Bangkok diary: acronyms, ambition and underwater meetings

Norway has proposed 40% emissions cuts. Other countries are trying to bail out of Kyoto. And as the heat rises at the Bangkok climate change talks, Ed Miliband gets a thorough basting
Lost in a forest of acronyms
What's the difference between "sustainable forest management" (SFM) and "sustainable management of forests" (SMF)? A very great deal in the surreal climate change talks here in Bangkok, where the final order of these three letters in the forestry text could make the difference between the global logging industry being subsidised by governments to continue clear-felling Africa and Indonesia, and communities being left to live in strongly protected forests. SFM is the villain – a meaningless greenwash phrase adopted widely by the global logging industry to allow it to carry on business as usual. SMF, however, emphasises conservation and protection and is backed by the likes of Greenpeace and Global Witness, as well as many countries. The problem is that the phrase SFM keeps popping up in the draft texts, courtesy of the EU, and very few diplomats have a clue which one means what.
Ed gets the gauntlet
The politicians are not here, but the G77 group of 130 developing countries is keen to send a message to the UK energy and climate change secretary, Ed Miliband. Ambassador Di-Aping Lumumba of Sudan, chair of the group, is clearly amused by Ed's statement in the Guardian earlier this week that the talks are "too important to be left to the formal negotiators". Lumumba said: "Britain are not the bad guys here. I would say the current British government just lacks the resolve. The challenge now starts with Ed Miliband. Either you are the one to direct here, or you are a general whose troops do not address your will." Quite a few people in the Foreign Office and even the cabinet probably know Lumumba, because he used to work for McKinsey and has an Oxford doctorate. But that doesn't stop him pointing the finger at the west: "Developed countries are driven here by national interests and are being pulled by very small lobby groups, and the result is no progress and a race to the bottom."
At last, some ambition
At least Norway is showing real leadership. Yesterday it came up with proposals to increase its emission cuts to 30-40% – the most ambitious target of all developed countries and what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says is needed if we are to avoid more than a 2C rise in temperature. The talks have, so far, failed to extract any other pledges from rich countries. That leaves Annex 1 (industrialised) countries promising just 13-21% cuts, if you exclude the tentative US proposal, and a meagre 11-18% with it.
A very diplomatic row
There's restrained diplomatic fury in the halls here over rich countries' moves to bail out of the existing Kyoto protocol in favour of a brand-new, weaker agreement that the US – and countries including Canada and Russia – would prefer. NGOs of all hues are piling in behind the G77 countries to try to save the Kyoto protocol. Oxfam accused rich countries of not just trying to change the rules of the game, but trying to change the game itself. "Fifteen years ago, rich countries agreed they would take the lead. In 2007 in Bali, they reaffirmed their commitments would be greater than developing countries. But here they are trying to force the G77 and China to take actions that would be unfair considering the gaping hole in rich country commitments," stormed Antonio Hill, Oxfam's senior climate adviser. The WWF piled in with a cunning plan to keep Kyoto alive with a second parallel treaty that would cover future US and developing country emissions. Which is fine, except for the fact that the poorest countries might not all agree to being in the same room as the US.
No country is an island
Britain has gone out of its way in its climate change preparations to help the weakest countries, even going as far as setting up a separate political grouping of 20 "most vulnerable" nations, mostly small Caribbean and Pacific island states that stand to go under with any sea level rises. But is there low political intent behind this? The word in the Bangkok bars is that this is a sophisticated way to split the quarrelsome but so far united G77 countries at the end of the talks when the politicians fly in, the horse-trading starts and the promises of aid and development cash are made. Countries such as India and South Africa are angry at not being included as vulnerable ("Do we not bleed too?" asked one diplomat).
Maldives meeting
Can Miliband swim? The question arises because there is idle, unconfirmed chatter in Bangkok that Britain intends to convene a November meeting in the Maldives of all the heads of states of the vulnerable countries to prepare their positions – and perhaps their cheques – before Copenhagen. The Maldives cabinet has been practising its diving skills for a meeting underwater later this month. If the British gathering goes ahead in November, too, politicians should maybe pack their wetsuits.