One thing I had thought about blogging before US attempts to turn the bali roap map into road kill, was how much fun listening to the EU press conference was yesterday. These are ministers; they don’t want to have public spats. In particular this is the EU – so it’s all very diplomatic and polite. But the message to the US that we’re not taking any more of your shit, was clear.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get into see Gore but watched him on screen –it was perfect timing. Another reason to be positive about the backlash, and the fact that people are telling the Bush administration where to go.

The science, as determined by the world’s most eminent climate scientists, Nobel Prize winners the IPCC, dictates that we more than halve global emissions by mid-century. That’s not so far away, and makes critical the need for 25-40% emission reductions by industrialised countries, that have dominated the discussion.

And the EU was saying that: this is what we need and we’re not backing down. Dimas, hero of the Anti GMO movement also made some cracking comments to the new Australian government.

Here are some examples from my notes, they may well just sound like diplobabble, which they were, but in reality they were dynamite. One little disclaimer - this is no transcript, just my rough notes:

Q: What’s this we hear about the EU boycotting the Major Emitters Meeting?

A: The EU has no intention of a boycott, we cherish the MEM process and believe can be fed into UNFCCC. But if we have failure here, it would be pointless to attend the MEM.

Q. Did you tell the US that unless the 25-40% emissions reductions range was in the text you would not go to MEM?

A: We need substantial agreement here in Bali or MEM is pointless.

Q. (same speaker) – yes but unless did you say 25-40% range or no MEM?

A: We’re not blackmailing anyone. This is logic, not blackmail.

Q. What is the bottom line of breaking point?

A. Whatever comes out of Bali must rely on science, linking to IPCC findings is fundamental.

AUSTRALIA – get it together!

Q. Where does New Australian government stand on preamble [where the 25-40% ranges are] at the moment?

A. The New PM of Australia has lost an opportunity to commit to range but there is still time, because otherwise signing Kyoto Protocol will not have substance.

Q. Which advisor did you tell that Rudd had missed an opportunity by not supporting 25-40% target?

A. One who has less hair than myself. I have not heard that Australia doesn’t support the ranges, but we need to hear from them that they do.