I’m sure the leaders love to get away, to have a chat, to wear funny shirts and do a few side deals. I doubt whether anything decided at APEC is going to change the world in a significant way.

But we’ll see. There is a lot of talking to come. Bali will only establish the framework for the post-Kyoto negotiations. These negotiations are meant to culminate in Copenhagen in 2009.

I think it’s very likely that developing countries will be very keen to see developed countries set and meet binding targets. At what point and under what circumstances the developing countries accept limitations is the real question. Angela Merkel seems quite keen on the idea that emissions be governed by population:

The idea of per-capita carbon emission limits comes from Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who broached the idea at the G-8 summit in Germany’s Heiligendamm in June. It involves industrialized nations cutting per-capita emissions at the same time that developing nations are allowed to increase theirs.

“Once (developing countries) reach the level of industrialized countries, the reduction begins,” Merkel said.

The Chinese are not so keen, but their approach is that they want to get as far as they can before they have to cut back. The problem with the Indian proposal is that emissions will continue to rise too long before they are capped and begin to reduce.

On APEC 2007, there is little doubt that Howard wanted to use it to set up a Kyoto alternative. This started to come unstuck when Bush blinked at the G8. Then China made it clear that the UN was the proper place for serious negotiations about climate change. At first I thought, at least the Sydney Declaration did no harm. Now I’m inclined to think it did insofar as it gave the appearance of action when in real terms it was pretty much business as usual.

Your ode to Old Europe is sweet, but does not address my argument. APEC represents 2.5 billion people (3.5 billion when India joins), produces over 50% of global GDP, is by a galaxy the fastest growing and most economically/culturally dynamic region on the planet, and produces over half the globe’s greenhouse gases.

Read my Lips. Europe is toast. So is Kyoto.

In other news Guy Pearce, author of High & Dry, had an article in Crikey today:

The bottom line is this: the Sydney Declaration on climate change requires no country to reduce greenhouse emissions ever—essentially it is the Howard-Bush response writ large—no binding targets and timetables, just lots of credit-taking for business as usual as emissions continue spiraling.

Before last week’s meeting, according to ABARE (which reliably released another self-serving report on the eve of APEC) emissions across APEC were on track to rise 130% above 2004 levels by 2050. Nothing changed with the Sydney Declaration —even if the non-binding commitments are delivered. Why? Because these commitments require APEC to do nothing more than what is happening already. This is why it was so easy to get all the national leaders to sign.

But what about the other two other headline measures in the Sydney Declaration? Well there were two non-binding aspirational goals: to reduce the energy intensity of GDP across APEC economies by 25% by 2030; and to increase forest cover across APEC countries by 20 million hectares by 2020. Most journalists swallowed the spin completely without realizing these goals constitute no change to business as usual and no reduction in greenhouse emissions across APEC. Energy demand is set to come close to doubling across APEC by 2030, so the intensity target is nothing like what is required to reduce emissions. And because energy efficiency is expected to improve at a faster rate than the intensity target requires it has no impact on emissions across APEC relative to business as usual.

So emissions remain on track to rise 130% across APEC by 2050. The commitment to increase forest cover by 20 million hectares by 2020 is similarly hollow, and the implication that this will save 11% of global emissions downright fraudulent. Why? Well firstly because between 2000 and 2005 there has been a net increase in forest cover across APEC of 1.5 million hectares annually so a continuation of business as usual would see the Sydney Declaration target met. So, as with the intensity target there is no impact on business as usual emissions which stay on track to rise 130%.(Emphasis added)

The REAL action is now in APEC, not the EU.

Nope. APEC sets irrelevant non-binding “aspirational goals” relating to climate change rather than targets and any real action. Its a PR sideshow, as the Chinese observed.

The EU has set real real reduction targets & MRET increases for 2020 and 2050, so they are streets ahead and leading by example (along with California).

The main game will soon shift to the UN sponsored global post Kyoto agreement/process since Kyoto expires soon in 2012.

What do i have to do with John Howard for goodness sakes? It is so dispiriting to see so many thinking about this issue ion terms of some dreary provincial culture war. John Howard is irrelevant. What IS relevany ios that the axis of geopolitics moved away from Europe a while ago. The REAL action is now in APEC, not the EU.

Most modelling incorporates only ’short-term’ climate effects, whereas the long-term ones may be of equal strength even in the short to medium term. That would explain why things seem to be moving faster than predictions.

Anyway that’s a line of thought that Hamilton has latched on to in the link at the end of the post. In the course of time I want to go into this in more detail.

We agree to work to achieve a common understanding on a long-term aspirational global emissions reduction goal to pave the way for an effective post-2012 international arrangement.

So they’re aspiring to aspirational goals. But there is nothing about it in the action agenda.

To be fair to Howard also, he has said they will identify their targets for the purposes of emissions trading after the election, if they win. I’m thinking he would go for a 2030 target, so that nuclear and possibly geosequestration could be dealt into the time-frame.

Clearly Kyoto is dead,

Predictable Howard (& Bush) spin. What is dead is Australia’s contribution and participation.

From Dictionary.com:

ambitious; desirous of success
Example: She makes aspirational purchases of self-help books.

This is the target to aspire to when you don’t have a target, and like a lot of self-help efforts, it is destined to fail. The Sydney declaration is piss and wind.

Meanwhile, business has moved on, leaving our fossil fool PM behind with his economic credentials in tatters, as per Kyoto resistance could be costing billions:

“THE Howard Government’s refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases is costing Australian businesses about $3.8 billion a year, a study has found.

The report by respected environmental consultant Cambiar said the country was missing out on economic activity because local businesses could not fully participate in the $37.5 billion global carbon market, which last year alone tripled in value.”

And the AIG report release today says much the same.

BTW Merkel was the environment minister representing Germany at the Rio summit way back when.

BilB, I think they stopped selling Bex years ago. I believe they were addictive and ended up wrecking your kidneys. The reference is to the advertisement at the time, which dates me as prehistoric in modern terms.

Pretty good value for $330 million.