What next for the G8?

Posted by Chris Fellingham on July 09, 2009
China, G8-L'Aquila, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Politics, Russia, USA

Those hoping the G8 would achieve a breakthrough in Climate negotiations, would only need to look at the history of the G8 to know it is often more like an extended press conference for the G8 countries to touch base and put out some symbolic gestures on the issue of the day, meanwhile the real negotiations are happening behind the scenes round the clock all year long.

But in terms of gestures what was achieved?

That the G8 countries aim to keep global emissions low enough to avoid a 2C rise in temperature

That it should aim to cut 80% of emissions by 2050, and the world aim for 50% cuts.

Neither stands out as groundbreaking, and worse for environmentalists was that several measures discussed appeared to fall by the way side: Mexico proposed a “green fund” for developing countries, something floated by Brown prior the G8 meeting and worse still developing countries are of the opinion that only a 40% cut by 2020 by developed countries could get them to make serious cuts.

Nevertheless, The G8 has not been a failure and in fact is another albeit small stepping stone for an event which garners far too much publicity for what actually goes on. While the developed countries proposed cuts against those demanded by developing countries may make negotiations appear at an impasse, in reality, a solution is probably not so far off.

Three factors, discussed could make a breakthrough:

The first is the role of a “Green fund”, developing countries protest that the G8 make deeper cuts because they are responsible historically for emissions but more importantly because their people are already more prosperous. If a significant ‘green fund’ was made available, it could have the dual role of aiding development and doing so sustainably. This could also take the form of technology transfer, in combination with funding, which remains a critical road block to developing countries supporting environmental energy options.

The second is the Waxman-Markey bill currently being debated in the US senate, this needs to pass with a credible amount of its original intention left intact, if it does, that paves the way for further North American legislation ( with Canada and possibly Mexico in some role), perhaps more importantly it gives the US genuine clout to lead.

The third and most important factor lies with US negotiations with China, Russia and Brazil. Already the US has persuaded China to come to the table, as well as reticent Russia. Although importance should also be attached to the role of Brazil, India and Indonesia, is is these two countries, the next most powerful of non-western countries that could make or break global negotiations. I

The US has its work cut out; continued behind the scenes work will be the modus operandi in the run up to Copenhagen. However all policy relies on momentum, a global deal even a disappointing one, changes the domestic policy debates for the better, this could create a positive interchanging momentum that increasingly reaches for greater efforts to cut emissions globally.

Print Friendly Print Get a PDF version of this webpage PDF

Related posts:

  1. The G20 Summit – A Day in Review
  2. The outcomes: what did the G20 achieve for Climate Change?
  3. G20 Live Blog
  4. What does a good Copenhagen deal look like?
  5. Climatico Report on National Climate Policy published, finds significant gap in adaptation funding

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 » Stalemate in l’Aquila

    [...] Read what could be decisive next steps in “What next for the G8“! [...]

    July 11 2009
    CommentsLike
    • Chris

      @Peter dublin
      Well I agree there are immediate short term gains to be made through transition in electricity and transports
      but I don’t just think electricity and hydrogen will be the immediate shifts. More likely higher fuel prices will see a much stronger push towards fuel efficient cars and hybrids and perhaps more obviously a return to public transport. This is particualrly so given rising urbanisation as a trend and some predictors that suburban sprawl is becoming a negative trend – all of whcih makes public transport more viable.

      As for the Cap and Trade, I’m not a huge fan of the carbon tax, it sells poorly as a political tool and countries such as the UK have long had very high petrol taxes and it has not obviously reduced consumption ( although the car market is relatively fuel efficient). It would be difficult to see it as anything more than a tax.

      Cap and Trade has flaws, and undoubtedly offsets are the biggest ( manufacturing shifts are more complex – I’d argue that outsourced manufacturing has probably already peaked and those that keep manufacturing in the US have clear reasons for doing so – infrastructure/ skilled labour and other financial incentives – so I think cap and trade would probably not have a large-scale impact)

      Furthermore, Cap and Trade is already a more widely implemented solution, an imperfect cap and trade can be worked upon to remove offsets and has the potential for interlinking e.g. Canada’s proposal for a North Anerican Cap and Trade, EU already has one etc. I think saying policy makers have to get it right in one swing is unrealistic.

      @Ruth
      I completely agree, VERY disappointing, I for one question Reid’s leadership, Podesta recently pointed ou tthat Democratic base has been too lenient of the Senate’s centrist nature, especially given the Republican senates under Bush were markedly more partisan. With Franken seated, and assuming as fivethirtyeight does that Franken is as liberal as his close friend and icon, Paul Wellstone, then he adds a strongly liberal leaning 60th vote.

      That said, I am sympathetic to current events, the reality is that the recent worse than expected downturn weakens the hand of Congress and the whitehouse ( see Obama’s drop in poll numbers in Ohio) if it sounds like Democrats just want to deal with far off events that will add cost they could be causing irreperable damage to their chances in 2010 mid-terms.

      I think something not discussed much but coming to the fore now is potentially the second stimulus, if hopefully democrats cignore the “tax cut” debacle that ruined the last stimulus then they could use this as a second oppurtunity to make deep inroads into creating the green energy economy.

      July 11 2009
      CommentsLike
      • Avatar of Ruth Brandt
        Ruth Brandt

        Well, at least one of the 3 breakthrough factors is now even more questionable than before. As the schedule of the Senate bill is pushed back, chances are slimmer for it to pass before Copenhagen.

        Of course even if it’s not completely signed and delivered by then, if it’s progressed far enough, and maintains enough backbone to be actually useful, it should still be very helpful in global negotiations.

        July 10 2009
        CommentsLike
        • peter dublin

          Yes Chris,
          there is no doubt that there is a long way to go…

          and it could be so much simpler!

          Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction is achieved by acting on ELECTRICITY generation (coal, gas) and TRANSPORT (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors typically (as in the USA) account for 80% of greenhouse gas emissions.

          The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages – apart from lowering CO2 emissions:

          1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.

          2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.

          3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.

          4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local. Since there is little competition between say utility companies internationally, “best practice” results can be compared and shared.

          Funding and Impact
          Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.

          Compare with
          today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand – together with extensive and unnecessary regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.

          Understanding why proposed Cap and Trade is bad, in USA and elsewhere
          http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
          Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost — In Conclusion

          The Way Forward
          http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x
          Introduction — Funding and Impact — No Energy Efficiency Regulation — A New Electric America
          Electricity Generation — Distribution
          Transport Power Generation — Regulation — Taxation

          July 09 2009
          CommentsLike