Rapturous applause was reported to have broken out upon the adoption of the global roadmap by delegates to the international climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, on Saturday.
So the 10-year stalemate that had been in place since the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol in December 1997 was finally broken. The world's governments now have the basis for a future agreement to determine how much each of them is going to contribute to the common cause of dealing with climate change.
Compromises were easy to spot, such as the decision not to include the EU-proposed "guidance" target for developed countries to cut emissions by between 25 and 40 percent by 2020, and the promise by developed countries to give financial incentives to support the climate efforts of developing countries.
But they were not just compromises. They reflect a growing enthusiasm for participation. The Kyoto Protocol took five years to draft, seven more to come into force and now covers only 36 countries.
Driving the adoption of the Bali roadmap was a clear sense of urgency among many delegates, which can be tapped to craft a replacement for Kyoto in the next two years, though this step is likely to be more difficult than the decision to accept the roadmap.
There are two key components for making such a deal possible for all nations. The first is the benefit of having the United Nations as a common platform for the exchange of views and negotiations on major global issues.
The second is the agreement that financial incentives will be available for developing countries that cut emissions. This is a good move. The Western press has no right to paint the desire for financial incentives as a way to dodge responsibilities.
If the solution to climate change were as simple as developed countries setting targets for developing ones, it would easily be turned into - or at least be viewed as - a trade protectionist device that deviates from the international community's common interests.
As the Bali roadmap has it, any future global program to mitigate climate change will require participating members to fulfill their tasks in a "measurable, reportable and verifiable" way.
But the principle of being "measurable, reportable and verifiable" should be applied to developed countries as well as developing ones.
Indeed, all major economic activities on Earth can be measured. Since developed countries buy so many manufactured goods and services from the developing world, they should give credit to the latter for helping them avoid producing emissions on their own soil.
Considering the fact that developed countries also hold substantial investment interests in the manufacturing and services industries in developing countries, and some companies actually moved to developing countries to avoid pollution penalties at home, they should also duly report these interests of theirs to the UN.
The contributions that developed countries make to developing countries' anti-climate change efforts should match their imports of high-emission goods from abroad and their investment interests in the production of such goods - in a "measurable, reportable and verifiable" way.
These comments are not intended to suggest the newly adopted roadmap should benefit any single country's self-interest, nor should they be mistaken for anti-business, anti-market talk.
If anti-climate change incentives are linked to trade activity, then China will also have to lay out substantial funds to import primary goods, such as mineral resources.
If all companies are to publicly announce their investment interests in the production of high-emission products, they will be much more prudent in making related decisions and will be more eager to purchase anti-emissions technology.
After all, it would be unthinkable to advance a major common effort, such as the one defined by the Bali roadmap, without a common fund. And it is always a good thing if the common effort can be made "measurable, reportable and verifiable" at the market level.
E-mail: younuo@chinadaily.com.cn
(China Daily 12/17/2007 page4)
