Bali map unclear on final destination

UPTON AT LARGE - SIMON UPTON

Two weeks ago, I predicted that the Bali climate conference would be about keeping a negotiating process alive rather than actually doing anything about global warming.

That is what has happened. Brandishing something called the Bali Road Map, delegates have flown home for Christmas with a mandate to continue discussions for a further two years.

It is a road map whose authors were only able to specify their destination in the most general terms – "a shared vision for long-term cooperative action including a long-term global goal for emissions reductions".

It's a bit like organising a treasure hunt and confirming that it will end somewhere in the North Island.

As for getting on the trail, the parties have committed themselves to considering (that is the governing verb) some carefully guarded possibilities.

Confident that you will not be rushing to the UNFCCC website to absorb the entire text of the agreement, the precise formula that developed countries have agreed to consider is: "Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, including quantitative emissions limitation and reduction objectives while ensuring the comparability of efforts among them, taking into account differences in their national circumstances."

Onerous indeed. Against that, developing countries have agreed to consider a slightly less wordy menu which encompasses: "Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation actions in the context of sustainable development supported by technology and enabled by financing and capacity-building."

Old hands will recognise the coded entrails of debates that have raged for 15 years now since the original convention was negotiated in Rio.

We should not be surprised by the glacial pace with which diplomacy is advancing. This is the ultimate challenge – a global environmental problem whose solution implies profound distributional consequences.

Underlying the global economy are starkly different national circumstances and interests. The only clear and unambiguous element of the road map is the agreement that negotiations shall be completed in 2009.

In short, a lumbering vehicle with several steering wheels and more reverse than forward gears has been launched with a bunch of navigators still trying to finish the itinerary.

The road map is not holiday reading. In stark contrast is the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, summaries of which have just been issued.

Covering the science base, mitigation options and adaptation to the inevitability of climatic change, these summaries of the past five years' research are fascinating – and a model of reader- friendly clarity.

Reflecting past controversies about the probity of scientific and technical summaries produced by an inter-governmental process, the Fourth Assessment Report draws a careful distinction between levels of confidence in scientific understanding and the likelihood of specific events.

The language deployed in the reports has been standardised so that the same terms (that is, "very likely" or "very unlikely") correspond to consistent probability estimates, making it likely that at the margin, judgments will err on the conservative side.

There are acres of beautifully produced figures and tables. I particularly commend the first summary entitled The Physical Science Base.

Following the technical summary there is a crisp, bullet point reckoning of robust findings and key uncertainties and 30 pages of answers to frequently asked questions.

These will be a boon to teachers and journalists bamboozled by half-baked claims and sloppy reporting. Many of the anecdotes used either to discount or promote the nature of the climate challenge are patiently placed in the context of current understanding.

I take some additional pleasure from the fact that one of its editors, Dr Martin Manning, is a New Zealander who has laboured in this field for decades. It is the sober, careful statement of uncertainties that is the most impressive thing about this report. There has been a huge quantity of research undertaken during the past 15 years. We know a great deal more than we did at the time the convention was signed, as well as having a clearer idea of what we don't know but need to.

The big science gap for me is the stability of the two large, potentially unstable ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica.

The disappearance of either would represent an additional seven metres on world sea levels. Simple melting is thought to be a slow process that will take centuries.

But the possibility exists that large volumes of ice might be physically destabilised and slide into the sea. That could happen a lot more quickly.

On this point the report notes laconically that limited knowledge of the way ice sheets behave implies "large uncertainties".

While our leaders are busily poring over their road map, we can only hope this risk turns out the right way.

- © Fairfax NZ News