Posted on 12/15/2007 1:50:29 AM PST by snowsislander
Delegates at the U.N.-sponsored climate change conference in Bali have agreed on a plan to negotiate a new anti-global warming treaty by 2009.
The deal was announced Saturday after two weeks of intense talks among 190 participating nations that were extended by an extra day. The agreement came after a personal appeal by U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon.
A major sticking point was a demand by the European Union for rich nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020, a plan strongly opposed by Washington.
The two sides eventually settled on a statement that simply said "deep cuts" will be required to reverse climate change.
But the U.S. delegation nearly rejected the pact because of a demand for rich nations to do more to provide clean technologies to poor and developing nations. After being jeered and booed, the U.S. reversed course and pledged to support the plan.
The so-called "roadmap" is meant to provide a framework for negotiating a new climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. That treaty, which expires in 2012, requires rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by five percent compared to 1990 levels.
That sounds very weak. Our representatives actually reversed the United States stated positions based on some jeers and boos?
Yes, and here’s the agreement:
1)Completely shut down all your industry.
2)Get rid of any motorized conveyance.
3)If it burns a fuel of some kind, don’t use it.
4)Kill off 80% of the population, starting with white Americans.
Sound about right?
Hopefully, the next president will have the same brass pair to tell the gorebull community to continue to pound sand.
As I read this, all that we agreed to was “Somebody somewhere should do something”. The same sidestep the governor of Texas in “Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” used when he wanted to be vague.
That was the result I expected from this conference as soon as I saw Australis’s new government back away from the promised concrete commitments they were making only two weeks ago. What’s the problem?
The unpublished agreement that was reached was to stagger their departures so that all of those private jets wouldn’t have to wait for takeoff.
“DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM??”
sarc off/
SCAM— Global warming scam is the only way gore can stay in the news.
I have my carbon credit printer fired up and ready to go.
Well, in their defense it was an away game and the crown noise in the red zone was deafening. Couldn’t hear the signals worth a darn. Fumbled on the 1 yard line and lost the ball.
“After being jeered and booed, the U.S. reversed course and pledged to support the plan.”
Where does it say that? I don’t think that was stated in the article. In any case I think we should agree to participate under the condition that if there is no climate disaster by 2020, the UN is disbanded, and the whole environmental movement is forever silenced with violations punishible by death.
It's in the next-to-last paragraph, second sentence.
What's interesting is that the VOA has now replaced the article that I posted "Agreement Reached at Bali Climate Conference" (author was listed as simply "VOA News") with a different article "UN Conference Agrees to Launch Negotiations for a New Global Warming Accord" by Nancy-Amelia Collins.
The new Collins article at http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-15-voa2.cfm reads:
By Nancy-Amelia Collins
Bali, Indonesia
15 December 2007The U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali ended Saturday with an agreement to begin negotiations for a new treaty on global warming. VOA's Nancy-Amelia Collins, who covered the conference, reports from Jakarta that the agreement came after the United States fell into line at the last minute.
After two days of nearly round-the-clock negotiations, the success of the U.N. conference hinged on one point: would the U.S. delegation agree to a proposal by the developing nation bloc, the G77, for rich nations to give more financial assistance to poor nations to develop clean technology?
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who had addressed the conference earlier in the week, returned to Bali to make a last-minute appeal for flexibility.
"You have in your hands the ability to deliver to the people of the world a successful outcome," he said. "I appreciate that you have worked very hard for many days and nights, but let me be clear: your work is not yet done."
Shortly afterwards, the assembly burst into applause when the head of the United States delegation, Paula Dobriansky, made a dramatic announcement: the U.S. was dropping it opposition to the G77 plan.
"So with that Mr. Chairman, let me say to you that we will go forward and join consensus in this today," she said.
The chair of the G77 countries, Munir Akran, said developing countries had to struggle at the conference to make their voices heard.
"We the developing countries have had an uphill battle at this conference to project and to protect our legitimate interests. We have had to fight every inch of the way to secure reflection of our objectives and interests," said Akran.
The consensus is being called the "Bali roadmap." It took 13 days, a day longer than planned, for agreement to be reached.
The roadmap officially launches the most ambitious plan yet in the battle to reduce man-made greenhouse gases, which are thought to be warming the earth's climate. The new climate change treaty will be the subject of two years of negotiations. The new treaty will eventually replace the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, whose terms expire in 2012.
Under U.S. pressure, the roadmap did not include the specific emission reduction targets that most of the participating nations, led by the European Union, wanted written into the document.
The U.S., backed by Canada and Japan, said specific targets should be set during the negotiations now set to begin.
The roadmap did, however, say a report by the U.N.'s panel of scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should be used as a guideline. The roadmap placed the IPPC's recommendation for a 25 to 40 percent emission reduction target in the footnotes.
Negotiators will be charged with finding ways to reduce greenhouse gases and help developing nations clean technology and financial assistance.
The booing was reported in other articles; for instance, the AFP article posted at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939810/posts mentions it:
Dobriansky was loudly booed by other delegations. A US environmental activist representing Papua New Guinea said on the floor to rousing cheers: "If you're not willing to lead, please get out of the way."After repeated verbal lashings, Dobriansky again took the microphone and said that Washington would "go forward and join consensus," to the cheers of the conference.
It's also mentioned in the Reuters article FACTBOX - High and low points of Bali climate talks:
A deal was only agreed after a day of high drama and emotional speeches, including several standing ovations, a last-minute plea for compromise by Indonesia's president and the head of the United Nations and booing for the U.S. delegation.
You can also find reference to the booing in this article Climate change victory:
During an impassioned afternoon, senior US negotiator Paula Dobriansky was booed from the floor for refusing to accept the final draft worked out with Europe, China and India. An hour later the US delegation backed down and promise it would come to a consensus.
I foresee the need for many more conferences in Bali.
Yes. It is amazing that they could not use the Internet to do this "work", but I guess that if you need to bully participants in person, then locations like Bali must be ideal.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
But why couldn't they meet in Cleveland?
The article you posted and the article you linked are two different documents.
Is this your own editorial?
Is this your own editorial? No, it is not. The original posting is what was at the link http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-15-voa2.cfm earlier.
However, it has been replaced by another article by Ms. Collins; if you take a look at posting #13, I have included the current article in it.
I have tried to find the version that was at http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-15-voa2.cfm previously at VOA, but I have not succeeded.
To some extent, this demonstrates the archival value of Free Republic; although VOA has apparently quietly removed the original article, it still remains archived here at Free Republic.
AOK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.