us: all articles

With Bali's biggest decision now made, the media pack has rushed off to file stories, source reaction, or get drunk on the beach. But the action here in plenary is not quite done.

In a meeting under the ‘Kyoto track', countries have just signed up to the kind of ambitious goals that were washed out of the main Bali declaration.

This decision affects all countries that have ratified Kyoto (most of the world other than the USA).  This includes Australia. For the first time, it expressed "strong support" for a goal of reducing rich country emissions by 25-40% by 2020, from a 1990 baseline.

Last night, we reported on the bombshell proposal from US negotiators to give all countries targets, based on their levels of economic development.

Talks broke up acrimoniously at 3.30, with a plethora of counter-proposals on the table. As he left, Yvo de Boer pronounced himself ‘confident' about reaching agreement - but I think he was joking.

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:

"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," Al Gore told Bali this evening, to ecstatic applause, putting the blame for any failure to reach agreement firmly in the Bush administration's court.

But he told the people who applauded his words they had a choice. They could get cross with America, and risk derailing the Bali agreement, or they could skirt around the country, leaving a ‘blank space' in the Bali roadmap for a new administration to fill in.

There is growing evidence that the EU has threatened to boycott the US major economies process on climate change, "unless there is a substantive outcome" from Bali.

Bali is turning into an asymmetrical battle. The EU badly needs everyone to agree a deal, while the US only needs a few countries to object if it decides to derail the negotiations.

But an EU boycott of US-sponsored talks would be a major slap in the face for the Bush administration. It represents one of the few negotiating cards the EU holds at these talks.

The story has been circulating since yesterday evening, when the French environment minister was said to have had an acrimonious meeting with Paula Dobriansky, head of the US delegation.

Some of the sticking points here in Bali are incredibly trivial and technical.

There's been a collapse on capacity building, for example, where the US has blocked progress on the deal that is on the table.

What's going on here?

The aim is to provide money for developing country governments to participate fully in negotiations, but the US has blocked agreement on the issue.

Two slightly different accounts of why.

According to the UN's Yvo de Boer, the US has said that it wants capacity building to be linked to developing country effectiveness in reporting its progress on tackling climate change. If they do a good job, they get money to invest in expertise.

The Europeans don't like the message they're getting from the Americans that the IPCC goal of a 25-40% target is based on insufficient evidence to be a useful guide.

"We don't need new studies and research," the German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel. "If we ask the scientists, they're just going to tell us the same thing. We have to reduce 25-40% in developed countries if we want to be on target for 2050.

"It's not a question of known science. It's a question of mathematics. These questions of mathematics are clear since the Egyptians taught us to count."

"We want to launch a process that is open and does not predetermine or preclude options."

This innocuous phrase represents the key fault line here in Bali - symbolising an ongoing tussle between the Europeans and North Americans.

It represents US willingness to talk about a deal, but only if concrete numbers are stripped out of the Bali declaration.

As we reported yesterday, Harlan Watson advised the media to be careful of accepting at face value the IPCC's work on climate stabilisation.

For industrialized countries to target a 25-40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 was premature, he suggested. Too few scenarios had been examined the make the figure reliable. Further analysis was needed before the figure could become a basis for negotiation.

So what lies behind his remarks?

The IPCC has set out six scenarios for stabilizing the global climate. Most attention has focused on scenario 1. This scenario would:

And so to John Kerry, who followed Harlan Watson's press conference with quite a different performance.

Like Al Gore - who will collect his Nobel prize later on today and then jet over to Bali - Kerry is now a climate veteran. His message to Bali in a nutshell: Bush is going, America will do its bit, but the developing world must act too.

A few minutes ago, US negotiator, Harlan Watson, made it crystal clear that he has absolutely no intention of signing up to the draft Bali roadmap.

That's no to a 25-40% target by 2020 for developed countries - something Watson thinks would prejudge negotiations and be "totally unrealistic for many countries."

And no, to adding to the text a goal to keep temperatures below 2 degrees, a key European demand. That would not be a helpful starting point for negotiations, he says.

Watson also called for the draft text to be dramatically shortened and simplified, telling the media that "almost every delegation thinks its too long."

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.

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.

US domestic politics is an ever-present influence here in Bali. Every delegation - whether or not it approves of current Bush administration climate policy - is inevitably looking towards 2009 when a new President will take office.

A harbinger of change is a flurry of activity in the US Congress and Senate. Late last night, the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill finally made it out of a Senate committee, and is now headed for a full debate on the floor.

The bill's supporters are jubilant. John Warner, a Republican and one of two co-sponsors, believes that it is time for the US to take a leadership role on the issue. "If we don't act, China and India will simply hide behind America's skirts of inaction," he says.

At his press briefing today, I asked Harlan Watson, lead US negotiator, whether he could confirm that the US had recently sent round invites to a second meeting on climate change for the major economies.

It turns out the meeting has been scheduled for the end of January in Honolulu, but had not yet been publicly announced.