AS the Waters Rise

　　As world leaders met to discuss climate change at the United Nations this week, protesters outside seemed unconvinced that drowning islands and expanding deserts were the plane s biggest woe. Latin Americans lamented the imperialism of the United States. Vietnamese with Buddhist flags decried their govermnent s impiety, while emigres from Iran deplored their rulers religious fervour.

　　Inside the building, concerns were almost as diffuse. Some thought the most pressing aspect of climate change was rising sea levels; others, the growing intensity of storms and droughts; and others the spread of pests and diseases. Many poor countries felt more money was needed to address the problem; rich ones fretted about a lack of political will and popular enthusiasm. South Africa wanted more mainstreaming of women and youth . Bolivia s president, Evo Morales, called capitalism the worst enemy，A sheikh from the United Arab Emirates said too vigorous a response to global warming could wreck oil-dependent economies. And President George Bush, not content with the UN event, held his own meeting on climate change on September 27th.

　　In theory, both his gathering and the UN one aimed to foster debate about a successor to the Kyoto protocol the UN s existing treaty on climate change, which expires in 2023. But the rhetoric surrounding the two deliberations was very different. At the UN meeting, almost every leader spoke of common but differentiated responsibilities---jargon for the idea that rich countries must cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, while poor ones carry on as normal unless the rich world pays for them to clean up their act. The White House affair, meanwhile, focused on disseminating green technology. The implicit message was that binding emissions targets are counter-productive, and that any solution must involve poor countries as well as rich ones.

　　Yvo de Boer, head of the agency that oversees Kyoto and its precursor, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, says the gulf between America and the rest is less wide than it appears. Although Mr. Bush is not yet ready to contemplate a binding international treaty that would limit greenhouse-gas emissions, he does advocate policies that could help trim America s emissions. As it is, states representing over half of America s emissions have pledged cuts of some kind. Congress, meanwhile, is contemplating several bills that would impose a national cap. Australia, the other rich country that rejected Kyoto, is also working on an emissions-reduction plan.

　　Poor countries, for the most part, are still refusing to accept any targets of their own. They

　　argue that rich countries have not made enough use of the Clean Development Mechanism, a scheme under Kyoto that lets countries with emissions-reduction targets meet them in part through projects in poor countries. Cuba s foreign minister, for one, dismissed rich countries efforts to date as modestisimo: he questioned the moral authority of leaders like Mr. Bush. India merely vowed that its emissions per head would never exceed the level of rich countries, a formula that still permits enormous growth.

　　But a few developing countries hinted at a more flexible stance. Mexico suggested tying the aid given to poor countries through programmes like the CDM to their efforts to combat climate change. Indonesia s president, amid more talk of differentiated responsibilities , said all countries should take on bigger burdens, and told fellow leaders to think outside the box . There was much discussion--albeit mostly on the sidelines--of poor countries taking on targets for emissions per head, or per unit of output in certain industries.

　　All this hints at the shape of things to come. America and Australia can probably be enticed to limit emissions, especially if, as expected, both get new governments in the next year or two. But the oversight and administration of such a deal might be looser than under Kyoto, given America s suspicion of global bureaucrats. Poor countries might he induced to take on targets of some sort, albeit of a less exacting sort than the straight emissions cuts faced by rich countries. But forging such a deal could take an age: neither America nor the UN expect any conclusion before late 2008.Perhaps those low-lying islands should not count on staying dry.

　　AS the Waters Rise

　　As world leaders met to discuss climate change at the United Nations this week, protesters outside seemed unconvinced that drowning islands and expanding deserts were the plane s biggest woe. Latin Americans lamented the imperialism of the United States. Vietnamese with Buddhist flags decried their govermnent s impiety, while emigres from Iran deplored their rulers religious fervour.

　　Inside the building, concerns were almost as diffuse. Some thought the most pressing aspect of climate change was rising sea levels; others, the growing intensity of storms and droughts; and others the spread of pests and diseases. Many poor countries felt more money was needed to address the problem; rich ones fretted about a lack of political will and popular enthusiasm. South Africa wanted more mainstreaming of women and youth . Bolivia s president, Evo Morales, called capitalism the worst enemy，A sheikh from the United Arab Emirates said too vigorous a response to global warming could wreck oil-dependent economies. And President George Bush, not content with the UN event, held his own meeting on climate change on September 27th.

　　In theory, both his gathering and the UN one aimed to foster debate about a successor to the Kyoto protocol the UN s existing treaty on climate change, which expires in 2023. But the rhetoric surrounding the two deliberations was very different. At the UN meeting, almost every leader spoke of common but differentiated responsibilities---jargon for the idea that rich countries must cut their emissions of greenhouse gases, while poor ones carry on as normal unless the rich world pays for them to clean up their act. The White House affair, meanwhile, focused on disseminating green technology. The implicit message was that binding emissions targets are counter-productive, and that any solution must involve poor countries as well as rich ones.

　　Yvo de Boer, head of the agency that oversees Kyoto and its precursor, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, says the gulf between America and the rest is less wide than it appears. Although Mr. Bush is not yet ready to contemplate a binding international treaty that would limit greenhouse-gas emissions, he does advocate policies that could help trim America s emissions. As it is, states representing over half of America s emissions have pledged cuts of some kind. Congress, meanwhile, is contemplating several bills that would impose a national cap. Australia, the other rich country that rejected Kyoto, is also working on an emissions-reduction plan.

　　Poor countries, for the most part, are still refusing to accept any targets of their own. They

　　argue that rich countries have not made enough use of the Clean Development Mechanism, a scheme under Kyoto that lets countries with emissions-reduction targets meet them in part through projects in poor countries. Cuba s foreign minister, for one, dismissed rich countries efforts to date as modestisimo: he questioned the moral authority of leaders like Mr. Bush. India merely vowed that its emissions per head would never exceed the level of rich countries, a formula that still permits enormous growth.

　　But a few developing countries hinted at a more flexible stance. Mexico suggested tying the aid given to poor countries through programmes like the CDM to their efforts to combat climate change. Indonesia s president, amid more talk of differentiated responsibilities , said all countries should take on bigger burdens, and told fellow leaders to think outside the box . There was much discussion--albeit mostly on the sidelines--of poor countries taking on targets for emissions per head, or per unit of output in certain industries.

　　All this hints at the shape of things to come. America and Australia can probably be enticed to limit emissions, especially if, as expected, both get new governments in the next year or two. But the oversight and administration of such a deal might be looser than under Kyoto, given America s suspicion of global bureaucrats. Poor countries might he induced to take on targets of some sort, albeit of a less exacting sort than the straight emissions cuts faced by rich countries. But forging such a deal could take an age: neither America nor the UN expect any conclusion before late 2008.Perhaps those low-lying islands should not count on staying dry.