The World

I won’t make sarcastic comments about the "carbon footprint" caused by all those world leaders convening in Bali to discuss climate change. Everybody else has already made the same point. Plus, I hate the phrase "carbon footprint". And I have some sympathy with the urge to visit Bali. Its a really nice place – the Four Seasons in Bali is probably the best hotel I have ever stayed in. I wish the delegates joy of it.

But all the bitching about Bali is in danger of obscuring the real point. Climate change is a really, really serious threat – and it is good that world leaders are at least trying to do something about it – even if they have chosen to meet in a luxury resort. Let me direct you to two articles that I think give a good idea of what is at stake.

The first piece is by Nicholas Stern, author of the eponymous report on the economic consequences of climate change. I’ve seen Stern perform a couple of times, and his style is academic and dry: he comes across as the very opposite of an hysteric. So when he warns that by doing too little about global warming – "We risk damage on a scale larger than the two world wars of the past century" – it is quite sobering.

If you want a more detailed idea of how that damage might manifest itself over the next 30 years, take a look at an article in the latest edition of the "Washington Quarterly" about the national security implications of climate change. By framing global warming as a question of national security, the authors clearly hope to convince Pentagon-types that they too should be paying attention. This is not just an issue for Greens and liberals. The piece is co-authored by John Podesta, who was once chief of staff for Bill Clinton, so I think it gives a good indication of how seriously senior Democrats are taking global warming.

Podesta and Ogden paint a portrait of a "world in which people and nations will be threatened by massive food and water shortages, devastating natural disasters and deadly disease outbreaks." They flesh out this alarming generalisation with detailed examinations of how desertification will affect – for example – Nigeria or China. And they examine what the economic and political consequences of these changes are likely to be. It does not make cheering reading.

The sad thing is that I have very little confidence that Bali will really produce something worthwhile to ward off the worst risks. There are two obvious problems. First, while politicians like to talk about the long-term, they are short-term animals. Faced with a choice of curtailing economic growth now – or passing a risk onto future generations, they will almost always find reasons to do the latter. Second, I cannot see a way around the developing world V rich world problem. Stern argues that the most equitable solution would be for the richest countries to bear 80% of the burden of carbon-dioxide emissions reductions. Try selling that to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire.