U.S. Bends To Critics, OKs Climate Roadmap

Washington Drops Opposition To European, Developing Nation Concerns At U.N. Climate Talks

(AP)  In a dramatic finish to a U.N. climate conference, world leaders adopted a plan Saturday to negotiate a new global warming pact by 2009, after the United States backed down in a battle over wording supported by developing nations and Europe.

The U.S. stand had drawn loud boos and sharp floor rebukes - "If you are not willing to lead, then get out of the way!" one delegate demanded - before Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky reversed her position, allowing the adoption of the so-called "Bali Roadmap."

The upcoming two years of talks, which will fashion a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, could determine for years to come how well the world will cut emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. The move came after a year of scientific reports warning that rising temperatures will cause widespread drought, floods, higher sea levels and worsening storms.

"This is the beginning, not the end," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who made an urgent plea for progress in the final hour of talks, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We will have to engage in more complex, long and difficult negotiations."

The document, adopted after contentious all-night talks, does not commit countries to specific actions against global warming. It was limited to setting an agenda and schedule for negotiators to find ways to reduce pollution and help poor countries adapt to environmental changes by speeding up the transfer of technology and financial assistance.

Adoption came after marathon negotiations that appeared on the brink of collapse several times.

European and U.S. envoys dueled into the final hours of the two-week conference over the European Union's proposal that the Bali mandate suggest an ambitious goal for cutting industrial nations' emissions - by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The EU and others said the goals were needed to direct upcoming talks. But the guidelines were eliminated after the U.S., joined by Japan and others, argued that targets should come at the end of the two-year negotiations, not the beginning. An indirect reference was inserted as a footnote instead.

Just when it appeared agreement was within reach Saturday morning, developing nations argued that their need for technological help from rich nations and other issues needed greater recognition in the document.

In an apparent resolution, India and others suggested minor adjustments to the text, backed by the EU, that encouraged monitoring of technological transfer to make sure rich countries were meeting that need. But the United States objected, calling for further talks, and only relented when, in an uproar, delegates by turns criticized and pleaded with Dobriansky to reverse course.

"We would like to beg them," appealed Uganda's environment minister, Jesca Eriyo.

Dobriansky's subsequent acceptance of the changes triggered applause - one of the few times that a U.S. action had won public praise at a conference studded with accusations that Washington was blocking progress.

She told reporters after the adoption that the appeals convinced the U.S. delegation that developing nations did not intend to dilute their commitment to take steps to stop global warming.

"After hearing the comments ... we were assured by their words to act," Dobriansky said. "So with that, we felt it was important that we go forward."

At one point, China also angrily accused the U.N. of pressuring nations to sign off on the text, even as sideline negotiations continued - triggering an emotional spat that ended when tearful and exhausted U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer was escorted out of the hall.

Participants and environmentalists hailed the final agreement. Still, some critics complained the document lacked specific greenhouse gas cuts for industrialized nations, and did not include strong commitments for rich countries to provide poorer ones with green technology.

Critics of the U.S. cheered the reversal.

"We have learned a historical lesson: if you expose to the world the dealings of the United States, they will ultimately back down," said Hans Verolme, director of WWF's Global Climate Change Program.

For developing countries, the final document instructs negotiators to consider incentives and other means to encourage poorer nations to curb - voluntarily - growth in their emissions. The explosion of greenhouse emissions in China, India and other developing countries potentially could negate cutbacks in the developed world.

The roadmap is intended to lead to a more inclusive, effective successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which commits 37 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gases by an average of 5 percent between 2008 and 2012.

The pact, however, has been rejected by the largest producer of such gases, the United States, seriously weakening a punch that scientists agree was already too little to have an impact on the environment. U.S. President George W. Bush has argued that the required gas cuts would hurt the economy, and he opposed the lack of cuts imposed on China and other emerging economies.

Critics - including former Vice President Al Gore, who spoke in Bali on Thursday - accused Washington of stonewalling progress at Bali. But many pointed out that with Bush's departure from office in early 2009, chances were high that the next American president would be much more supportive of ambitious cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Another clash at the conference was between rich and poor nations.

Developing nations have demanded that industrialized countries acknowledge their primary responsibility for solving the problem. Poorer countries also fear that they will be forced to sacrifice economic growth for the sake of cleaning up a mess caused by the industrialized world.

Richer nations, meanwhile, are concerned about skyrocketing rates of greenhouse gas emissions in the developing world.

Environmentalists accused the U.S. of trying to wreck future talks.

"The United States in particular is behaving like passengers in first class in a jumbo jet, thinking a catastrophe in economy class won't affect them," said Tony Juniper, a spokesman for a coalition of environmentalists the conference. "If we go down, we go down together, and the United States needs to realize that very quickly."

[co2max]

You ask me, in closing, to spend a little time studying the issues. Let me assure you that I have done so and continue to. I received what might be termed a classical training in geology in the late 70''s and early 80''s. That was a time when climate was still generally assumed to be stable over generations and that ice ages were either a thing of the past and a possible future. The recent years of clamoring about global warming brought me back into the educational fold to find out what is really going on. Here I found out on my own time and initiative the things about climate cycles which were never taught to me in getting my degrees. Now I see the truth about the various and super-imposing forces in nature which individually are miniscule on a decadal scale, but in concert work to effect huge swings noticable to us. With this new understanding I have come to be more convinced that ever before that humans really are NOT involved in influencing the planetary climate. I choose not to be on the wrong side of this issue.

[co2max]

jimfinster - You are obviously just another political tool. I know my facts and I am confident because i am right. I refuse to be come another head-nodding zombie in Algore''s environment army. Your observance of carbon dioxide as a pollutant illustrates that you have definitely strayed from the true path of science and can only march to the tune of a policy-creating drum. Forget the Supreme Court. If you really are a geologist, and hopefully a better one that your rantings here would indicate, you must know the truth about carbon dioxide and that the spiel about its supposed negative impacts on our climate are pure rubbish. There are so many other environmental ills in our world demanding our attention. To shift course and focus instead on CO2 emissions forcing climate change is to slam the door on effecting real improvement on our planet. Please open your eyes.

blah blah blah Al Gore! I give up on the deniers - listen to the science or don''t - you''re a tiny minority.

[jimfinster]

CO2Max:

In closing, I have never seen anyone so sure of themselves but so consistently wrong as you. I simply encourage you to get your head out of your ideology and actually spend a little time studying these issues! Good luck.

[jimfinster]

Furthermore, it is not accurate to describe carbon dioxide emission as pollution. Some of the processes which pollute the environment also create carbon dioxide as a by-product, but confusing these out-gases with the generalized description "POLLUTION" does a true disservice to the environmental movement.
Posted by CO2Max

Once again you are simply not correct. The Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, and now the EPA will be tasked to deal with it as such.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070402b.asp

[co2max]

jimfinster - I do believe you are suffering from ideological intoxification. The arguments I have forwarded to you in response to your quests are not incorrect. They do not tell the entire story of course, but they do represent an encapsulation of the basic problems you addressed. Furthermore, it is not accurate to describe carbon dioxide emission as pollution. Some of the processes which pollute the environment also create carbon dioxide as a by-product, but confusing these out-gases with the generalized description "POLLUTION" does a true disservice to the environmental movement.

[jimfinster]

Whether or not man contributes to global warming, or even whether global warming actually is taking place is moot. What cannot be denied is that we are polluting our only supplies of air, water, land, and food, and we have the means to stop that. The debate is really between those who recognize this and consider it of paramount importance to clean up our only spaceship, versus those who say that it is not important enough to disrupt the current cash flows.
Frame your debate along these lines, and you will better understand both sides, it all boils down to whether you think cleaning our home is worth the monetary cost.
Posted by brianbwb

I have seen this argument way too many times. It is wrong wrong wrong. Global warming and pollution are two totally different subjects. This is an argument used by closet deniers of warming.

[jimfinster]

terrorislam7:

You finally said something true. Over-population is at the heart of the problem.

[jimfinster]

You ask as well about the increasing acidity of the oceans. Have you not taken note of the huge increase in continental run-off? In addition to the carbonate and chloride content of groundwater pumped from the aquifers, which is a whole other major problem--this one of human causality, the included nitrous fertilizers which are included in this outflow from the agricultural area all over the world add significant amounts of non-natural additives which reduce ph levels of the sea water. These effects, in addition to the added CO2 contents of the oceans would account for the acidity. Fortunately, warming has a way of governing itself, at least to some extent. The increasing SSTs have the effect of inhibiting CO2 absorbtion at the surface which will serve to reduce the rate of acification.
Posted by CO2Max

A very creative but totally incorrect answer. Remember Occam''s Razor?

CO2 + H2O %u21CC H2CO3

You have an ideological position at odds with the evidence.

[jowand]

Absolutely NO factual evidence that humans are the cause of global warming, Al Gore and company are con-artists.

[co2max]

brianbwb - You have made my ultimate point. The global warming campaign is completely taking the environmental movement off the tracks. It really is pollution that is at stake for our future. We must take action to restore the pristine condition of our world as much as we can and to preserve habitats. The global warming nonsense stands to reverse all environmental progress that has been made over the past 30 years.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by jimfinster
Posted by CO2Max

Really, guys, you''re debating about butterflies while a train is bearing down on you.

Whether or not man contributes to global warming, or even whether global warming actually is taking place is moot.

What cannot be denied is that we are polluting our only supplies of air, water, land, and food, and we have the means to stop that. The debate is really between those who recognize this and consider it of paramount importance to clean up our only spaceship, versus those who say that it is not important enough to disrupt the current cash flows.

frame your debate along these lines, and you will better understand both sides, it all boils down to whether you think cleaning our home is worth the monetary cost.

[co2max]

You ask as well about the increasing acidity of the oceans. Have you not taken note of the huge increase in continental run-off? In addition to the carbonate and chloride content of groundwater pumped from the aquifers, which is a whole other major problem--this one of human causality, the included nitrous fertilizers which are included in this outflow from the agricultural area all over the world add significant amounts of non-natural additives which reduce ph levels of the sea water. These effects, in addition to the added CO2 contents of the oceans would account for the acidity. Fortunately, warming has a way of governing itself, at least to some extent. The increasing SSTs have the effect of inhibiting CO2 absorbtion at the surface which will serve to reduce the rate of acification.

[co2max]

OK jimfinster -

You say I never answered your previous questions about CO2. Here they are:

1) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
Yes, but it is not a very strong one. Consider methane and water vapor by comparison.
2) Is CO2 increasing?
Yes, it is. Humans are probably the cause for some of the increase. Recall that the CO2 concentrations started to increase right about the same time as the demise of the Little Ice Age. The warming that started then induced a warming of the oceans as well which supports our understanding that temperature changes lead variances of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
3) If 1) and 2)are true, then what happens next ???
CO2 continues to increase but the ppm levels do not increase in linear fashion. Each percentage increase is more difficult to achieve than the previous percentage increase. Do not disregard the positive feedback impact of increasing overall water vapor due to warming as the hydrologic cycle is enhanced by warming. You must not make the mistake that carbon dioxide is the ultimate cause of temp change just because we are able to measure it. Where is your scientific objectivity here?

[jimfinster]

Ocean Acidity & CO2 Emissions:

The ph level for the world''s oceans was stable between 1000 and 1800, but has dropped one-tenth of a unit since the Industrial Revolution, according to Christopher Langdon, a University of Miami marine biology professor.

Scientists expect ocean pH levels to drop by another 0.3 units by 2100, which could seriously damage marine creatures that need calcium carbonate to build their shells and skeletons. Once absorbed in seawater, carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid and lowers ocean pH, making it harder for corals, plankton and tiny marine snails (called pteropods) to form their body parts.

Ken Caldeira, a chemical oceanographer at Stanford University who briefed lawmakers along with NCAR marine ecologist Joan Kleypas, said oceans are more acidic than they have has been for "many millions of years."

"What we''re doing in the next decade will affect our oceans for millions of years," Caldeira said. "CO2levels are going up extremely rapidly, and it''s overwhelming our marine systems."

[jimfinster]

CO2Max:

You never answered my previous questions about CO2:

1) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
2) Is CO2 increasing?
3) If 1) and 2)are true, then what happens next ???

Also, how about explaining the increasing acidity of the oceans? Does your model of natural explanations explain that? What effect will the acidity have on oceanic life? Thus the dominoes start to fall...

[jimfinster]

CO2Max:

Well, you sure know what you know. Don''t let any of those little things called facts get in your way :)

[zuggerjack1]

It doesn''t matter when global warming began. As the well-respected Sen. John McCain stated a few days ago, global warming is real, it''s here now, and we''ve got to do something fast to stop it. Otherwise our kids won''t have much to inherit from us, except an uninhabitable world. As Sen. McCain said, we have to immediately cut down on greenhouse gas emissions here and abroad. And we must begin implementing renewable energy programs such as wind power, biodiesel fuels, hydrogen fuel cells, and space solar power like what David Kagan wrote about in a book called Sunstroke.

[incog-nito]

As the saying goes: You can''t stop progress.

[co2max]

Well, jimfinster - In view of "you do deny the human influence, so you are essentially in the Denier camp. And that is a camp I have low regard for" I don''t really care for your regards. You can define and categorize how me however you wish, but you are mistaken to accuse me of denying global warming. Yes, I do seriously doubt the human influence. I resist the absurd doomsday claims made by the global warming propagandists that we have only ten years to turn this around and that millions are imperiled soon if we do not act.
Do you similarly feel that global warming over the past millennia is okay, but that any future warming is bad only because we are not used to it? Would you wish to reverse the *progress* climate has made over the past 5-8 thousand years, just to be sure that the world''s fever is broken? Just what exactly would an optimal climate, or global average temperature be? To what latitudes do you think the polar ice should advance?
You have to deal with the world as it is dealt to you. If you disagree with Mother Nature, blaming the changes on humans will not alter the course of events. If you spur the world''s population to act, or counter-react to the observed trends, you are either doomed to fail, or over-control those things you wish to manipuate.