The G8 agrees to avoid cooking the planet…

Posted by Summit Team on July 08, 2009
EU, G8-L'Aquila, Italy, Japan, Summits, USA

… 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

Print Friendly Print Get a PDF version of this webpage PDF

Related posts:

  1. Stalemate in l’Aquila
  2. What next for the G8?
  3. The G20 Summit – A Day in Review
  4. Restricted Access – to Planet Earth
  5. Germany: A (welcome) rethink on car taxation & how saving the planet can save the economy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Make a Donation

Like what you read? Climatico is a nonprofit organization and relies on donations from readers like you to continue to provide you with quality independent coverage. Help show your support and make a tax-deductible donation today.

Comments

  • Climatico » What if India doesn’t agree?

    [...] agree? Posted by Simon Billett on July 24, 2009 at 14:49 Instanalysis Ed Miliband hailed the G8 Declaration as a “real breakthrough”. For the first time, it seemed, the ‘Outreach 5′ [...]

    July 24 2009
    CommentsLike
    • Avatar of Nyla Sarwar
      Nyla Sarwar

      Great work summit team! Agree with comments so far on the baselines for emissions reduction – a commitment based on a 2005 baseline just seems too little too late.

      It’ll be interesting to see if India buckles under the polical pressure, now that previously ‘difficult’ nations such as Japan, Canada and the US are starting to negotiate a little more.

      July 10 2009
      CommentsLike
      • Avatar of Ruth Brandt
        Ruth Brandt

        Another point about the baseline years – 1990 is also the year that scientists refer to. So when they say an 80% reduction by 2050, they mean compared to emissions in 1990. Reducing emissions by 80% compared to 2005 levels won’t really answer the ‘objective’ need.

        (and just to give an idea of the differences – the US climate change bill is talking about reducing US emissions by 2020 by 14% compared to 2005. That’s only 7% compared to 1990 levels. When many scientists btw, say we should push for 20% compared to 1990. Obviously it’s different for different countries)

        July 09 2009
        CommentsLike
        • Avatar of Derek Pieper
          Derek Pieper

          I definitely agree with Neil’s last point on baselines. Canada in particular has held out as long as possible before officially accepting the 2 degrees position. This approach has a lot to do with the timing of when the current government came into power (2006). They wanted to differentiate themselves as much as possible from the previous administration – as I suspect is partly the case in the US as well.

          July 09 2009
          CommentsLike
          • Avatar of G20 Summit Team
            Niel Bowerman

            The 80% and 50% figures refer to the developed country average and the global average respectively, and not the emissions of any specific country or bloc of countries. Hence the weasel phrase in the communique “in aggregate”.

            On baselines, Canada, Japan and USA want a recent baseline as their emissions have increased since 1990. The EU and Russia want a 1990 baseline as their emissions have reduced or only increased slightly and thus they have more to gain from a 1990 reference year.

            July 09 2009
            CommentsLike
            • Avatar of Adeline Dontenville
              Adeline Dontenville

              I agree with Dan, you guys are doing an excellent job. The difference in baseline years appears quite problematic to me too and I think it’ll so much easier to compare countries’ progresses if they adopted the same baseline year.
              I think the baseline of 1990 wants to be kept by many countries, and especially the EU, partly for rhetorical reasons: it’s the historical base year set in the Kyoto Protocol and adopting a more recent base year would mean translating targets into lower figures. Other countries, such as Japan, might be playing a numbers game by using other baselines and trying to limit their commitment.

              July 09 2009
              CommentsLike
              • Dan

                Really good articles. This does seem like a lot of progress to me. One thing I don’t really understand is the relationship between the G8 agreements and the UN process. Have they essentially agreed to agree something in Copenhagen?

                One other question – why the difference of opinion in baseline years? Is it because some of EU accession states are former soviet bloc and had much higher emissions in 1990, hence 50% reduction from 1990 is easier for them?

                July 09 2009
                CommentsLike
                • Niel Bowerman’s Degrees of Change Blog » The G8 agrees to avoid cooking the planet…

                  [...] Cross-posted from Climatico [...]

                  July 08 2009
                  CommentsLike