KEY POINTS:
Apec goals on tackling climate change may prove useful by putting more pressure on developing nations such as China to take responsibility for carbon emissions, while acknowledging the limited capacity of countries like New Zealand to respond.
That's the view of one local expert responding to this week's announcement from Sydney, which was panned as insubstantial by Greenpeace.
The Herald asked commentators what - if anything - the agreement would mean for climate change.
JULIA HOARE
Climate change adviser
The "aspirational goals" which arose from the Apec meeting in Sydney were fairly predictable, said Ms Hoare, an Auckland partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers.
But there were a number of positives, such as the support of low emission technologies. She was also encouraged by moves by countries such as the United States towards being overt about the need to reduce emissions and acknowledging that each country had some responsibility.
She found Apec references to equitable arrangements interesting, given one of the key issues and stumbling blocks in the Kyoto agreement was how it distinguished between developed and developing countries.
For developing countries like China and many others in the Asia-Pacific region, it was held that while they should try to look at introducing emission-friendly technologies and measures, their economies should still be allowed to develop.
Ms Hoare was also encouraged by a statement that acknowledged the need to respect differences in domestic circumstances and capacities of countries to respond. She said New Zealand already used a high percentage of hydro-electricity and other renewable sources, with only about one third supplied by fossil fuels - unlike Australia, which was heavily reliant on them.
CATHERINE BEARD
Business lobbyist
Ms Beard, the executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition which represents New Zealand's large carbon emitters, said anything a country did on its own would have little impact, so global action was needed.
She did not see anything in the Apec leaders' declaration to indicate that would happen but getting the leaders together to talk about climate change might help countries to move from their entrenched negotiating positions.
It was encouraging that the Sydney declaration focused on the importance of forests, given question marks around being able to count forests as carbon sinks, she said.
JOHN BLAKELEY
Energy researcher
Mr Blakeley, a research fellow with the Sustainable Energy Research Group, was unimpressed with the agreement's aspirational goals which had no teeth or method of enforcement.
He said that without mandatory targets, which the European Union was already applying to its member countries, it was difficult to establish a reliable international price for emissions trading. "An aspirational goal doesn't actually require any country to do very much."
But the value of the Apec declaration was that it did represent 41 per cent of the world's population, he said.
Mr Blakeley said although the US and Australia were keen to promote clean coal use and carbon capture and storage, he had serious doubts about the technical feasibility of trapping large amounts of carbon dioxide permanently below ground.
CINDY BAXTER
Greenpeace climate campaigner
Greenpeace was also critical of the "vague" goals, saying only binding targets to reduce greenhouse emissions can save the world from the dangerous impacts of climate change.
Ms Baxter said the failure of Apec to produce meaningful progress on climate change confirmed that the place to do that was at the Kyoto negotiations in Bali in December.
NICK LEWIS
Climate website boss
Mr Lewis, the chief executive of climate change website Celsias, said the goals were helpful in that they were measurable. But he said the climate change community still felt like "Noah just before the great flood"; wondering when real, substantive action would be taken with bold political leadership.
