The Bali outcome

The maxim goes that the meetings are indispensable when you do not want to do any thing. The recently concluded Bali conference on climate change testifies to the veracity of this dictum. The conference failed to resolve the carbon conundrum during its marathon sessions.
The communiqué issued at the conclusion of the conference is devoid of any specifics regarding reduction of carbon emissions except a promise to continue pondering over the issue in coming years. The Bali conference was supposed to accomplish the unfinished agenda of the Kyoto conference, which resulted in Kyoto protocol on climate change. Thus in a way it can be dubbed as an extension of the Kyoto conference.
Deliberations on the climate issues have continued for some time but the main impetus came from the report of Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of leading scientists advising the United Nations.
This organisation predicted that if the carbon dioxide emissions continued at its present pace, the rapid climate change would occur endangering the climate of the world. This group of scientists proposed the reduction of carbon emissions by 60% till 2040 in order to arrest the rapidity of climate change.
The protocol, initially agreed at Kyoto, was an uneasy compromise between different stakeholders. While the Kyoto conference was underway, American oil companies mobilised their opposition and launched a campaign aimed at portraying negotiations as a devious foreign attempt to undermine the American economy. Resultantly America abandoned Kyoto. After America withdrew from the protocol, Australia also announced that it would not support the protocol without the US involvement.
Thus the agenda of the Kyoto conference remained unfinished. 'Emissions trading' remained the most controversial issue during the conference. The Americans wanted that emissions trading should be started without any delay. On the other hand the European Union (EU) was of the view that the rules regulating the emissions trading should be formulated first while India raised equity issues regarding the ownership of emissions rights.
Another area where agreement was not reached at during the deliberations related to 'carbon sinks'. It was argued about carbon sinks that a high level of uncertainty shrouded the measurement of the carbon and permanence of such sinks and no consensus was reached on the definition of an anthropogenic carbon sink.
It was hoped that the above mentioned unresolved issues would be taken up and resolved at the Bali conference. The fact of the matter is that the Bali conference did not register any progress on these issues. No timeframes for mandatory emissions caps have been given in the communiqué.
The developed world has not committed itself to measurable, reportable and verifiable processes for curtailing carbon emissions. The outcome of the conference has drawn clear lines between the developed and developing worlds on the issue. The only silver lining in the Bali conference was the recognition of the fact among all stakeholders that the climate change is one of the gravest environmental, social and economic threats facing the planet.
However, there is no denying the fact that merely recognition aspect will not help solve matters. Since the issue transcends the geographical boundaries, therefore, the lingering divide between the developing and developed worlds will further aggravate the problem of climate change if timely and concrete steps were not taken to arrest the carbon emissions.
The developed world should become part of the solution not part of the problem in this regard. Both developed and developing worlds need to join forces with each other on this score because risks accruing from inaction are grave. According to a report presented by renowned economist Sir Nicholas Stern in October 2006 on behalf of UK government, there is likelihood that the global warming can shrink the world economy by as much as 20% a year.
The issue of climate change caused by global warming cannot be seen in isolation. Rather it deserves to be looked at in broader perspective. Climate change, environmental degradation and poverty are directly or indirectly linked to each other.
All people, whether rich or poor, rural or urban, irrespective of the region they are living in, rely on natural capital and environment. Population is the most important driver behind environmental change causing increased demand for food, water and energy and placing pressure on natural resources.
According to GEO-4 report during the mid 1990s, about 25 million eco-migrants were forced to flee as a result of environmental change and as many as 200 million people could eventually be at the risk of displacement.
The major responsibility for climate change caused by heavy emissions of carbon lies with the developed and industrialised countries. The global economy has expanded due to industrialisation but the growth has been uneven among the different regions and nations leading to incidence of poverty in the third world.
It is imperative that the less fortunate regions and people are made partners in the fruits of development. Poverty reduction in the third world should be part of the future negotiations on climate change.
Thus any strategy aimed at tackling the issue requires a comprehensive approach encompassing feasible solutions for controlling environmental degradation and poverty alleviation. There is a need for harmonious integration of environment into development decision making.