This week I asked some questions to Stefan Bakker who recently participated in the Bali negotiations. Stefan Bakker works as a scientific researcher with the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands. His work mainly focuses on international climate policy issues, integrating natural science, economics and social sciences. He is specialised in Kyoto flexible mechanisms, EU emissions trading and post-2012 climate policy issues.

1. What are your feelings about the Bali roadmap?

The Bali Roadmap is the starting point for negotiations on a global deal on climate change mitigation commitments, which should result in an agreement in 2009 in Copenhagen. The UN Climate Convention is a consensus-based framework in which all countries take part. Therefore coming to an agreement is not so easy, to make an understatement. So the Bali meeting can be seen as a success as it provides a framework for all countries to negotiate. The final text is rather broad and vague at some crucial points, but also includes a reference to the recent IPCC work that calls for strong action in the next decade.

2. George Monbiot wrote a raging column against the Bali treaty blaming the US for wrecking it. How did you experience the US’ involvement? (Monbiot’s column can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2228615,00.html)

Noone can deny that a more climate-friendly US position would have resulted in a much more concrete and ambitious outcome in Bali. But given the current realities across the Atlantic the framework that has been created provides room for a better future. Monbiot’s arguments against the carbon market are rather unfair if you’d ask me. Firstly, GHGs have the same impact no matter where emitted, so in the physical sense trading is no problem. Secondly, the market can be used only to a limited extent: industrialised counties have to achieve the emissions reductions mainly domestically. Thirdly, by means of trading changes in the energy system towards more sustainable options in developing countries are achieved. Finally, there is a (substantial) flow of financial and technological resources from industrialised to developing countries that would otherwise not have existed.

3. What is the most effective and easy measure every country or person could take to combat climate change in your opinion? and why?

To name two measures: move towards a vegetarian diet, and use more public transport rather than private vehicles and air planes. It has been estimated that 17% of global GHG emissions are related to meat production - this includes tropical deforestation and energy use, so a simple measure is to replace animal protein with plant-based products. The transport sector takes about 15% of emissions and is rising very rapidly. Public transport is much more efficient on a passengerkilometer basis and should therefore be promoted, and car use discouraged - e.g. by road pricing.

Vote or submit article to: