Email 
Print 
Bali climate change talks: 'The long, arduous road' to nowhere?
Written by: Nina Brenjo
Demonstrator poses in front of globe to protest against deforestation outside the climate change conference in Bali. REUTERS\Stringer
The climate change talks have barely begun on the Indonesian island of Bali, but the U.S. broadcaster CNN has already packed its bags and left the island. The reason? "A probable lack of significant news", according to Britain's Financial Times. The lack of reporting about the conference may not a problem in the rest of the media, but most of the articles caution against high expectations of any tangible results coming out of the gathering of 190 nations. "This is just talks about talks," says Dominic Lawson, writing in Britain's Independent. Rather than real negotiations, the Bali meeting, as Sydney Morning Herald explains, is "but one step on a long, arduous road that may or may not lead to a more effective anti-global warming regime after 2012 than the existing Kyoto Protocol". "The Bali gabfest," is Margaret Wente's verdict in Canada's Globe and Mail. Both Lawson and Wente think that "despite all the earnest blather", politicians are simply not acting "like they mean it" when it comes to climate change. Take Germany, for example, says Wente. Nothing's been done about the emissions from its vast auto industry. And the Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown "has already shown his colours", says Lawson, when he approved the building of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. An economic recession, while not inevitable, is expected to hit the developed world in the near future, according to Lawson. Since the hard numbers are what matters, in such a case we'll be more likely to worry about how to pay our children's school fees, rather than the world our grandchildren will live in, he concludes. Instead of putting their own national interests at risk, the politicians will "change some light bulbs and subsidize some wind turbines ... (to) pretend they're taking action," agrees Wente. But the economic growth doesn't necessarily have to turn into a slump, says Ban Ki-moon, U.N. Secretary-General, writing in The Hindu. He cites research that shows job creation opportunities related to greener economics as an example. The Australian is encouraged by the fact that big corporations such as Coca-Cola, Nokia and Shell are calling for action and are prepared to make changes to the way they do business. Ultimately, the consumers will be the ones who'll bear the cost, but this has been "the most promising evidence" there will be any real progress on climate change, according to the paper. Perhaps surprisingly, editorials in Australia - the country which received a standing ovation at the talks, because its new government signed the Kyoto treaty as soon as it was voted in - have also been sceptical about the talks. Even if Australia, one of the world's biggest per capita polluters, manages to cut its emissions down to zero, this wouldn't change much on the global level. The only countries that could make a significant change are the U.S. and China, says Tim Colebatch, economics editor for the Australian Age. So, there is no point in cajoling smaller developing nations into promising emission cuts any time soon, a point made in an editorial in the Jakarta Post. But for now, what's important is for any action plan to have America's backing, says Britain's Financial Times. Without the only developed country which hasn't signed the Kyoto Treaty, it is unlikely that fast-growing India and China will subject themselves to any emissions thresholds. According to Der Spiegel, it looks like the U.S. is doing just the opposite. The paper's unnamed source claims that the White House has been trying to persuade both countries not to commit to any limits on emissions, so that the U.S. is not left alone in refusing to accept any checks on its greenhouse gases. But climate change can even challenge national security, writes Alexander Lennon and Julianne Smith, currently doing a stint at the Centre for a New American Security, in the International Herald Tribune. It can exacerbate global terrorism by increasing migration and the number of failed states - both factors known to encourage radicalisation. Could this be the one issue that could spur the U.S. into action when it comes to climate change?
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
8 responses to “Bali climate change talks: 'The long, arduous road' to nowhere?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.
%}
11 Dec 2007 14:15:13 GMT
"Could this (increase in global terrorism) be the one issue that could spur the U.S. into action when it comes to climate change?"
Doubtful, because the spectre of terrorism has replaced communism as the causus du jour to funnel massive amounts of taxpayer $$ to the defense and homeland security industries.14 Dec 2007 09:46:58 GMT
The current amnesia in the western developed nations especially the United States about and on global warming reiterates the âmorning afterâ effect. US, Canada, EU and Japan can stop lecturing to poor and emerging nations and live by example. But, that will never happen as politicians in these countries nurture and live by deceit and doublespeak. When the $ crashes or becomes a good riddance the world will begin to think anew on the ecosystem. When would that happen? The politicians in Washington have the answer !!
15 Dec 2007 12:38:56 GMT
The world needs a new order. It needs a new world govenment. If we have to healthy society, environment, equity,... richness or economic growth which is based on deceits, conflict must come to an end.
We need to have a world government that represent every country equally wherever country feels accountable and responsible. Then climate change problem, poverty, and conflict can be eliminated or mitigated. Otherwise, talk talk on deception is waste of time. The UN needs to be dissolved. The United State is wasting its money by funding this useless and toothless and parasite organisation. The world has to react immediately for immiment global conflict and security in all aspects. According to recent studies, the United States needs 140 Billion dollars to supply its population potable water to its population if it does not address the environmental problems within its own boundaries within a reason time. Prevention is better than cure. It is expensive cure than to prevent. Water systems are polluted in the united states, this is an open secret. Talking about stock market and side tracking a problem which will be expensive to address later is ethical or moral.18 Dec 2007 11:12:03 GMT
The climate agreements and climate change talks about talks only iterate that there is a global problem.
Its a bit rich to suggest that only politicians and high level diplomats should have a say about global matters such as climate change, when every single person on the globe has a carbon footprint. Its through education, and small local agreements that mitigation can happen. However who will foot the bill? The rich I think!19 Dec 2007 11:04:03 GMT
I think Karl touches on a pretty important point.
We blame the United States, and rightly so. And I can't express enough my frustration and fatigue over the way the US drag's its feet all the time in all of this. BUT, What are we all personally responsible for? What changes should we all be making individually? (especially, mind you, for those of us in the West and in the North). We have the option to act in small ways in small circles. And I just wonder sometimes why we're all waiting to be told and forced to change by our governments if we really think there's a problem. Government legislation helps, but personal choices are sometimes just as effective.08 Jan 2008 10:13:12 GMT
Climate change and global warming are two recent major issues. Only in time to come these will boomerang into a global urgent difficult problems for future generation. 25 years ago this was not discussed as it is today. In another 25 years this will be a problem for every nations. Forcing them to lay down rules and slandered limiting carbon emission and cutting dawn trees. In that way Bali conference decisions to agree in principal to cut dawn green house gases was a step toward good future.
22 Jan 2008 15:27:40 GMT
Global warming must be de-linked to CO2 emissions, especially since rapidly mounting evidence indicates that reducing CO2 emissions WILL not reduce, the now stagnant growth in global warming--David Whitehouse's view has taken the wind out of the sails of the GORE'sta's.
Here,in the US, the further plateuing of the temp rise of the 80's and the bitterly cold winter has muted even the harshest advocates of CO2 reductions. People are also expressing incredulity at the answer of "well, its' global warming, you know" to every falling temperature and bitter arctic blast. You can cry 'WOLF' only so long20 Apr 2008 20:33:36 GMT
When will the politicians recognize that Global Warming is a scam--IT ISN'T HAPPENING. There is not any sea level rise (my beach front condo is safe) and the globe is getting cooler.
Only those who benefit from the religion of global warming still say they believe--the Al Goreites, scientists who need study grants and politicians who also want a piece of the global warming funding (or at least a piece of the publicity on the subject). This is not to say that there is no pollution problem-- just go to Beijing or Phoenix. But it is not a Global Warming problem.