Two weeks of international talks in Bonn ended on something of a sour note when Saudi Arabia and two other Gulf fossil-fuel producers blocked a proposal for an updated report on the effect of a 1.5 degree increase in climate.

Agreements to date – such as they are – have focused on limiting warming to 2 degrees, but small low-lying island states fear that will be insufficient to prevent their nations becoming uninhabitable.

AFP reports:

AOSIS, supported by the European Union (EU), Australia and New Zealand, called for a technical report on the cost of reaching the 1.5 C target and the consequences of breaching it.

But it was thwarted by Saudi Arabia, with support from Kuwait and Qatar, under the UN’s consensus rule, the sources said.

Saudi Arabia and other major oil producers argue that ratcheting up action on carbon emissions will hurt their revenues as fossil-fuel consumers switch to cleaner energy.

AFP reports that the conflict, unsurprisingly, soured the mood at Bonn. So much so that someone stole and elaborately defaced Saudi Arabia’s sign.

Even while the Gulf oil disaster might be concentrating minds on the risks of fossil fuels, US Congress is now looking more unlikely ever to pass an effective climate bill.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who until recently was a key supporter of the Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade climate bill, on Wednesday threw his support behind a bill proposed by Richard Lugar, another Republican Senator, which has plenty of incentives and some regulations, but no financial mechanism for reducing  emissions.

The Union of Concerned Scientists says analysis of the outline of the Lugar bill suggests it would only reduce emissions by 9 per cent; far short of the amount expected of the US in international climate negotiations. And a failure by the US to set adequate emissions targets means that the key developing countries are unlikely to come to the table either.

If true, this could be the worst news on global climate policy since Copenhagen:

A Senate proposal setting up a cap-and-trade program to curtail greenhouse gas emissions likely will be offered on the floor later this summer as an amendment to a smaller, energy-only approach, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said today.

…

As for climate change, Schumer predicted Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) would have a chance to win 60 votes on their plan during the floor debate on the underlying Bingaman bill.

“Kerry has … done a damn good job, and he’s going to, in my opinion, get a chance to offer that amendment, and we’ll see if it has the votes.”

Emphasis ours – it’s clear that Schumer thinks it doesn’t.

In May China revealed it was struggling to meet its energy intensity targets of reducing energy per unit of GDP by 20 per cent between 2005 and 2010; something the country’s leaders seemed rather embarassed about, particularly given that new carbon intensity commitments are a key part of their climate negotiating strategy.

At the time, we wondered what sort of measures that would translate into, to curb an actual increase in intensity in recent months. Well this week China’s central bank announced what looks to be a serious measure, declaring restrictions on loans to energy-intensive sectors.

But how ambitious really is this energy-intensive goal, and the more important commitment to reduce carbon intensity?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s chief has spoken frankly about the human failings that led to the publication of the inaccurate Himalayan glaciers claim, during a review of the organisation  — but also defended the body’s underlying methods, and its use of non-peer-reviewed reports.

Rajendra Pachauri told the first meeting of the Interacademy Council’s IPCC review that the publication of the claim was a human error, and that the organisation must listen and learn.

However he added:

“Even if the glaciers don’t melt by 2035, this is what’s happening to glaciers all over the world. We know the decreases in glaciers have already contributed 28 per cent to rising sea levels since 1993.”

There’s been an awful lot of speculation about what the Gulf of Mexico oil leak will mean for the chances of an already-challenged US climate bill getting through. Intuitively, it makes sense. But looking at the Senate numbers makes passage much less convincing.

We may find out soon, as two of the original three sponsors say they will introduce the bill on Wednesday.