The Bali Climate Convention continues (see our coverage of the players, the state of play on eve of the convention, and day one of the summit). For those of us, like myself, who are not lucky enough to be in Bali, there is plenty of news, opinion, and speculation coming from Convention for us to collect as we anxiously await the results.

My post on day one painted a bleak picture of the likelihood for serious U.S. action, even though such action is absolutely necessary if the upcoming Bali Mandate is going to have a significant global impact. Today, however, I'd like to take a more positive note. Here are the good things coming out of Bali so far, and why we have reason for cautious optimism:

Bali talks won't agree to carbon capture

We have written a number of times before about the problems associated with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). It absolutely should not be viewed as a primary solution to global warming, and the science is not yet sure enough for it to be in the top tier of emissions-reducing technologies. There was some discussion that the Bali Convention might result in a new treaty (replacing the Kyoto Protocol) that included support for CCS.

At least for now, that won't be the case. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSCD) reports that the current Bali talks will not address CCS. Here is a quote from Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate official:

I think there's still quite a lot of concern out there about carbon capture and storage…I think more pilot projects have to be done, more analytical work has to be done really to convince the sceptics that this is a technology that can be safely applied. – Yvo de Boer

However, de Boer did note that Bali could put CCS on the agenda for later consideration. So for the time being, CCS will not be a part of the negotiations, but look out ahead.

Bush is increasingly isolated, even in the U.S.

While the talks in Bali continue, the U.S. Senate is taking a serious look at the Lieberman-Warner bill, the most popular national cap-and-trade legislation to date. The bill covers about 86% of all U.S. emissions and would reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 62-66% from 2005 levels by 2050 (World Resources Institute/National Resource Defense Council).

Today the bill is going through the markup period in the Senate Environment Committee. It is facing over 150 amendments, many of which were designed to make the entire bill a joke (Republican James Imhofe's amendment #12 "directs 20% of all auction proceeds be used to build homeless shelters for families without shelter as a result of job displacement due to this Act."). For a full list of amendments, see Hill Heat. The good news is that it looks likely that the bill will survive the amendments without being significantly weakened and will make it to a vote on the Senate floor.

With any luck, the U.S. will take action on climate change whether the administration likes it or not. Lieberman-Warner may not have enough support to pass through the full Senate, but it is a push in the right direction.

For interesting ongoing coverage of Lieberman-Warner's progress, see Brian Beutler's posts on Gristmill.

Scientists come together to "beg" for climate action

According to the New York Times, More than 215 climate scientists from around the world will announce a petition tonight that urges government leaders to take action immediately because "there is no time to lose." The petition shows that the scientific community is losing patience with government inaction and will not tolerate further disregard for the science behind climate change.

EU Environment Ministers seeking serious change

No surprise here, but it is still good news. In preparation for Bali, Environmental Ministers from the European Union put out 'building blocks' as goals for the Bali Mandate. They are:

1. A commitment to limit global average temperatures to 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels;
2. Emissions reductions by developed countries in the order of 30% by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels;
3. 'Fair and effective contributions' by developing countries;
4. Expansion of global carbon markets, including through link-ups with EU ETS;
5. More R&D and research cooperation;
6. Increased efforts to adapt to climate change;
7. Inclusion of aviation and maritime emissions; and;
8. A reduction of CO2 emissions from deforestation. - WBCSD

These may not be the most aggressive goals we could imagine, but they are far more than has been accomplished so far. The E.U. will be supporting these goals throughout the Bali Convention.

Correction: Lichtenstein has ratified Kyoto

I cited a NY Times Dot Earth column in my last post that claimed that the U.S. and Lichtenstein were the only developed nations remaining to have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol (after Australia's ratification earlier this week). It turns out that Dot Earth and I were wrong: Lichtenstein is a member of Kyoto. Sorry about that, Lichtenstein.

I guess that leaves the U.S. totally alone.

What Bali must achieve: pipe dreams or pushing the agenda?

On Monday, the Institute for Policy Studies and the International Forum on Globialization published a paper entitled "A Call for Climate Talks to Accelerate Global Economic and Energy Transition: What Bali Must Achieve". The letter lays out a "new architecture for global economic and energy governance" that Bali must utilize in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

If you have the time, it is really worth reading. Just a few of the elements of the new architecture:

• Articulate and implement new development models which give priority not to economic growth per se, but to satisfying basic human rights and basic human needs for all (such as survival, sufficiency, freedom, identity).
• Replace today's main measurement of economic well-being Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with new economic indicators that measure meaningful progress toward economies designed to remain within the earth's carrying capacity
• Create a Global Clean Energy Fund that would generate finances from right nations and the rich within all nations…to help poorer nations leapfrog over the dirty industrial paths of most rich nations
• Create a Global Financing Mechanism that enable economically poor but resource rich nations to keep their forests and biodiversity intact, and their fossil fuels under the ground, without sacrificing their own ecologically sustainable development

Tom Athanasiou, one of the signatories to the paper, noted on Gristmill that these goals are simply not realistic. At this point, this kind of agenda is so distant it is hard to even imagine. However, he says, this isn't reason to despair or give up.

Peering forward into the fog, the question is how to prepare for the political and institutional transition that's so clearly necessary, and to do so while at the same time winning the ground war. So please, the fight in Bali—a fight to lay down a negotiating timeline that will lead to a meaningful successor agreement to Kyoto—is not a 'surreal waste of time,' as I heard it called just this morning. Keep your eye, instead, on the ball—the successor agreement. – Gristmill

The tenets in the new architecture may not be adopted at Bali. However, they do keep legitimate ideas afloat and push the agenda ever so slightly toward real action.

The big downside: China and India bristle at the idea of emissions reductions

I know this is supposed to be a positive article, but I can't avoid noting this. Perhaps the biggest concern behind whether the U.S. will step up is how India and China, the two emerging superpowers, will accept binding emissions reduction goals. On this front, things are not looking good. China and India have consistently dismissed claims that they should cap their own emissions, stating that economic development and poverty alleviation are more important right now.

Even a United Nations Human Development report that suggested developing countries cut emissions by 20 per cent by 2050, while rich nations slash theirs by four-fifths, was enough to infuriate Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the head of India's planning commission. - WBCSD

We'll have to wait and see if China and India are willing to make any concessions at all.

So with a number of reasons not to despair, but a few to consider it, watch Bali closely. If only the U.S., China and India would listen to scientists, the E.U., the business community, and the New Architecture, we might see something amazing.