Only tough targets and unfailing resolve can match the ambitious rhetoric of world leaders at Bali, says Caroline Lucas in the International Affairs Forum’s Climate Change Roundtable

The climate summit in Bali quickly descended from great hope to deep disappointment, and finally settled into a haze of compromise and confusion. It has been simultaneously hailed as a historic success and derided as a terrible failure.  The truth, of course, lies somewhere in between.

For much of the summit, the US played a wrecking game, and only at the last minute did it cave in to international pressure. But that does at least mean that the US will be part of the next two years’ negotiations to agree a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and it leaves open the door to the next President of the United States, whoever they may be, to take a more constructive role in the process.

Increasingly powerful developing countries like China and India have also been more fully engaged in the talks.  Indeed the G77/China group as a whole showed remarkable leadership in making the first move towards developing country contributions to mitigation, and rightly sought a fairer balance between the responsibilities of the world’s largest and smallest emitters.

But while these developments mark a step forward, it is a very small one compared to the scale of the challenge we face.   For while the Bali talks succeeded in putting climate change at the top of the political agenda, and laid the basis for further negotiations leading up to 2009, the final agreement fails to make any specific pledges about targets and timescales.  A key demand by the EU to cut emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, for example, was dropped at the insistence of the US.

Moreover, just days after taking credit for leadership on climate issues at Bali, the EU has failed the first test of its proclaimed new commitment.  Earlier this month, the Commission presented its long awaited proposals for legislation to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, but these turned out to be weak and unambitious, showing the clear fingerprints of a powerful industry lobby that successfully lobbied to dilute them.

Furthermore, proposals to include emissions from aviation in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – which in theory could be constructive – actually showed that concessions had been made to the aviation industry, leaving watered down proposals and putting the scheme’s overall effectiveness in doubt.

The UK’s Climate Change Bill, meanwhile, will mark the first instance that a country has put a framework for reducing carbon dioxide emissions into law – and not before time. And just like the agreements which follow on from Bali, the Bill has the potential to provide an exemplary framework to show the world how binding targets can make a real difference to global warming.

Unsurprisingly however, the Bill has been watered down; despite overwhelming support for an increase in the UK’s CO2 emission reduction target from 60% to 80% at the very least by 2050, the target has remained the same. Furthermore, Brown has committed us to a new generation of nuclear power, a continued expansion of airports and roads, and still refuses to fully address the dearth of investment in the fledging renewables industry.

At a time when the world is looking for positive and proactive solutions to climate change, such a startling failure of political vision does not bode well for a creating a platform conducive to securing tough post Bali agreements.   For if the EU is to persuade other countries to shoulder their responsibility for tackling climate change as well, it must show real leadership by putting in place policies that actually deliver the necessary emissions reductions in Europe.

International Affairs Forum Climate Change Roundtable, January 2008

http://ia-forum.org/Content/ForumContent.cfm?ForumTopicID=20