(c)yomiuri online

The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) won 308 of the 480 seats though the ruling bloc of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito got only 140 seats in the Lower House election on Sunday. This is a landslide victory for DPJ, as DPJ had only 115 seats while the ruling bloc had 331 seats before the election. It can be called ‘revolution’ because LDP was out of power for only 11 months (1993-1994) and was always the largest party.

Then, the question is ‘can the new government led by DPJ reduce GHG emissions more than the Government led by LDP/New Komeito for the greener future?’

As climate change issues were not sufficiently discussed during an election campaign period because other topics such as employment and social welfare were main issues, it is difficult to answer the question.

However, as shown in the previous post, as far as climate change issues are concerned, DPJ is more ambitious and environmental groups and environmentalists normally support DPJ. Indeed, DPJ proposes stricter mid-term targets than the Government in its manifesto. Namely, DPJ promises to cut GHG emissions reductions by 30 percent below the 2005 level by 2020 though the government’s target is 15 percent. Before the Government chose this target, the Economic bloc (e.g. the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Nippon Keidanren) proposed 4% while the Environment bloc (e.g. the Ministry of the Environment and environmental NGOs) suggested 20-30%. Thus, the LDP’s proposal is a compromise but the DPJ’s proposal is clearly the one proposed by the environment bloc.

Although there seems a big difference between them, the difference might not be so big because 15 percent is the total amount of ‘domestic’ reductions of GHG gas emissions while 30 percent is the total amount of reductions achieved by reducing domestic GHG gas emissions as well as buying carbon credits, GHG absorption by forests and plants, and etc.  Nonetheless, according to an anonymous highly-ranked official of the Ministry of the Environment, ‘the DPJ’s targets are clearly stricter.’ Katsuya Okada, the Secretary-General of DPJ, emphasizes, ‘by setting ambitious targets, we want to take an initiative in international negotiation on climate change.’ In order to achieve the targets, DPJ has considered introduction of a wide range of measures, such as a domestic emissions trading system and a global warming tax, though Japanese industries have been strongly against these measures.

The DPJ’s proposal has been severely criticized mainly by LDP and industries as infeasible and unrealistic, again as told in the previous post. For instance, Akihiro Sawa, a senior researcher at the 21st century public policy institute, a thinktank established by Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation), criticized the proposal because of three reasons.  First, according to Sawa, DPJ has not clarified how much the costs to achieve its proposed targets will be. While LDP clarified that the costs will be 76,000 yen per year per household, DPJ has not. Second, he argued that though a domestic emissions trading system and a global warming tax (environmental tax) cannot be introduced at the same time in terms of policy objectives and policy effects, DPJ considers introducing both. Third, he maintained that, although DPJ insists that Japan will be highly evaluated by the world and take an initiative in international negotiation on climate change by setting the mid-term targets as 30%, the world would not evaluate Japan so highly because developing countries such as India and China required industrialized nations to reduce GHG emissions more.

Further, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry pointed out that if Japan is to achieve the mid-term targets of DPJ, it would cost more than 190 trillion yen for ten years, leading to critical economic damages to the Japanese economy, while the Government’s targets would require approximately 62 trillion yen. Moreover, Tetsuo Saito, Minister for the Environment, criticized that though DPJ proposes stricter targets in its manifesto, DPJ inconsistently proposes  to make highway charges free, which would lead to increases in CO2 emissions from automobiles.

Thus, it is now unclear whether the new government led by DPJ can reduce GHG emissions more than the Government led by LDP/New Komeito for the greener future. However, one thing that is clear is that DPJ will attempt to reduce GHG emissions more than the Government whether its attempt will be successful or not.

On 22 July, Shoji Muneoka, the chairman of the Japan Iron and Steal Foundation (JISF), at its regular press conference criticized the largest opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) because its mid-term target of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions by 2020 is not realistic.

Compared to the current government led by the coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito, DPJ proposes a surprisingly ambitious proposal for global warming. Indeed, while the Government’s mid-term target of GHG emissions reductions by 2020 is to cut them by 15 percent below the 2005 levels, DPJ proposes 30 percent.

It is now highly probable that DPJ will gain a majority in the next election for the House of Representatives on 30 August and a government led by DPJ will be established for the first time.

Consequently, major economic groups have recently been seriously aware of its proposal and demanding reconsideration for DPJ.
Muneoka claimed that though the mid-term target of the Government is severe enough for industries, it is hardly understandable that DPJ proposes twice as strict a mid-term target as the Government’s target. He further points out that achieving the DPJ’s mid-term target would generate 800,000 to 1,200,000 of the employed and it is thus necessary for DPJ to show a proposal that carefully considers impacts upon Japanese economy and people.
Similarly, the Economic Association of Japan currently criticized that a proposal of DPJ is idealistic and DPJ should understand the economic situations. Further, on 17 July, Shosuke Mori, the chairman of the Federation of Electirc Power Companies of Japan, at the summer seminar of the Japan Association of Corporate Executives, claimed its proposal is unrealistic saying ‘DPJ should make clear impacts of its climate change proposal on economy and people.

Indeed, the DPJ’s proposal cannot be seen as realistic. In order to achieve this ambitious target, for example, DPJ insists on the creation of a global warming tax. However, DPJ decided not to clarify contents of the tax in its manifesto because there has been a conflicting idea on its contents within DPJ, some proposing the creation of carbon tax and others suggesting increase in consumption tax. Both plans seem difficult for DPJ because labour unions, the mainstay of support for DPJ, can hardly support carbon tax as it would be a heavy burden for the economy and because DPJ promises not to raise the consumption tax rate for four years.

In addition, though, DPJ mostly neglects negative impacts placed on people and economy by its mid-term target because economic growth stimulated by environmental investment, it insists, can avoid them. Consequently, the DPJ’s proposal for global warming in the election is much more stringent than the proposal of LDP as LDP takes carefully into consideration negative effects of its proposal. DPJ tends to propose attractive proposals for everyone without showing their negative effects. For instance, while DPJ proposes such an ambitious target for GHG emissions reductions, it contradictorily promises to make highway charges free, which might lead to increase in CO2 emissions from automobiles.

Though the DPJ’s ambitious proposal for GHG emissions reductions is surely welcomed, DPJ should concretely clarify ways to achieve it and its negative effects on people and economy.

… but doesn’t agree on when to turn down the heat. This is Oxfam’s resumé on the freshly released G8 climate change communiqué. Leaders could not improve on last year’s commitment of “a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050”. They did however agree that to reach such a global reduction, developed countries will have to reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050. There was no agreement on a specific year as a baseline, and the final wording – “compared to 1990 or more recent years” – reflects the disagreement between the EU who pushed for a 1990 baseline and the USA and Japan who want future emissions to be compared to a more recent reference year.

As hoped and expected, it was agreed, however, that “the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2°C.” This is the first time that the US has officially agreed to such a target, something that would have been unimaginable under George W. Bush. The Canadians were opposed to this statement earlier this week, but after long negotiations and NGO campaigns from the likes of Avaaz, Canada accepted the language.

Like last year, no interim goal has been agreed on, though the EU’s push for a 2020 goal is reflected in the statement that a 50% reduction by 2050 “implies that global emissions need to peak as soon as possible and decline thereafter”. This lack of an interim target does not sit well with a 2°C target as Kim Carstensen, leader of the WWF Global Climate Initiative, puts it: “What are [world leaders] going to do between now and 2020? If they don’t outline a path to reach the announced goal, the 2 degree statement will just join a long list of broken promises.”

In the short term, they will be working on their economic recovery. The deterioration of the economic climate is noticeable throughout the document. Yet, positively, the trend to “green” individual stimulus packages (at least rhetorically) has been picked up in the communiqué: “We must seize the opportunity to build on synergies between actions to combat climate change and economic recovery initiatives, and encourage growth and sustainable development worldwide.”

For those interested in adaptation and forestry, the document seems to have something on offer.  The document mentions the “possible security implications of the adverse impact of climate change and the potential for increased conflicts over scarcer resources.” It goes on to discuss not only deforestation but also land degradation and the importance of biodiversity.

The bottom line is that apart from the lack of interim targets, most NGOs and other observers agree that the communique is adequate. Or as John Kirton, of the G8 Research Group, put it – “It met my standards.”

The G8 leaders will now take this communique to the Major Economies Forum tomorrow.  There Obama will chair a difficult meeting in which he will attempt to reverse China and India’s longstanding opposition to adopting quantitative emissions targets.

By Ruth Brandt, Niel Bowerman and Marie Karaisl

©Sankei

On 10 June, Taro Aso, Prime Minister of Japan, pledged that Japan would cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below the 2005 levels by 2020 (8 percent below the 1990 levels). He expected that, achieving this mid-term target would lead to greenhouse gas emissions reductions approximately by 25 percent by 2030 and then by 70 percent by 2050.

Japan had six plans for the mid-term target, ranging from 4 percent reductions below the 2005 levels to 30 percent reductions.  The mid-term target came from one of the six plans, 14 percent reductions below the 2005 levels. This plan has been reinforced by another one percent because the Komei party, comprising the ruling coalition with the liberal democratic party, and the Ministry of the Environment, strongly demanded a more ambitious target.

One of the main reasons for this choice is that the Japanese people favour the 14 percent reductions plan. On 24 May 2009, Cabinet Secretariat showed the results of the ‘public opinion poll concerning the mid-term target for global warming’. According to the results, 45.4 percent of the respondents were for the 14 percent reductions plan: 15.3 percent for the 4 percent reductions plan; 13.5 percent for the 21 percent reductions plan; and 4.9 percent for the 30 percent reductions plan. Although the respondents were shown how much each household had to pay to reduce greenhouse gases by 14 percent  (i.e. 80,000 yen in a year), most of the respondents chose this target. Aso said in his mail magazine on 11 June that he deeply respected the good sense of his people. If the Japanese people favoured a less ambitious target, he could not have made this decision despite strong industrial oppositions. Indeed, generally, the Japanese industry very strongly demanded that Japan had to choose a 4 percent reductions plan. In addition, though the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry demanded a target that would not severely damage the Japanese economy, it compromised to accept the 14 percent reductions plan because it said that 14 percent reductions would be possible with the introduction of most updated technologies.This may be another important reason that Aso chose this target.

Although Japan chose the ambitious target, it is apparently difficult for Japan to achieve it. Though Japan ambitiously vowed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent below the 1990 levels by 2012 under the Kyoto protocol agreement , Japan has been unable to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and it would possibly fail to achieve it, mainly because the Japanese Government has been highly concerned with protecting the industry from suffering costs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is questionable whether the Government can persuade the industry to reduce dramatically greenhouse gas emissions to achieve the more stringent mid-term target though it has failed to do so to achieve the Kyoto protocol agreement.

Finally, it should be emphasized that the Government must consider how the mid-term target influence the most vulnerable segments of the society including the poor, the handicapped, children and the elderly, which has been almost totally neglected in the discussion of the mid-term target. Because achieving the mid-term target clearly requires a wide range of ‘changes’ in the society, the Government has to be concerned with influences of the target placed onto them. Although the mid-term target has been finally set, there are a number of difficult and complicated issues that Japan has to start to work out for achieving the target.

On 30 April, the Ministry of the Environment (MoE) announced the final data regarding the amount of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the 2007 fiscal year. According to MoE, the amount of GHG emissions in the 2007 fiscal year was approximately 1.37 billion tons (CO2 equivalent), exceeding the amount of GHG emissions in the 1990 base year by 9.0 percent and exceeding the amount of those in the 2006 fiscal year by 2.4 percent. This was the worst result for Japan in terms of GHG emissions.

It was reported that such a surprisingly high increase in GHG emissions was significantly affected by the suspension of operation of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) in the Niigata prefecture as most of CO2 emissions in Japan are energy-origin CO2 emissions.

The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant has seven units, generating a total electrical output of  8,212 MW, making it the largest nuclear plant in the world by net electrical power rating. Though Japan heavily depended on the nuclear plant, it had to stop the operation because of the Niigata Chuetsu earthquake in July 2007  because the Kashiwazaki municipal government ordered TEPCO not to start the operation of the plan until its safety was confirmed and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) gave TEPCO a similarly order. Consequently, thermal power stations, emitting more GHG, had to operate more, resulting in increase in CO2 emissions.

Thus, in order to reduce CO2 emissions and avoid electricity shortage in the summer season, the Japanese Government and TEPCO have strongly wanted to restart the operation of the plant. Then, on 7 May, Hirohiko Izumida, the Governor of the Niigata prefecture, announced that he acknowledged a request from TEPCO to restart its operation. Though TEPCO consequently started the trial operation of Unit 7 of the plant on 9 May, problems were found in its reactor core isolation cooling system in its trial operation. As a result, though it was expected that the plant was going to start its operation in the end of June, it became unclear whether the plant was able to do so.

If the operation is delayed, Japan again would need to heavily depend on thermal power stations in this summer and CO2 emissions would increase compared to the condition in which the nuclear plan could operate. However, it may be apparent that the safety of the nuclear plant has not been confirmed. As well as problems of the plant found in the trial operation, it has been still questionable whether the plant is really earthquake resistant. Indeed, constructing nuclear plants in Japan, where a huge number of earthquakes happen, seems really scary. As Japan seems most unsuitable for constructing nuclear plants considering earthquakes, Japan may be one of the countries that should immediately increase renewable energy production in order to reduce CO2 emissions and simultaneously avoid electricity shortage.

On 10 April, the Government and the ruling parties, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and New Komeito, officially compiled the nation’s largest-ever economic package, worth 56.8 trillion yen in total, including 15 trillion yen in fiscal spending. In the new package, they proposed the introduction of the ‘eco-point’ (or eco action point) scheme.

 Then, on 21 April, the Ministry of the Environment (MoE), the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the Ministry of International Affairs and Communications (MIC), announced that they would commence, from 15 May, the eco-point scheme, in which those who buy products designated in the scheme can gain eco-points, on condition that the supplementary budget for the fiscal year 2009 is to be approved. In the scheme, they seek to stimulate economy as well as promoting energy-saving products to reduce CO2 emissions. 

 The Products in the scheme includes refrigerators, air conditioners and TVs, which have been given four stars or five stars in the evaluation system for products which displays energy-saving performances of products from one star to five stars. Those who buy these eco-products can obtain eco-points: 5% of the purchasing prices for refrigerators and air conditioners and 13% of the purchasing prices for TVs for digital terrestrial television, at maximum. Then, they can use the obtained eco-points when they purchase ‘eco’ electric home appliances afterwards.       

 Although it was supposed that eco-points can be used when ‘eco’ electric home appliances are purchased afterwards, Fuji Sankei Business Eye reported that the Government is now considering the extension of the range of products that can be purchased by eco-points. The scheme originally sought to urge consumers to replace their less energy-saving electric home appliances by buying new energy-saving ones.  It has been however complained within the Government and the ruling parties that if eco-points can be used only for eco electric home appliances, eco-points cannot be used easily and the scheme would not stimulate consumption. Consequently, METI, MoE and MIC has started to consider the extension of products that can be purchased by eco-points. The electric home appliances industry strongly welcomes the extension and a managing staff of a major electric home appliances company said, ‘the range of products that can be purchased by eco-points had better be as extended as possible.’ 

Possibly, in order just to stimulate consumption, the range of the products should be as extended as possible as the industry suggests. However, the environmental effects of the eco-point scheme would dramatically diminish if it were extended to products that are not environmentally friendly. It may be however acceptable if eco-points can be used for services such as baby-sitting and day-care for children and continuing education because they are socially welcomed and environmentally harmless. It might be necessary that eco-points can be easily used and its range should be extended in order to stimulate consumption. However, it should be vital that eco-points must not result in the increase in CO2 emissions if the word, ‘eco’, is used in the scheme.

Though companies have money/people and are interested in contributing to the environment, they do not know what/how to do. On the other hand, environmental non-profitable organizations (NPO) have environmental knowledge and know-how to conserve the environment though they do not have money/people. Then, in 2003, Tokyo Metropolitan Government (TMG) began, as Tokyo Greenship Action (TGA), to create both opportunities in which both companies and environmental NPOs can meet and places where both can contribute to the environmental conservation.   

TMG has supplied some of 46 conservation areas in Tokyo for TGA in order to make the natural environment in good condition and enhance environmental awareness. 46 conservation areas have been designated by TMG to preserve the natural areas in Tokyo as precious assets based on the ordinance concerning protection and restoration of the nature in Tokyo.

In TGA, a company (with another company/other companies) makes an agreement with an environmental NPO concerning its roles and then carry out the conservation activity. In the conservation activity, a company/companies are required to pay costs for the activity directly to the environmental NPO. Further, they need to ask their employees and families of employees to participate in the activity and put together them. Basically, each activity is a one-day programme and a company/companies can participate just in one programme.

TMG has annually published a guidebook of TGA for applicants. Currently, 13 areas have been prepared for TGM in the fiscal year 2009. In the guidebook, TMG describes several key issues of the activity in each area such as an environmental NPO in the activity, recommended points, recommended ages and participants, facilities (bathroom), costs and summary of the activity.

The Nobidome Yosui area (Kodaira city) is, for instance, one of the 13 conservation areas. According to the guidebook, an environmental NPO in this activity is Midori Support Hachioji; the recommended point is that participants can directly experience the nature; recommended ages are 6, 7 and above and recommended participants are beginners and families; participants use bathrooms of facilities near the conservation area; the activity costs 250,000 yen; and the activity includes making and putting fences around the area, sanitary cutting and gathering leaves.   

Clearly, TGA has merits. For environmental NPOs, they can be supplied with people and money to conserve the nature. In addition, as far as TGM is concerned, the costs for the environmental conservation can be reduced and all the areas of TGA are the areas that TMG has strong interests in conserving. Finally, for a company/companies, they do not need to choose its environmental activities at random, in other words, using financial/human resources for the ‘right’ activities. Because the activities are officially recognized by TMG, it can be said that a company/companies can have an official guarantee that they are voluntarily engaged in environmentally good things.

However, TGA has demerits too. First, a company/companies often carry out conservation activities in areas which are not closely related to them. For instance, Mitsubishi Corporation, a general trading company, in 2008, participated in the conservation activity in Hachioji city (Oya machi), but its employees do not work in Hachioji city but in Chiyoda ward (Marunouchi), probably it taking more than one hour at least from Marunouchi to Oyamachi. If the areas are not closely related to a company/companies, it seems that they may have weak motivations to continue the activities for a long time. Second, because TGM has not sufficiently tried to let people know the conservation activities of a company/companies, it might be doubtful whether they can sustain motivations to continue the activities for a long time. Indeed, it seems that even most people living near the activity areas do not know these activities. For instance, when the author visited the Nobidome Yosui area in 2008, the author found a woody sign mentioning that Fuji Xerox, Tama, participated in the conservation activity in the area. However, it seemed that the woody sign could not be easily found and no walker that the author talked to (12 walkers) knew the conservation activity of Fuji Xerox, Tama.  

The basic concept of TGA seems excellent and can create a ‘win-win-win’ situation. However, TGA needs to be more refined in order for TGA substantially contributes to the environmental conservation for a long time. For example, TMG should more actively try to let people know the voluntary activities of a company/companies for the environmental conservation. Although the conservation activities in TGA are voluntary, it might be clear that participants can be proud of doing the activities and have motivations to continue the activities for a long time if their environmental efforts are widely known by TMG. Further, as all the conservation activities in TGA that TMG have prepared are those in suburb areas of Tokyo, it might be necessary for TMG to consider environmental activities in central parts of Tokyo in TGA. In addition, if a company/companies seek to carry out the conservation activities in the areas which are not closely related to them, it might be a good idea that they develop relationships in the areas such as performing environmental education in schools by using their own special knowledge and joining and helping festivals in the areas. The close relationships that a company/companies develop may let them to continuously carry out the conservation activities in the areas.

On April 2 2009, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) reported the results of examination of the storm surge flooding and the current defence capacity in the Tokyo Bay coastal area against flood tide at an expert panel on large-scale flood control measures of the central disaster management council. In its report, MLIT set up six scenarios based on objects because storm surge flooding may differ according to strength of typhoon, tide condition and so on. In addition, three of the six scenarios have been prepared to examine the influences of the sea level rise caused by global warming:

1. Case in which a strong typhoon like Typhoon Vera in 1959 (Isewan Typhoon) would attack the Tokyo Bay coastal area and the current shore protection facilities would deal with it in the higher average sea level because of global warming (based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007).
2. Case in which a super typhoon like Muroto Typhoon in 1934 would attack the Tokyo Bay coastal area and the current shore protection facilities would deal with it in the higher average sea level because of global warming (based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007).
3. Case in which a super typhoon like Muroto Typhoon in 1934 would attack the Tokyo Bay coastal area, and water gates and embankments at the zero-metre area would be damaged by floating things (based on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007).

In terms of maximum flooded areas, 16,105 hectares would be flooded for the first case; 24,619 hectares for the second case and 27,630 hectares for the third case. Then, concerning the maximum volume of flooded water, it would be 102,645,000 cubic metres for the first case; 265,492,000 cubic metres for the second case and 324,365,000 cubic metres for the third case. The report does not examine how many casualties would be because of these flood disasters. However, it is expected in the worst case that some areas such as some parts of Koto Ward in Tokyo (e.g. the Koto Ward office), Chiba city (e.g. the town hall of Chiba city), Funabashi city (e.g. the town hall of Funabashi city) and Yokohama city (e.g. Yokohama station of Japan Railways) would be flooded by 2 to 5 metres in depth at the maximum. Because these areas are overpopulated (448,325 in Koto Ward, 949,730 in Chiba city, 594,298 in Funabashi city and 3,654,429 in Yokohama city), it might be easily expected that the number of casualties would not be small.

As Japan is surrounded by the sea, ‘how to cope with problems related to sea level rise caused by global warming’ is one of the significant issues in the Japan’s adaptation strategies for global warming. However, it seems that both the Japanese Government and Japanese people have been less concerned about how to adapt to sea level rise and even sea level rise itself partly because it is not perfectly certain that the sea level would rise because of global warming and partly because if it were so it would happen in the future, not now. The world might have been obsessed with the current economic recession and less interested in global warming. Surely, our life and happiness would be important. However, it might be necessary to always consider those of the future generations. The future generations would have to live in and cope with the changed world because of global warming caused by the past and present generations. Thus, it can be suggested that the Government of every nation, especially advanced nations, has to spend money for the economic recovery into adaptation measures, making both generations happier. It is our responsibility.

The G20 leaders standing for their

The G20 Summit in London has now concluded, with US President Obama filling the main press briefing room for an hour-long press session.  The main points of the summit for international and national climate policy are summarised below:

1. Overall: In the substantive elements of the summit outcomes there is little mention of climate change.  In the summary communiqué climate change is mentioned in the second-to-last and penultimate paragraphs only.  As Climatico’s Simon Billett asked UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, there is little evidence that this summit has been more than an agreement to agree in later meetings.
2. Forestry: UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, said that forestry was a fundamental element of the global climate programme.  Italy has agreed to hold specific discussions on it at the G8 in July 2009.  There was agreement from France, Australia, Italy, Germany, US on the need for a global forestry deal.  Forestry was a major point of discussion in the corridors between delegations.
3. USA Climate Policy: It remains unclear whether the Obama administration will require cuts from China and India for a ‘comprehensive’ COP15 deal.  Obama said that “further discussions” needed with China, and that the US recognises its role as leader of clean energy and tech for China and India.  Obama: “We need an interesting conversation on how to overcome this challenge… we need low carbon growth… a rapid deployment of technology across the world… the US needs to lead these countries into the low carbon energy future”.
4. Green Growth: The summit has done little to define green growth or encourage the use of best practice measures between G20 countries.  While para. 27 and 28 of the final communiqué do reaffirm the commitment to low carbon growth, the summit has done almost nothing to further definitions of what this might mean or how it should be achieved.

Geithner, Obama, and Brown

As expected, the global economy took center stage at the G20 Summit held yesterday in London. Amidst the world economic crisis, G20 leaders met to discuss and put forth a global plan for recovery. Included amongst the six pledges made by the leaders of the Group of Twenty was a pledge for a green and sustainable recovery. However, despite this pledge and the hopes of many demonstrators, the public, and officials, climate change and plans for a green recovery featured little in the day’s discussions.

Over the weekend, the official G20 communiqué leaked to the press and included only vague language on the topic of climate change. According to paragraphs 27 and 28 in the official communiqué:

27. We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure. We encourage the MDBs to contribute fully to the achievement of this objective. We will identify and work together on further measures to build sustainable economies.

28. We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The vague language of the communiqué led to speculation that a “green stimulus” package might be less than concrete. This sentiment continued in the days leading up to the Summit.

Therefore, the day began with slightly lowered expectations for the one-day summit. Much of the morning for reporters was spent researching, writing, and watching leaders get their pictures taken. Anticipation and excitement began to grow as delegates sat down for their plenary session in the morning. However, not until close to 2:00 PM did green issues appear on the agenda with a press conference held by the UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband.

In the early afternoon, Miliband surprised reporters with a short press conference to brief them on the progress of climate change discussions and answer questions. Miliband stated that he was confident that the G20 Summit would provide forward movement towards Copenhagen in December. The discussions would serve to facilitate the process toward Copenhagen and would be used to make a statement to China and other developing countries that the United States, UK, and EU countries were committed to tackling climate change.

Climatico’s Simon Billett asked Miliband whether this talk of “first steps” was anything more than “agreeing to agree?” In response, Miliband stated that while the G20 summit was “essentially an economic summit,” among the G20 participants existed the understanding of the “mainstreaming [of] the green message.” Furthermore, Miliband said that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia are more likely to attach importance to renewables despite prior hesitation. “This is a significant step in mainstreaming low carbon development in economic recovery…The notion of low-carbon as a way out of recession has gone from being marginal to being mainstream.”

Miliband went on to say that forestry is a fundamental element in the climate program and will be discussed in Italy at the G8 meeting in July. Billett noted that forestry proved a major topic of conversation within the corridors of the Summit. Furthermore, private discussions between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd regarding the importance of including forestry in a global climate deal adds to the speculation that forestry will be a topic to watch in the months to come.

Despite Miliband’s press conference, the topic of climate change once again became quiet over much of the afternoon. During his speech, French President Nicholas Sarkozy failed to reference any discussion on the topic of the environment. And, despite Miliband’s enthusiasm, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown only restated that the G20 was committed to meet again later this year to discuss a Post-Kyoto climate deal.

However, U.S. President Barack Obama brought climate change back onto the floor during his press conference late in the day. Obama’s trip to London included several bilateral meetings with the leaders in attendance outside of the context of the G20. In response to a reporter’s question from the Times of India, Obama addressed a bilateral meeting he had with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Amongst other points of discussion, Obama and Singh touched on the issue of “energy and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India…for our efforts to control climate change.”

Obama alluded to future discussions on the topic of climate change with China. In addition, he recognized the challenges that lie ahead for the topic amidst the current economic crisis. “In some ways, our…European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have on this issue, but I think even the Europeans have recognized that it’s not easy. It’s even harder during times of economic downturn.” He went on to add, “We’re going to have to combine the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency with rapid technological advances. And to the extent that in some cases we can get international cooperation and pool our scientific and technical knowledge around things like developing coal sequestration, for example, that can be extremely helpful.”

Obama’s speech wrapped up the events of the day. However, despite a long day of meetings and press conferences at the G20 Summit, action towards green growth remained largely undefined. As to be expected, the world economic crisis was the star of the show and, therefore, plans to repair the global economy held the spotlight. Yet, often this subject turned to the discussion of bank regulation and executive pay rather than outlining plans for green growth. Despite all of this, environmentalists can rest assured that the international dialogue on climate change has begun to move forward. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Obama’s press conference, the United States appears onboard for further discussions and acknowledges its role as a leader and partner in reaching a climate change deal come December. Between Obama’s acknowledgement that the US must lead by example and Miliband’s enthusiasm for momentum, hopefully the G20 will prove a success for environmentalists, after all, by bringing in greater participation, particularly by China and India, at Copenhagen later this year. We shall have to wait and see.