… 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

Welcome to our climate policy liveblog.  This is a live feed from our twitter account @_climatico_

8:59:08 PM: Our Italian #G8 hosts have banned access to Twitter from the Summit so you can access out full liveblog from http://www.climaticoanalysis.org

8:59:39 PM: Reuters have a good summary of where the #MEM is on the climate communique. http://is.gd/1ql1E

9:04:36 PM: The Major Economies Meeting (MEM) has in fact now been renamed to the Major Economies Forum (MEF).

9:08:48 PM: The #MEF met in Rome today in an attempt to break the deadlock on a commitment to half global emissions by 2050.

9:33:20 PM: India remains opposed to adopting an emissions target. Thus the #MEF may focus on committing to prevent a temperature rise of more than 2C

9:40:22 PM: Avaaz are currently organising a mass action and campaign asking Japan, Canada and Russia to sign up to the 2C target. http://bit.ly/32Bj8

9:44:39 PM: Updated: @avaaz now say that Harper is leading the opposition against the 2C commitment

9:46:25 PM: The Summit itself has been a bit of a shambles thus far with internet not working in the media centre for most of today

9:54:04 PM: Washington has even been organising Italy’s “Sherpa calls” in an attempt to ‘inject purpose into the meeting.’ http://is.gd/1qosD

9:59:10 PM: Obama will also be chairing the climate change negotiation on Thursday, which the UN and Denmark (COP15 hosts) will also be invited to

10:00:27 PM: http://is.gd/1qoQE

10:04:10 PM: That’s a rather interesting article that we’ve been discussing here at the G8 Research Group. Why do you think it was leaked?  I’ll discuss our theories here tomorrow.  Good night for now and see you tomorrow when the Summit begins.

The Matterhorn, as seen from Zermatt, Switzerland, March 2009. Skiing in Zermatt, Switzerland this past winter it was obvious that snow levels were decreasing at an unusual rate, as discussed in the Convention report.

A major publication from the EU’s Convention on the Protection of the Alps last week, revealed the dramatic effects of climate change on the Alps region.

The Convention on the Protection of the Alps was established in 1991 and is headquartered out of Bolzano, Italy. The Convention report published on 17 June 2009 is its second magisterial report. It reveals that the northern ranges of the Alps are suffering serious flooding while southern ranges are generally seeing huge reductions in snow fall. Average Precipitation levels have decreased 10 % in the south-east of the region.

Marco Onida, secretary general of the Convention, recognizes that “the European climate is dividing in two…the result will be havoc for the Alps and the communities and wildlife that rely on the area.” The Alps’ most famous peaks, such as Mont Blanc, The Matterhorn, and Monte Rosa, mark the division between the wet north and Italy and Slovenia in the dryer south of the region.

The current analysis of changes to be made to the Swiss-Italian border is a prime example of such geo-political changes driven by climate change. The Italian military has been tracking changes as glaciers on the border melt over the last thirty years. Italian Brig. General, Carlo Colella (Florence) suggests that in some places the border could change up to 100 m. It is also believed that Italy will gain territory as the glaciers in the Southern Alps are melting at a faster rate.

The border in question was last changed in 1861 when Italy became a unified state. Now the Italian government is involved in changing their national legislation to allow such a border change; Switzerland requires no such change to law. Colella acknowledges that “after the border change with Switzerland, the Italian-French border will come under consideration.”

Outside of creating complex border issues, climate change in the Alps has begun to have profound implications for agriculture and tourism. Northern villages already face flooding and water shortages and decreased snowfall in the south have already started to hit the tourism industry. Additionally, Alpine species are being driven further up the mountains; thus, exotic and invasive plant species are starting to take hold lower down in the Alpine system.

The Convention report points to the environmental burden, especially with regards to expediting climate change, from the increased demand for artificial snow by the tourism industry. This is a necessary step in order to sustain the winter sports industry, which is the economic mainstay of the area. But it is a catch-22 scenario, under which generation of artificial snow further burdens already stressed water and energy supplies.

Ultimately, changing patterns of rain and snowfall, shrinking glaciers, and raising temperatures are seen by the Convention report as the greatest challenges to Alpine villages. The Convention report cites Italy’s 178 mile-long Tagliamento (in the northeast of the country) as the only Alpine river to not suffer drastic modifications to date. Dr. Onida said that “the Alps are the water tower of Europe, but much of the water is no longer reaching the places downstream where it is actually needed for ecosystem [stability], agriculture, and energy [generation].” He does acknowledge the very real struggle between agriculture and tourism for scarce water supplies.

Only time will tell how national borders will change and whether climate change will lead to intense battles between tourism and the survival of Alpine villages. The eight Alpine countries – France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Slovenia, and Hungary – are taking action through the Alpine Convention. There may be time and the means to manage and mitigate some of the most extreme effects of climate change in the Alps.

Like most EU talks seem to be nowadays, those today on climate change were rather fractious, specifically the debates around adaptation financing.The current EU position for Copenhagen estimates that “net global incremental investment” for tackling climate change needs to be 175 billion euros by 2020, with 100 billion euros of that spent in developing countries.

But guess who is stalling on exact figures? Italy of course, she of the rapidly decreasing aid budgets…

Unless the EU has a joint position soon, we could see the same wrangling over numbers in Copenhagen as we saw in Poznan. The EU environment ministers are looking at two options: a market based mechanism that fundraises by auctioning pollution permits on the carbon markets, or a mechanism that fundraises according to GDP and emissions

The latter is certain to be opposed by Poland et al. so we can expect some kind of market-based solution, but everyone is still waiting to see what Obama does anyway – ho hum.