The Bali Conference - a view from the floor

Today was my first day at the “united nations climate change conference” in Nusa Dua, Bali.  In the U.S., we still have to deal with Fox News, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and a NASA head who claims it is “arrogant” for us now to decide for future generations that “this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings.”  So, those in the United States might be surprised to find that the rest of the world basically agrees that climate change is happening and is actively seeking ways to deal with the problem.  With the exception of a group called “The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,” a climate change denial group handing out fliers here in Bali, there is no denial of the reality of global warming or claims, a la Michael Crichton, that the problem is one cooked up by green groups to juice their fundraising. 

The panels here have all exhibited a pragmatism about finding ways to deal with the problem.  There is very little agreement among participants about just how to go about doing that or who should pay for the actions eventually to be taken.  That will be where all the heat is in the coming negotiations.  However, the discussion has moved on from debating whether the problem exists. 

Even China, which is coming under global pressure for not doing enough to address global warming, is quite frank in its assessment of the impacts of global warming on China.  In its National Climate Change Programme, released by the powerful National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) in June 2007, it states very clearly that climate change has already had an impact on:

• agriculture and livestock production;
• glacier melt;
• decreased water resources; and
• sea level rise and coastal flooding. 

Moreover, these impacts will increase in the future and lead to other impacts such as increased death from heat waves, greater incidence of certain diseases, and so on.  The Chinese programme calls for a variety of actions on mitigation and adaptation (such as development of stress-resistant crops) in equal measure to deal with the problem.

Contrast this with the U.S. debate.  In October of this year, the Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Daniel Botkin, which states that “contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.”  Just this past week, WSJ ran an outlandish editorial again trying to cast doubt on the reality of global warming (labeling it a “belief”).  See this post about the article (“WSJ Launches Luddite Attack on Climate Scientists and Al Gore”).  These pieces have been part of a systematic effort by WSJ and their ilk to confuse the climate change debate.  And news has been plentiful in recent years of the Bush administration’s efforts to quash any information suggesting that climate change is real or a problem. 

The rest of the world - and now U.S. Congress and many states - have moved on to debate solutions.  Let’s hope the overall U.S. debate can, sooner than later, rise to this level.

Comments