Environment. Nearly two hundred states must negotiate from today, Bali (Indonesia), the follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Resistance to further efforts are numerous. leaden sky and horizon blocked on the archipelago Indonesia. Will there thinning on Bali? Not sure. The 190 countries that meet there from now until 14 December to discuss the future climate of the globe, will decide. They have less than two weeks to at least set a new framework for negotiations, with timetable and deadline to boot. Clearly, to give the Kyoto Protocol offspring, or leave orphaned. Storms in sight.
Designed in 1992, drafted in 1997 and ratified in 2005 but lapsed in 2012, the Kyoto Protocol will have barely had time to already exist need to invent a sequel. And possibly very quickly. The UN, conductor of this great rout of Indonesia, were given two years. At that time, the international community must have adopted a new treaty to reduce drastically the emission of greenhouse gas emissions. For now, only 36 industrialized countries must reduce their emissions. Others may stick to policy objectives. As for the poorest, nothing is imposed on them (see box).
At first glance, the context is favorable to proponents of a rapid, effective and collective. Climate change will seldom occupied much space inspired media and political discourse. To believe that everything has been orchestrated to prepare for this decisive week. In February last the cream of climate research found himself in Paris to deliver the first part of the IPCC report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The same IPCC had inspired the drafting of the Kyoto Protocol, a decade earlier. Confirmation of scientists: the climate is warming rapidly and strong, and man is largely responsible. In early April, the same as exposing the serious social and economic consequences. In May, researchers were exploring ways to mitigate the impact of future climate rushed. "If we continue to do what we do now, we have serious problems," warned one of the leaders of the study. In other words, we must articulate the political, economic and technological faster.
In the aftermath, the British economist Nicholas Stern hustled her world by publishing a report explosive. He said the cost of inaction on climate change is not commensurate with an investment quickly. GDP eroded and fragile economy: its arguments did fly, beyond the usual circles. And now a former Vice-President of the United States, narrowly defeated by George W. Bush in the presidential election of 2000, covers the whole screen. With his documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore finally pierce the bubble media.
Result: October 12 last, a few weeks before the Bali meeting, the former vice president and research IPCC received the Nobel Prize for peace. The message to the Heads of State and Government meeting on the Indonesian archipelago is clear. They will seize it?
In mid-November, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had paved the way: "We can not afford" to leave Bali without "a real breakthrough towards a comprehensive agreement among nations." More direct, Yvo de oer, executive secretary of the UN climate convention, described the inaction "criminal and irresponsible, poor countries are more exposed and vulnerable than their industrialized counterparts.
Especially as responsibilities become clearer. Last week's report GEO-4, the program of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) explored four models, the more "liberal" than "sustainable" involving the collaboration of governments, civil society and private sector. The first, which builds on the current lead the world toward "abrupt and irreversible". The latter, unsurprisingly, the most mitigate the magnitude of climate change. Alas, the Kyoto Protocol is essentially a liberal economic system (read our interview).
short, the warnings are recurrent. States' responses, they remain more discrete. The United States led by the Bush administration persists in its refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. From there to discuss a ... more binding new treaty, therefore, wait for negotiations with the U.S. government but must fiercely resistant to any economic compulsion, and may be renewed within one year? Should we wait and count on the Democrats, more likely to accept new rules? Or insist on integrating the United States in the process? The strategy is not without risk: too want to hang up the land of Uncle Sam in the context of a global agreement, the international community might be tempted to cut back on its ambitions. It is unlikely that new sanctions are the day.
Shy thinning: the recent election of a Labour prime minister in Australia, who had promised during his campaign to "ratify Kyoto." A new deal that would make the U.S. the last economic giant to escape the obligation to reduce its emissions. Hence the appeal of the foot of the European Commissioner for Environment Stavros Dimas: "I hope the Americans will follow the example of Australians. "It will also
convince developing countries were lukewarm to the idea of curbing their meager growth. Last week a member of the Brazilian government has refused to advance any "numerical target for developing countries". Still, the United States and China, the undisputed champions of emissions of greenhouse gases, will focus the most attention. "Without a commitment from them to Bali to launch negotiations, I do not see how we will be ready on time" has made no secret Yvo de Boer. It will nevertheless
ambition. The IPCC estimates that maintaining the average temperature increase to 2 ° C requires reduction of 80% by 2050 compared to 1990 global emissions. When the Kyoto Protocol proposed to reduce by 5.2% between 1990 and 2012 ... Time (very) mixed in Bali.
