China: all articles

A late night update from the UN climate conference, where the US has thrown a hand grenade into the talks on the Bali roadmap.

It's close to 1am and the negotiators are still arguing about two main issues:

As I suggested yesterday, NGOs have reacted positively to the draft agreement on future commitments. But there's a good chance that their mood will darken as the week goes on.

They'd have preferred mention of 2 degrees in the text and stronger language on legally binding targets. They are also keen to see a clear plan for how the negotiations will be conducted.

But my guess is that, as the week goes on, the text is more likely to be diluted than strengthened.

I've been promising something intelligent on India for days now, but it's hard to find time, what with spending all day on the beach.

Fortunately, Joydeep Gupta, a well-connected journalist for the Indo-Asian news service, remains prepared to put the hours in. ‘Why does India get the blame, China the praise?" he asks in an fascinating recent article.

You should read his analysis in full, but the gist is that India has arrived in Bali having failed to complete its homework. Its PR also sucks, even though it has a good story to tell. The country has put aside 2.5% of GDP to adapt to climate change, for example, and has been attempting to improve energy efficiency.

In his press conference this evening, Yvo de Boer gave us an update on the negotiations, focusing in particular on the group that is charged with discussing a post-2012 deal.

There are four issues on the table: reducing emissions (mitigation), adapting to climate change (adaptation), transferring low carbon technologies to poorer countries, and the finance needed to make the transition.

De Boer said good progress was being made by the group, but there are two key areas for concern.

First, we appear to be running out of time. Ministers arrive in the middle of next and there is still a colossal amount to be agreed. The ‘future' group hasn't given more than cursory consideration to the key question of how the transition to a low carbon economy will be paid for, for example. That's a big omission.

Canada remains under fire here in Bali, where it has laid out eight ‘principles' for a post-2012 climate deal. Most controversial is number 2, which recommends mandatory greenhouse gas targets for developed countries and ‘major industrialized developing countries.'

This is guaranteed to infuriate China (and India too). Which is probably the point. "By being unrealistic in their demands," argues activist Steven Guilbeault, "Canada is trying to create a perfect train wreck here at the summit."

This morning, I escaped from the ‘bubble' for a while (more on that later), so I only arrived in the convention centre around midday.

Delegates were not so lucky. In the first week of a negotiation like this one, the formal talks splinter into a dizzying array of smaller groups. Each is set up to focus on a contentious area where a decision is needed. Later on, if a miracle occurs, the output from each group is pieced together. Even more rarely, something coherent emerges.

If you think your government reps are enjoying a holiday at taxpayers' expense, you're mostly wrong. Some of the hotels in the main complex are very swanky, to be sure. But delegates mostly work and sleep. If things hot up next week, which they probably will, sleep too is dispensed with.

Earlier this week, I caught up with Peter Goldmark, Program Director for Climate & Air at US NGO Environmental Defense.

I asked him what he thought would be the major cleavage points of the Bali negotiations. This is Peter's headline analysis:

There's a long list of things George Bush hates about Kyoto. It would, he argues, have cost too many American jobs, been ruinous for the US economy, driven up energy prices, and stopped the country burning its vast stocks of coal.

But one thing really seems to sticks in his craw: China.