Sounds like the talks in Bali to create an international framework for controlling carbon emissions were, to put it lightly, dramatic. The US proved so intransigent, apparently, that our European allies abandoned us, our Asian allies stepped back, and every time our representative stepped onto the stage, the assembled delegates booed and hissed. By the edn of it, the international opprobrium had grown so intense that we caved. Problem is, I can't seem to figure out what we caved on. The current administration wanted the agreement to allow every country to set their own voluntary emissions targets, which is laughable, a bit like letting an alcoholic set what he thinks is a reasonable amount of drinking. But while global goals are included in the document, they're merely referenced in the preamble, and have been basically tabled till the next meeting, when the hope is that a more globally minded U.S president will support serious emissions control. The fight on the floor stemmed from India's proposal to add language requiring developed nations to provide technological help to poorer nations. Seems sensible enough, but we opposed the language and then, in the face of unanimous condemnation, reversed. That's good, but it's not clear to me exactly what was won, or whether the language actually forces a substantive commitment or adds in a useful enforcement mechanism.
