Perversely, researchers may enjoy a richly rising harvest of government grants if the outcome of the intergovernmental climate change negotiations in Bali is an inconsequential as many critics argue. I suspect that the outcome is less of a disaster than claimed by that obsessive Cassandra of the Guardian newspaper, George Monbiot (“so far the Bali deal is worse than Kyoto”). But neither is it anything like the triumph trumpeted by the UK’s Environment Secretary, Hillary Benn (“what we have achieved has never been done before”).
The agreed text lacks specific targets for reducing CO2 emissions, though it does acknowledge that “deep cuts” will be needed. But as everybody now knows the US again seemed content to play the villain and to block 25-40% target cuts by 2020. In reality the whole fortnight of jousting between 190 governments was not a great deal more than a loosening up exercise for the negotiations to come over the next two years or so. True, some principles were established on technology transfers to poor countries and on aids to avoid deforestation. But the real shape of the regime to come after Kyoto’s expiry in 2012 will only become apparent later. Some say the talks could even drag on until 2012.
I have my doubts whether the next US President – more likely than not to be a Democrat – will break with George Bush’s desire to see a clear definition of developing countries’ responsibilities in a new era of emissions reductions. Given that China will soon overtake the US as the largest global polluter (in volume, not per capita, terms) it is not unreasonable to be looking for a global agreement that offers some prospect of reversing the rising tendency of China’s CO2 emissions. But the rich countries will have to pay something towards the costs not only for China but also for India and, perhaps, others. Potentially, this is one of several potential stumbling blocks that could put a really effective global agreement beyond reach.
In which case, the search will become ever more urgent for winning technologies that in one way or another will lighten the sacrifices and changes of life styles the rich nations will need to make to avert the natural disasters scientists are now forecasting. Unless CO2 pollution peaks and starts to decline over the next 10-15 years there will be a race against time to prevent the 4°C or more rise in average temperatures that threatens the survival of many animal species, food production and the viability of low lying coastal areas around the globe. Even if it is correct (which I doubt) that the technology already exists to mitigate and reduce global warming, more is definitely needed and needed quickly to cover us against the probable failure of politicians to deliver us from the threat.
