Bali

The agreement reached on climate change at the Bali Conference is disappointing in certain obvious ways, but I think John Quiggin is absolutely right to hail it as an important victory for the planet. Given the reality that George W. Bush is President of the United States this is about as good an outcome as could have taken place.

Back when I was attending the UN High-Level Meeting on climate change, diplomats and officials described the purpose of the Bali to me this way: Everyone knew there was no hope of anything really being done unless there's political change in the United States. The goal, however, is to make sure that if there is political change, that the new American president is able to hit the ground running in January 2009 and join an international process that's already under way instead of time and energy being expended in getting the machinery rolling. It's depressing that that's the level on which activities in 2007 and 2008 are going to need to proceed, but that's also the reality of the situation. And given that reality, things are mostly going according to plan. Still, to an almost frightening extent everything hinges on the election.

Comments

The reality of this situation is that we're all fucked.

This is one of those issues where I just want to go up to someone who is 50 or older and shoot them. They should have to pay for this, as I know my generation will certainly have to. They shouldn't get to die easy of old age before the costs of this ever come into play.

Posted by soullite | December 16, 2007 2:20 PM

The people who think they are being serious by closely following the global warming issue or what's going on in Iraq, the so-called difficult issues of our time, are, in my opinion, really missing the boat.

Head on over to http://www.theoildrum.com/ and you'll see some really scary stuff, things happening now which are to me a lot more scary than Iraq dissolving into chaos or global warming. Just looking at today's topics
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3389
I see articles on a huge increase in antibiotic-resistant infectious deaths and the decimation of bees, which we need to pollinate our plants; fishers fishing in toxic waters; Turkish planes bombing Kurds in Iraq (!); Vietnam is going to have massive (nation-wide), scheduled blackouts; and Mary Landrieu ridiculous defense on why she caved on the energy bill.

But most important of all is the fact that we live in global economy that demands growth, and with it increasing oil consumption, and oil production has already peaked, according to both the EIA and IEA. I constantly see economic analyses which state, roughly, that by 2025 world oil production will be ~120 million barrels a day, that the US will be using 28 million barrels a day and China and India together will be using 14 million more barrels a day. This despite the fact that global oil production peaked 2 years ago (total liquids recently reached an all-time high, but that includes other things).
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3052

To meet the 120 million barrels a day target by 2025 production would need to be going up by 2 million a day each year, and it's flat and has been for some time. This
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3381
doesn't look like an increase of 2 million barrels a day each year to me. So we have a global economy banking on the US using 6-7 million barrels a day in 17-18 years and China and India using 14 million more, but people in the oil industry, including the head of exploration of France's Total, says 100 million barrels will never be reached--ever--and a VP at Lukoil said the other day that Russia has peaked. Someone needs to explain this contradiction to me.

Posted by blah2 | December 16, 2007 2:58 PM

No. The new President will have no effect. The existing negotiating team is doing no serious negotiating. The way Bali ended looked very much like Paula Dobriansky said, "Give them their fucking footnote to a meaningless document. Let's get out of here." And if there is to be a Senate ratifiable treaty in 2009, there will need to be serious negotiations. Which can't be conducted over a few months in 2009. With people who haven't realized there really are US interests to be defended.

Posted by jim | December 16, 2007 3:08 PM

Re: They should have to pay for this, as I know my generation will certainly have to.

Every generation gets handed its predcessors' unsolved problems. It was that way with slavery and civil rights certainly. Nothing new ionder the sun there. You shouldn't be so resentful of something that's just part of the normal way the world works.

Re: you'll see some really scary stuff, things happening now which are to me a lot more scary than Iraq dissolving into chaos or global warming.

Of things which are quite likely to happen in the near future (which excludes nuclear war and planetary diasters like asteroid impacts) global warming is by far the most serious problem facing us.

Posted by JonF | December 16, 2007 3:52 PM

We're getting offered a whole new geography! New frontiers! New challenges! How many generations get that offer? And you sulk around all resentful. Feh. No sense of romance.

Posted by Senescent | December 16, 2007 5:04 PM

JonF: "Of things which are quite likely to happen in the near future global warming is by far the most serious problem facing us."

Global warming and peak oil are related, but not identical of course.

Which matters more is dependent on your perspective and what you are worried will be affected.

Increasing consumption of oil is necessary for economic growth. Economic growth is the foundation of the global economic system, which in turn is the foundation of the way of life for nearly every human on the planet. The first part of that equation, increasing oil consumption, is at an end, according to the available data. Because of this, in 10 years' time, and perhaps as little as 5 or even next year, the foundation of our way of life, the global economy, will begin to break down.

I don't want to downplay global climate change. But no one can say for certain when it will start causing catastrophe and radically affecting human life. Perhaps we have already and irreversably set in motion climate change that 20-50 years from now will result in the death of a billion people. I don't know; no one does. But I do know that right now peak oil is affecting the way of life of even the wealthiest nations; look at its price at the local gas station. Consider the war in Iraq (Do you think the US would have invaded if Iraq exported carrots?) Consider that the price of oil is only going to go up, that OPEC has stated a price of $90 is acceptable when only a handful of years ago $30 was considered acceptable. Peak oil is already dramatically affecting the lives of virtually every person on the planet, be it through extraction practices or consumption prices. Again, the scarcity of oil versus desired consumption growth is going to act as a decelerator on the entire global economy.

Lastly, keep in mind that the peaking and eventual decline of oil production will alleviate global climate change.

Posted by blah2 | December 16, 2007 5:42 PM

I can't remember how long ago it was, but there was a spate of articles in the popular scientifc press which graphed crises of one kind or another -- a straining dam which might break, a barking dog that might bite, etc. The 3D graphs all looked the same: mostly plateau with a sudden spike as all 3 factors accelerated in the crisis. I'm not sure if there was anything beyond the descriptive to the graphs, but it did impress me with the idea that stability is a comfortable illusion. And don't approach snarling dogs. Climate change is still, despite the rapid change in CO2, actually more like a plateau than a peak. But it's real easy to imagine "peakiness" and soon. The Arctic melt this past summer genuinely shook some climate scientists with the idea that climate feedbacks have been dangerously under-estimated.

The lead times that Bali agreed upon seems to me to go beyond sanguine and well into insanity.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 17, 2007 9:01 AM

Blah2 -- Don't count on peak oil doing much about global warming. The most convenient energy stopgap is likely to be coal.

Posted by SqueakyRat | December 17, 2007 11:23 PM