GMF and NPR Worldwide are pleased to bring you an audio program from a discussion on January 8, 2008, at GMF on the recent UN Climate Change conference in Bali, Indonesia. The event featured Elliot Diringer from the Pew Center for Global Climate Change and Ana Unruh-Cohen from the House Select Committee on Independent Energy & Global Warming (event write-up available below).

The program, in which the speakers give a read-out of the Bali conference and the potential next steps leading up to the next climate change gathering, airs on NPR Worldwide in Europe. Please visit NPR Worldwide's website to find out more about the program's air times.

On January 8, GMF hosted Elliot Diringer, the director of international strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and Ana Unruh-Cohen, the senior policy adviser for the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Independent Energy & Global Warming, for a luncheon discussion entitled "Bali & beyond: How the UN conference impacts transatlantic efforts to address climate change." The discussion focused on the successes, failures, and implications of the Bali Conference as the first step in establishing a post-Kyoto climate agreement to be finalized in Copenhagen in 2009. Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, GMF director for policy programs, introduced the speakers and moderated the discussion.

Elliot Diringer opened the discussion by assessing the significant aspects of the two-week negotiation process that led to the final agreements made at Bali. Elliot expressed the need for an explicit international mandate that formally commits both developing and developed nations to binding carbon emissions reduction targets, but recognized such a treaty is unrealistic at this time. He did note however, that Bali has taken a step in the right direction by exploring ways to commit the United States plus the five major developing countries (China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa) to climate change negotiations while acknowledging all developing countries must also contribute to decreasing carbon emissions. He also cited that two years ago in negotiation in Montreal many governments were unwilling to even open a dialogue on climate change while all governments at Bali agreed to move past dialogue to negotiations with an ambitious goal of a new global agreement in 2009. Bali did however take a step back from past climate negotiations in Berlin as the carbon reduction targets set forth by the EU (25-40% by 2020 from 1990 emissions levels for developed countries) were rejected.

Diringer continued to explain how the three words "measurable, reportable, and verifiable," played a defining role in the negotiation process. In a final compromise, developing nations agreed to implement national mitigation actions that are not binding but are measurable, reportable, and verifiable. In exchange, developed countries will provide the developing countries with support in the form of tech transfer and finance that must also be measurable, reportable, and verifiable. While Bali does not place binding emissions targets on any country, it did round a significant corner in climate change negotiations as Diringer explained, "it doesn't put anyone on the hook, nor does it let anyone off."

Ana Unruh-Cohen continued the discussion from a domestic angle by examining the significance of the decisions made at Bali in a U.S. context. A post-Bali Congressional hearing, which Ana described as a "landmark" event for Capitol Hill, was held to discuss the outcomes of Bali and what they will mean for the United States over the next two years of climate negotiations. According to Unruh-Cohen, Congress is especially focused on the actions of the developing world in response to Bali as representatives are continuously asked how they plan to economically and financially deal with China in terms of climate change. On the whole, Congress is looking at large adaptation measures as a solution to help both Annex 1 and Annex 2 countries deal with climate change in preference to green tech transfer.

While Unruh-Cohen did note the positive steps being taken by Congress to deal with climate change as a serious issue, she did stress that she would like to see a lot more progress made on the matter on Capitol Hill.  Unruh-Cohen claims even the greenest members of Congress will never commit to the level of carbon emission reduction targets currently set by the EU and the inability of the recent Energy Bill to be ratified by the Senate without stripping it of several important components such as a renewable electricity standard and a tax package illustrates that Congress as a whole isn't ready to make serious domestic commitments on climate change. Unruh-Cohen did reiterate however, that global warming has been a dead issue on Capitol Hill for the past twelve years and optimistically projects that the 2008 Congress will view climate change as a legislative priority.

Following Diringer and Unruh-Cohen's remarks, the audience of academics, diplomats, and think tank researchers had the opportunity to pose questions and further discuss the implications of Bali. The discussion initially centered on whether the United States is prepared to move forward and deal with climate change as an issue that elicits questions of global governance and financial equity on a global scale. Diringer asserted that it is important to incorporate trade and finance ministers into climate change negotiations and that wealth transfer on a large scale will inevitably take place through private flows like the Clean Development Mechanism. He did warn however, that negotiations must stay focused as all of the world's problems cannot be solved on the back of climate change. Unruh-Cohen stated global governance wasn't a significant topic on Capitol Hill quite yet.

The remainder of the discussion focused on how to successfully engage the United States in developing a binding domestic carbon reduction policy which everyone at the table agreed was a necessary first step for the United States to commit to an international climate treaty. According to Unruh-Cohen, Congress and the White House will only act on climate change out of self interest, for example if the United States begins to lose economic shares in renewable energies and technologies to the EU and Japan. She also stressed the importance of taking a realistic stance toward the ability of the new Administration to develop a national climate change policy and commit to an international treaty by Copenhagen 2009 given the short time frame and magnitude of the commitments.