That Bali should fail to improve on previous climate change conferences is unthinkable. The world’s poor cannot afford for it to just churn out more of the same, says Andrew Pendleton.
Stop us if you’ve heard this one before.
Luminaries of the day, asked to write reports about the state of the planet, come back with the unpalatable truth - that the twin evils of global poverty and environmental degradation are unsustainable and must be addressed.
Politicians agree and then move on. And nothing – much – happens.
It would be comical if the consequences weren’t so catastrophic.
History repeating itself
Poorer nations can be forgiven for approaching Bali with a high degree of scepticism. The historical landscape of sustainable development is littered with towering intentions and plunging political failures.
Kyoto has become a byword for political stalling since the climate agreement that shares its name was signed in 1997. But this was preceded by 1992's Rio Earth Summit, and other UN commissions dating back to 1980.
Now comes the moment of truth.
This year saw a landmark report on climate change published by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It warns that we are now close to catastrophic and irreversible changes and that if we continue emitting as we are, the world may warm by 6.4°C by the end of the century, making it very hard for human societies to survive.
But for many of the poorest communities, climate change is not a future threat. It is already stalking the land, bringing more drought and flooding and stormier weather. It is quite simply sending development into reverse.
In Bali, leaders from 189 countries are meeting to decide whether to act on what the IPCC says - or whether, as has happened throughout recent history, to welcome findings, speak with gravitas and then walk away.
'The industrialised world must meet the developing world way beyond the halfway point.'
Poverty is at the heart of this debate.
To put it bluntly, poor people cannot afford for there to be no outcome to talks on climate change. But they cannot currently afford for their governments to agree to what is currently on offer.
As it stands, rich countries have legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are utterly inadequate. It is impossible to see how nations which are home still to millions of poor people can be expected to bring anything to the table until they see a firm offer of very large emissions reductions in industrialised nations.
What we want
Bali will be successful if countries do not walk away and if they can agree to negotiate for the next two years. These are the four steps they need to take during these talks.
They need to agree, according to the latest and best science to what extent greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut and by when. This should be a global cut of around 80% by 2050 with a peak no later than 2015.
Second, rich countries need to agree to take on legally binding emissions reduction targets which exceed the global goal; so at least 80% by 2050.
An index needs to be agreed that ranks all countries based on their responsibility for climate change (their emissions since, say, the Rio Earth Summit) and the extent to which they can afford to pay for cuts.
A new series of financial mechanisms need to be established to ensure that countries whose responsibility and capability is low receive finance to help them develop sustainably and cleanly.
At Bali, failure is not an option. But success means the industrialised world meeting the developing world way beyond the halfway point.