto “motivated purely by politics” according to Putin’s advisor’ 30th September 2004 http://www.policynetwork.net/es/environment/media/russian-ministers%E2%80%99-decision-ratify-kyoto-%E2%80%98motivated-purely-politics%E2%80%99-according-put
[28] Tony Blair, A Journey (2010), p. 557.
[29] Paula Dobriansky interview with author, 24th June 2011.
[30] George W. Bush, ‘President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change’ 11th June 2001 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html
[31] Bush, ‘President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change’.
[32] Paula Dobriansky interview with author.
[33] Harlan Watson, ‘Testimony Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment United States House of Representatives Hearing on The Kyoto Protocol: An Update’ (July 2007), p. 18.
[34] Dobriansky interview with author.
[35] Boyden Gray, ‘Trust America on Climate Change’ in the Financial Times, 26th September 2007.
[36] Paul Brown, ‘Climate conference hears degree of danger’ in the Guardian, 3rd February 2005.
[37] Geoffrey Lean, ‘Apocalypse Now: How Mankind is Sleepwalking to the End of the Earth’ in the Independent on Sunday, 6th February 2005.
[38] Brown, ‘Climate conference hears degree of danger’.
[39] Lean, ‘Apocalypse Now: How Mankind is Sleepwalking to the End of the Earth’.
[40] Geoffrey Lean, ‘Global Warming Approaching Point of No Return, Warns Leading Climate Expert’ in the Independent on Sunday, 23rd January 2005.
[41] Jenny Hogan, ‘Alarm bells ring louder over climate change’ in the New Scientist, 4th February 2005.
[42] Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar, ‘Global warming or global cooling’ in the Times of India, 27th February 2005.
[43] Aiyar, ‘Global warming or global cooling’.
[44] Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change (June 2005) http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2005/global-response-climate-change/
[45] ibid.
[46] Paul Brown, ‘Blair may snub US on climate’ in the Guardian, 1st July 2005.
[47] ibid.
[48] Elizabeth Rosenthal & Andrew Revkin, ‘Science Panel Calls Global Warming “Unequivocal”’ in the New York Times, 3rd February 2007.
[49] Rosenthal & Revkin, ‘Science Panel Calls Global Warming “Unequivocal”’.
[50] BBC News, ‘EU agrees renewable energy target’ 9th March 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/6433503.stm
[51] ibid.
[52] Nicholas Watt, ‘Weapons claim: the dossier, the PM, and the headlines’ in the Guardian, 6th February 2004.
[53] Panorama, ‘What’s Fuelling Your Energy Bill?’ 7th November 2011.
[54] Warren Hoge, ‘UN Chief Urges Fast Action on Global Climate Change’ in the New York Times, 24th September 2007.
[55] ibid.
[56] Václav Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles (2008), pp. 108–9.
[57] Václav Klaus remarks after delivering GWPF inaugural lecture, 21st October 2010.
[58] Klaus, Blue Planet in Green Shackles (2008), p. 12.
[59] ibid., p. 4.
[60] ibid., p. 5.
[61] ibid., p. 2.
[62] Brian K
nowlton, ‘Climate Change Conference Opens’ in the New York Times, 27th September 2007.
[63] George W. Bush, ‘President Bush Participates in Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change’ 28th September 2007 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070928-2.html
[64] Knowlton, ‘Climate Change Conference Opens’.
[65] Norwegian Nobel Committee, The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 Press Release 12th October 2007 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html
[66] Ban Ki-Moon, ‘Address to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) upon the release of its fourth assessment synthesis report’ 17th November 2007 http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/search_full.asp?statID=151#
[67] John Howard interview with author.
[68] Selina Mitchell & Cath Hart, ‘Howard a climate convert’ in The Australian, 26th January 2007.
[69] ibid.
[70] ibid.
[71] John Howard interview with author.
[72] Kevin Rudd, ‘Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Address To The UN Bali Conference On Climate Change’ 12th December 2007 http://australianpolitics.com/2007/12/12/rudd-address-to-bali-climate-change-conference.html
30
Bali
This is a historic moment, long in the making ... Now, finally, we are gathered together in Bali to address the defining challenge of our age.
UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon[1]
There is no doubt that the fate of our civilisation hangs in the balance.
The Prince of Wales[2]
As Berlin was to Kyoto, so Bali was to Copenhagen.
Twelve years on, the climate change negotiations had accreted multiple layers of complexity. The Berlin Mandate had been relatively straightforward, covering three pages. Bali was the thirteenth meeting under the UNFCCC (COP13) and the third conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP3). The world’s largest economy was a party to the convention but not the Protocol, so the COP/MOP had to decide how to manage this fissure.* In addition, there were meetings of subsidiary bodies, dozens of contact groups (a way to get around UN rules that permit no more than two meetings at the same time) and informal consultations. The resulting Bali Road Map was not defined in a single document; rather it set up a series of processes with the aim of agreeing a comprehensive regime in December 2009 at Copenhagen.
The degree of complexity was in inverse relation to the probability of reaching an effective agreement. It all pointed to the essential unreality of attempting to create a global regime to regulate the quantity of ubiquitous, naturally occurring gases.
Carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere not only from burning fossil fuel (which along with cement production accounts for seventy-five per cent of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide).[3] Carbon dioxide is also released from burning wood and animal dung (providing a source of heat for millions in the developing world) and through bacteria breaking down organic matter. It is absorbed by growing vegetation and by the oceans. The IPCC estimated that the remaining twenty-five per cent came from deforestation, turning grassland into cropland and changing agricultural practices.
Methane, the second most important ‘man-made’ greenhouse gas, is released from fossil fuel production, but also by farm animals and rice paddy fields. In the Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC thought it ‘very likely’ that observed increases in nitrous oxide had been driven by increased fertiliser use and more intensive agricultural practices, as well as fossil fuel combustion.[4]
Agreement to slow down global warming would require regulating not only energy production but also agriculture and land use. The regime would need to last decades and even centuries. For developing countries experiencing rapid industrialisation, still heavily reliant on agriculture, with food accounting for a high proportion of household budgets, that included countries which were custodians of the vast majority of the world’s tropical forests, the logic of such an agreement was not an enticing prospect.
Yet for the true believers, Bali carried a huge burden of expectation. It was going to change the course of history. ‘It is our chance to usher a new age of green economics and truly sustainable development,’ Ban Ki-moon told the conference.[5] One hundred and fifty corporate CEOs put their names to the Bali Communiqué organised by the Prince of Wales. It called for global emissions to be more than halved by 2050, a proposition supported by brands such as GE, DuPont, Shell UK, Coca Cola, Nike, Nestlé, British Airways, NewsCorp, Nokia, Volkswagen and Tesco. The shift to a low carbon economy would create significant business opportunities worth billions of dollars.[6]
To Al Gore, these were the foothills. The greatest opportunity of solving the ‘climate crisis’ was not new technology and sustainable development. It was in finding ‘the moral authority’ to solve all the other crises and unleashing ‘the moral imagination’ of humankind.* ‘We are one people on one planet. We have one future. One destiny,’ Gore told the packed hall. They should feel privileged ‘to be alive at a moment when a relatively small group of people could control the destiny of all generations to come’.
The proximate obstacle to the realisation of this vision was not a Lockean argument in favour of freedom and popular sovereignty. Neither was it doubts over the science or the machinations of shadowy vested interests undermining the consensus and somehow preventing governments from acting.
If capping carbon dioxide emissions really was ‘the pro-growth strategy’, as the one hundred and fifty corporate leaders asserted, why had the G77 plus China been so hostile to acquiring anything that appeared like Annex I-style obligations right from the start of the climate change negotiations? The blanket exemption of non-Annex I countries had been the principal cause of America’s non-ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Without extending emissions caps to the major emerging economies, Annex I countries would face deeper emissions cuts and higher carbon prices. As long as the price of carbon in the rest of the world was zero, even more economic activity would be diverted from them to non-Annex I countries.
With the US intent on getting developing world commitments onto the table, the outcome was a real world test of the concept of sustainable development. Did sustainable development have any genuine content or was it a masterstroke of branding to buy Third World acquiescence for First World environmentalism, as long as it was lubricated with copious aid flows and did not constrain their economic aspirations?
The dynamics between the three key players – the US, the EU and the G77 plus China – were almost unchanged from Kyoto. Bali was the last chance for the Bush administration to overcome the original sin of the climate change negotiations so that a future agreement should contain bankable commitments from key members of the G77 plus China. Conversely, the objective for the G77 plus China was, as far as possible, to avoid assuming such commitments and to deflect attention from this by playing up the alleged inadequacy of the Annex I nations meeting their obligations.
In this, the G77 plus China was aided and abetted by the EU, together with the usual supporting cast of assorted NGOs and scientists proclaiming the end of the world if the US did not commit to drastic emissions cuts. Then there was Al Gore, who reprised the role he had played in Kyoto in making a dramatic appearance to under-cut US negotiators.
Unlike Kyoto, Bali was to be the beginning of a process leading to an agreement on emissions caps two years later. However the EU decided it wanted to start at the end, by negotiating the overall quantum of emissions cuts. The EU wanted to corner the US into a putting a number on its emissions cut right away. The Bali conference would be meaningless if it did not set clear targets, in the words of Sigmar Gabriel, the German environment minister.[7]
Based, it was said, on the Fourth Assessment Report
, the EU demanded agreement that global emissions be cut by twenty-five to forty per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. The IPCC was not meant to give explicit policy advice. At the February 2007 launch of the summary, Susan Solomon, the American Working Group I co-chair, refused to be drawn on its policy implications. ‘It would be a much better service for me to keep my personal opinions separate than what I can actually offer the world as a scientist,’ she had told a press conference. ‘People are going to have to make their own judgement.’[8]