The Bali Finale: Oxfam’s Verdict

December 15, 2007 at 10:01 am 13 comments

Statements by Antonio Hill, senior climate change policy advisor, the international development agency Oxfam, on the United Nations Climate Change Conference that has ended today in Bali, Indonesia.

“Bali has for the first time drawn up a roadmap for all countries to tackle climate change. But a handful of powerful countries have relegated the overwhelming scientific evidence to a footnote. The Bush Administration—dragging Canada, Japan and Russia in tow—has thrown away the compass and is trying to force us all to take the journey in a gas-guzzling 4×4, not the solar-powered speedster that the world urgently needs.”

“The Bali result sets the stage for addressing fairness—all countries will have to limit emissions. But rich countries will have to kick the carbon habit first and poor countries need to see them do it. A door has been held opened for the US to join. The danger is that developing countries will be forced through the same door.”

“Without a clear range for the global emissions cuts needed, this deal fails to keep us from the brink of exceeding 2°C of warming. Far from the negotiating halls of Bali, poor people waist-high in floods and children malnourished by failed harvests will demand to know, why did world leaders not see what we face and act urgently to stop it?”

“This outcome is a clear call to the citizens of the United States, Canada, Japan and Russia. Demand more. Only you can push your governments to deliver justice for poor people facing the next drought, flood or cyclone.”

“Developing countries came to Bali ready to talk, willing to listen, but also demanding to be heard. A handful of the richest nations—led by the Bush Administration—have rebuffed their will and sapped the strength of what Bali had to offer. It’s a deep insult to the world’s poorest people.”

“All the countries of the world are now united around delivering the Bali Roadmap by 2009, despite repeated US moves to hollow out these talks. But the level of ambition in the agreement still does not match the urgent need. The cost of not going far enough will be felt a long way from the air-conditioned halls of this luxury hotel. It will be paid in poor countries, by women and men forced to reap the failed harvests of our collective inaction.”

On Adaptation:

“At long last the UN climate talks have started to grapple with the devastating impacts climate change is already having on the world’s poorest people. Coping with these impacts comes at a price that rich polluters must pay. Under pressure from developing countries, Bali has delivered clear progress: a fund for adaptation is now in place and all countries agree that more money must be raised. But with estimated costs exceeding $50 billion annually, we now need to see rich countries put some serious money forward.”

Ends

For further information or to arrange interviews, please contact:

Nicky Wimble +62 (0) 818-0549-6152 nwimble@oxfam.org.uk

Jason Garman +62 (0) 819-3612-4983 jason@oxfam.org.nz

Indonesian press: Yon Thayrun +62 0812 6989 619 ythayrun@oxfam.org.uk

About these ads

Entry filed under: United Nations Climate Change Conference. Tags: .

Climate Action Network reaction to the 2007 UN Climate Change Conference outcome People power prevails in the Philippines

13 Comments Add your own

  • 1. zeropointnine blog » Bali Result  |  December 15, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    [...] Oxfam have a summary of statements by its Climate Change expert Antonio Hill. [...]

    Reply
  • 2. Laura Morgan  |  December 17, 2007 at 12:02 am

    I agree it’s time someone like yourself pressed for further action on a much larger scale (as will the thousands of campaigners such as myself will follow) Thankyou

    Reply
  • 3. nev mignot  |  December 17, 2007 at 9:31 am

    Once again i can call myself a proud Australian, while dissapointed that our PM did not give targets to be achieved, i applaud Mr Rudd on signing the agreement,……….. ‘onya Kev..

    Reply
  • 4. Steve Salmony  |  December 17, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    Dear Friends,

    From my vantage point, perhaps now is an occasion to momentarily discuss the human overpopulation of Earth and how a population of 6.63 billion people now can SUSTAINABLY GROW to a projected 9.2 billion people in 2050. That is a 40% increase in the global human population in the next 43 years.

    Let’s look at what is happening now. We have millions of people who are conspicuously over-consuming Earth’s limited resources and becoming obese; on the other hand, billions of people do not have substantial sustenance, are going hungry, living in poverty and many are emaciated.

    How on this good Earth are we going to manage properly 2 1/2 billion additional people to our current numbers by 2050 and improve life for the family of humanity? Is such a goal realistic? If so, how? If not, then what can be done to move forward in a more humane, reality-oriented way, thereby preserving life as we know it and the integrity of Earth? Skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers could soon threaten life as we know it; and obscence per human over-consumption of resources, at a rate that dissipates Earth’s resources faster than they can be restored for human benefit, could irreversibly degrade our planetary home.

    Scientific research, reason and common sense fail to provide good evidence of how “proper management” and “improvement in human wellbeing and environmental health” are realistically accomplished between now and 2050. I am supposing that we cannot keep doing what we are doing now: that is, over-consuming and overpopulating the planet we inhabit. Ideas of “staying the current course” remind me of magical thinking and such a strategy looks like a prescription for disaster.

    For example, the seemingly endless growth of cities, or of any other human construction, for that matter, is bound to become patently unsustainable at some point in time in a finite world, will it not? Whatsoever is is, is it not…..regardless of human wishes and intentions to the contrary?

    Is it reasonable and sensible to consider an alternative? Let us examine the probability that in 2050, we will have millions more people over-consuming resources, just as we are doing now. We will also have billions more people going without substantial sustenance by 2050.

    If such an unsustainable situation was somehow likely to occur in first half of Century XXI, then we could begin now to protectively and ably respond by putting forward a humane and more reality-oriented “action plan” both for limiting per-capita over-consumption of finite resources and rapidly reducing absolute global human population numbers.

    Always,

    Steve

    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population

    Reply
  • 5. Ajit Kumar  |  December 21, 2007 at 6:19 am

    Agreed, but the challenge now for us is how to uniite the people of the world, including these countries.

    We are a group working on Climate Change in India and organise interactive seminars addressing by top experts leading to actionplan. We are looking for partners to fulfil these aims and who can raise financial resources. We are managing the communication and networking and have now a high profile group of experts and young researcher who are helping us take this forwrd.

    Reply
  • 6. Steve Salmony  |  December 23, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    Are we fiddling while ‘Rome is burning’ and Earth is overheating?

    Are we communicating as if we are living in a modern day Tower of Babel? Is our spectacular failure to communicate reasonably and sensibly about whatsoever is somehow real, and to widely share adequate understandings regarding both the family of humanity within the natural order of living things and the limitations of the planet we inhabit, in evidence here and now.

    Perhaps the human community is indeed in a serious predicament, but only in part because of the objective biological and physical circumstances defining our distinctly human-driven predicament. The global challenges in the offing are further complicated by our incredible failure to communicate effectively about the potentially pernicious results derived from having recklessly grown a soon to become patently unsustainable, colossal global economy, one that we have artificially designed, conveniently constructed, and unrealistically expanded without regard for the requirements of biophysical reality.

    Could it be that the current scale and unchecked growth rate of the global economy is unsustainably driving both per human over-consumption and unrestrained human population growth toward the collapse of Earth’s ecology?

    Sincerely,

    Steve

    Reply
  • 7. Steve Salmony  |  December 26, 2007 at 1:56 pm

    OUR contrived logic, linear thinking, material obsessiveness and mechanistic world view, that we see pervading the predominant culture on Earth in OUR time, could result in the children following OUR EXAMPLE and recklessly charging down a “primrose path” to be confronted by a colossal ecologic or economic wreckage, the likes of which only Ozymandias has seen.

    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
    http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

    Reply
  • 8. Steven Earl Salmony, Ph.D., M.P.A.  |  December 28, 2007 at 1:41 pm

    Humanity is in danger of losing the exquisite value of one of God’s great gifts: the carefully and skillfully developed science on climate change and global warming.

    Is it possible that the standard for determining what is real and true in our culture today is this: whatsoever is widely shared, consensually validated and judged to be ecomonically expedient, politically convenient, socially agreeable and religiously tolerated is true and real?

    At least to me, it seems that good science is being ignored, distractions presented ubiquitously, controversy literally manufactured, or else silence allowed to prevail when reasonable and sensible scientific evidence comes into conflict with what culture prescribes as real and true. Perhaps science does present culture with evidence of inconvenient truths.

    Despite our best efforts, could it be that my not-so-great generation of elders is communicating with one another and our children as if we are living in a modern day Tower of Babel? Is our noticeable failure to communicate reasonably and sensibly about whatsoever is somehow real, and to widely share adequate understandings regarding both how the family of humanity “fits” within the natural order of living things and what are the limitations of the planet we inhabit, in evidence here and now?

    It appears that the human community is indeed in a serious multifaceted predicament, but only in part because of the objective biological and physical circumstances defining our distinctly human-driven predicament. The global challenges in the offing are further complicated by our failure to communicate effectively about the potentially pernicious results that could be derived fom having recklessly grown a soon to become patently unsustainable, colossal global economy, one which we have artificially designed, conveniently constructed, and relentlessly expanded without enough conscious, intelligent regard for the practical requirements of biophysical reality.

    Could it be that the current gigantic scale and unchecked growth rate of the global economy is unsustainably driving increases both in adamant per human over-consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers toward the point in human history when the willful, rampant, unregulated growth of consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species precipitates the collapse of Earth’s ecology, even in these early years of Century XXI?

    Your consideration is appreciated; your comments are welcome.

    Reply
  • 9. Steve Salmony  |  December 29, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    An Abysmal Absence of Leadership at every level of governance?

    If people are consuming resources unsustainably, perhaps doing less consuming will help. Voila!

    Now, I ask you, where can we find leaders for these times, ones willing to speak out clearly, loudly and openly about the challenges posed to humanity by rapacious human over-consumption of the limited resources of Earth?

    Sincerely,

    Steve

    Steve Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population

    Reply
  • 10. Steve Salmony  |  January 5, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    Dear Friends,

    Perhaps we can agree that global challenges, already visible on the far horizon, could soon be posed to humanity. Because economic globalization could be approaching a point in human history when it becomes patently unsustainable on a planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth, the current scale and unbridled growth of global consumption/production/propagation activities of the human species could produce a colossal wreckage of either the global economy or Earth’s ecology, even in these early years of Century XXI.

    If leaders are presented with a forced choice between protecting the global economy and preserving Earth’s ecology, it seems crystal clear to me that the leadership of the kind we have today will reflexively choose the economy…..first, last and always.

    What do you think?

    Sincerely,

    Steve

    Steve Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001

    Reply
  • 11. Dawn  |  January 11, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    If change is going to happen, locally, nationally or globally, it must happen first in me.
    Which of us wants to give up our way of life: using our private vehicles, holidays abroad, not using high energy technology and gadgets, not having the goods we desire, which we have at the expense of our world’s resources and climate.
    We do want something to happen, but we don’t want to personally have to make the sacrifices. We want policy to change, to blame the leaders and join campaigns, but we don’t want to have to change.
    Supporting good causes, buying organic and ‘fair trade’ make us in the rich West feel better about ourselves and feel we’ve done something. We doubt that making fewer car journeys will really make any difference.
    I think we need to see more real facts about what is happening to the climate, what exactly is causing it and exactly what we in the West need to do and how that will make a difference. We need to know if it is reversible, for example, and whether national change ( meaning what to me in real terms?) would really produce demonstrable effect.
    I support all the causes for saving our planet and am not at all a high consumer, but I know that we are selfish and need to believe that we could really make a difference before we could make life changes and sacrifice.
    Sincerely,
    Dawn

    Reply
  • 12. oxfam  |  April 24, 2008 at 10:21 am

    [...] good article – the economic and ethical costs of inaction on climate change are staggering!http://oxfaminternational.wordpress.com/2007/12/15/the-bali-finale-oxfams-verdict/Campaign Expired2004 oxfam America. oxfam America is a member of oxfam International &middot Privacy [...]

    Reply
  • 13. Ben  |  May 22, 2008 at 12:23 pm

    My YouTube comment from the UK on Nairobi negotiations which Oxfam gave the thumbs up, despite Channel 4…
    Excellent report there, but please, as part of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition, don’t fly Antonio!! (Though Chris Martin should comment on jet-travel too)
    Why not use YouTube as linked, which the foreign Secretary doesn’t seem to have noticed, as the question was not picked by Avaaz in their online conference.
    Why not use Skype, telephone, Yahoo! or a million other ways to link up online? Sure it’s not the same as a “luxury hotel” but at least you dont’ come home feeling like a climate criminal.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


This Blog in Other Languages

Watch our Videos


Our Flickr Photos

Civil Society groups call for #ClimateAction as IPCC meets, March 2014

Water point set up by Oxfam at UN House, Juba

More Photos
=0); if(iie>0)inavi=parseInt(inav.substring(iie+5));else inavi=parseFloat(inav); //-->0?s.colorDepth:s.pixelDepth);sr=s.width+"&"+s.height; //--> sv=13; =0){s=s.substring(0,p)+r+s.substring(p+f.length,s.length);p=s.indexOf(f)}return s} function cesc(s){if(s.length>0) return irs(irs(irs(irs(irs(s,'+','%2B'),'.','%2E'),'/','%2F'),'=','%3D'),'&','%26') ; else return s;} function iesc(s){return cesc(escape(s));} function gpr(){ var pr='', ipw=window, ipr='window', iwL='', ipL=''; while (ipL==iwL){ iw=ipw; pr=iw.document.referrer; if(intp) break;if((''+iw.parent.location)=='')break; iwL=(iw.document.location.protocol+'//'+iw.document.location.hostname).toLowerCase(); ipL=pr.substring(0,iwL.length).toLowerCase(); ipr=ipr+'.parent'; ipw=eval(ipr); if (iw==ipw) break;}return pr;} function itrc(){var nw=new Date(),ce=2,iul=''; if (dt.cookie) ce=1; else {var ex=new Date(nw.getTime()+1000); dt.cookie="itc=3; EXPIRES="+ex.toGMTString()+"; path=/";if (dt.cookie) ce=1;} if(inavi>=4) iul=iesc(iie>0&&nr.userLanguage?nr.userLanguage:nr.language); var un=Math.round(Math.random()*2100000000); il=isl+un+"&"+iesc(gpr())+"%20&"+cesc(pqry)+"%20&"+cesc(rqry)+"%20&" +cesc(sqry)+"%20&"+ce+"&"+sr+"&"+px+"&"+je+"&"+sv+"&"+iul+"%20&"+nw.getTimezoneOffset()+"&"+iesc(idl)+"%20"; if(iie>0 && il.length>2045)il=il.substring(0,2045); var iin='itr235', iwri=true; if(dt.images){if(!dt.images[iin])dt.write(''); if(dt.images[iin]){dt.images[iin].src=il+'&0';iwri=false;}} if(iwri)dt.write('');} var idl=window.location.href;var isl="http"+(idl.indexOf('https:')==0?'s':'')+"://oxfam.intelli-direct.com/e/t3.dll?235&"; itrc(); //--> 0)dt.write("

Help promote our blog

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Feeds


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.