Are we Seeing Bali 2.0?

On the final day at COP17 all the talk is about the push for a mandate—a firm timetable—leading to a new global emissions reductions treaty. The European Union (EU) has driven this coalition seeking a roadmap. The BASIC nations of Brazil, South Africa, India and China have either remained silent or are still pushing for more delay. None are yet to support the EU proposal. Meanwhile Small Island States (AOSIS) and Least Developed Nations (LDCs), the most vulnerable countries to climate change, are pushing strongly for talks to begin next month, with a new treaty to be ready by the end of 2012. This would tie in with the end of the current treaty, the Kyoto Protocol. They are fighting for their survival. However in a joint statement, they backed the EU proposal for a roadmap for a treaty by 2020. But is a roadmap just a path to another Copenhagen? The Bali Roadmap in 2007 set out a timetable for a new legally binding treaty at the Copenhagen conference in 2009. The Copenhagen talks collapsed, bringing into question the whole United Nations negotiating process. The Earth Negotiations Bulletin reports one negotiator likening the current talks to a “reply of Bali”. Several negotiators yesterday echoed that feeling, though were divided over whether this was a good or bad outcome. Negotiators today must act decisively. They must seek a fair, ambitious and legally binding treaty to curb greenhouse emissions. The world cannot wait—that was the sentiment half a decade ago. It was what the science has been saying for two decades now. It is time for negotiators to catch up. The world cannot wait for a treaty by 2020. The International Energy Agency last week warned any later than 2017 would bring “catastrophic” changes to the climate. Nor can we build a new treaty or mandate on shaky ground. The world must show courage and cooperation, seek compromise, and bring about action. Any mandate must seek to act to bring about a new treaty by 2015 at the latest. In the meantime, a second commitment period to Kyoto must be agreed upon, complete with ambitious targets. Any other outcome will be risking time we don’t have, and could put us on a path of disaster to a Copenhagen 2.0. This would be made even more inexcusable by the urgency for action the world currently requires.

By Tim Hall, photo by Julian Koschorke.