17 December 2007The Guardian
The US backtracked yesterday on the climate change agreement reached after marathon talks in Bali, saying it had "serious concerns" about the new global consensus and that developing countries had to do far more if there was to be any pact in two years' time.
The reality check followed the drama and euphoria of the weekend when the US was shamed into joining the rest of the world in working towards a new climate change agreement to come into force after 2012. All 190 countries have agreed to take the talks further.
But the White House press secretary, Dana Perino, poured cold water on the Bali result, saying the talks had not adequately addressed the responsibilities of developing countries. "The US does have serious concerns. Negotiations must [now] proceed on the view that the problem of climate change cannot be adequately addressed through commitments for emissions cuts by developed countries alone."
In a clear signal that the US would agree to nothing unless China and India, the two largest developing countries, agreed to significant cuts, she said that account had to be taken of the size of countries' emissions as well as their level of economic advancement. China's emissions are on a level with those of the US but on a per capita level, each American emits far more than a Chinese. "For these negotiations to succeed, it is essential the major developed and developing countries be prepared to negotiate commitments that will make a due contribution to the reduction of global emissions," she said.
During the Bali talks the EU, China and most developing countries pressed strongly for rich countries to cut their emissions 25-40%. This was rejected by the US and the figures were relegated to the final text to a footnote. The final text does however acknowledge that "deep cuts" in global emissions will be required.
Yesterday international groups said a close study of the agreed text suggested that the world's biggest carbon polluters had been effectively allowed to carry on as before. Despite the scientific evidence, the 25-40% emission reduction range now risks being watered down. Japan, Canada and Russia have already made it clear they will resist taking on these targets, an Oxfam spokesman said.
"Ministers from some industrialised countries let down the people of the world. They reached agreement on a way forward but with little to guide them along the way. Future talks will now face a serious uphill battle," said Stephanie Long of Friends of the Earth International.
The talks were described as a "historic breakthrough" by the environment secretary, Hilary Benn. "For the first time, all the nations in the world have agreed to negotiate a deal to tackle dangerous climate change. What we have achieved has never been done before. Now we must make it work."
He was supported by business. "Now the hard part begins. Binding emission targets have to be set. This will create a very substantial market opportunity and then we will see the power of private money working for a moral purpose," said a spokesman for Climate Change Capital, a British carbon trading investment bank.
Global concerns
Plus
· All countries, including the US, have made a commitment to make "deep cuts" in greenhouse gas emissions. Two years of negotiations will now start
· Rich countries have agreed that poor countries must be given money to help them adapt to climate change
· Money may also go to countries not to cut down or degrade forests - one of the most serious sources of climate change emissions
· Developing countries will be helped to cut emissions with a transfer of new technologies
· Small-scale projects intended to cut emissions will be helped more
· The least developed countries will be given extra help to adapt
Minus
· No clear goals or timetables were set for emission reductions, only vague guidelines that "deep cuts" should be made. These could be watered down
· No significant extra money was pledged until after 2012 to help poor countries adapt now
· No binding targets were set for future funding. It is expected to cost poor countries in the region of £25bn a year to adapt to climate change
· There is a danger that climate change money will not go to benefit local people and could even be taken from existing development aid budgets
· Extra forestry money could be hijacked by industry for plantations
