While here in Australia, the debate about climate change grinds through the technicalities (which I am still trying to chew my way through), things are happening overseas. At the G8 summit, the commnique on the environment and climate change contained far stronger language than the last one.
The key bit of the communique, which can be read in its entirety at the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s website, is as follows:
We seek to share with all Parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
That represents the first time that the USA has ever committed to a specific numerical goal for emissions reductions (even if only over a very long timeframe and in a global context). As pointed out in the news article, such a target is pathetically inadequate, certainly. But getting George Bush - and, just as importantly, Vladimir Putin - to acknowledge that substantial, absolute, and specified cuts in emissions are necessary, is good news, and hopefully represents a baseline from which the actual cuts necessary can be made.
By the way, I’m going to the Garnaut Review forum in Melbourne this morning, and will report if anything interesting comes up.
OMG! They’ve used far stronger language. We’re saved!
George who?
This clears a potential log-jam that was shaping up for the ETS domestically.
This gives those opposed to the ETS far less rhetorical wriggle-room than they had 24 hours ago. All those saying they wouldn’t sign on if Australia was to “go it alone” have some omelette to wipe off their chin.
And this statement means there’s a diplomatic way to get China and India to agree to some form of ETS that gives them some head-room for growth that the developed economies no longer need.
Hands up who thinks Rudd’s office knew something like this was in the offing a week ago? I bet the diplomatic back-channels have been feverish for at least the last few days. The timing is incredibly “fortuitous”, coming fast on the release of Garnaut…
While your frustration is completely in order, carbonsink, you’ve got to acknowledge that, as Robert correctly points out, things are genuinely moving.
The old adage about democracy being the least bad mode of governance comes to mind. World governance, as expressed through bodies like the UN & G8, etc., inadequate as they are, is pretty much the only chance we have. Its unfortunate that it will probably take the cracking off of half of Greenland to make the 50% by 2050 target into something more meaningful, but frankly, that’s the only way we’ll manage to move together.
Unless you have some plan for installing some kind of take-no-prisoners, climate-friendly dictator above this whole structure, I think you’ve got to accept what we’ve got and accept that this genuinely *is* progress.
Things are moving, and in the right direction. I agree there may have been forewarning Mercurius, but listen: you didn’t need access to diplomatic messages or even “back channels” to anticipate this.
MSM, UN, European Union, Kyoto negotiations,…. it’s not as if the issue of AGW and ETS has crept up on us all of a sudden!
Go Kevvie, go Penny, go RossG….
… and thank you Julie Bishop for pointing out yesterday that Opposition policy STILL supports the introduction of ETS (albeit in 2012).
They’re just waiting for Bush to retire and then they can start making something real hapen. It seems to me that the G8 has to turn into the G10 and include China and India. They’re the countries of the future.
Leaving aside Robert’s note that the targets are “pathetically inadequate” with which I agree, what we have is progress because half the G8 were recalcitrant in one way or another. I refer to the US, Russia, Canada and Japan. No-one I’ve been reading expected it.
A few comments. First, it’s not clear what the starting point is, ie. whether it’s 1990, 2000 or ‘now’. As I understand it this has not yet been settled in the UNFCCC process and various countries are advantaged or disadvantaged depending on what’s decided.
Second, I hope it has dawned on Rudd, Nelson and all that if we are signing up to global cuts of 50% and the consequent carbon budget is distributed according to population, Australia is likely looking at well in excess of 90%, probably more like 95-7% cuts. David Karoly was telling Late Night Live the other night that Garnaut is talking about 90% cuts with an international agreement. Garnaut does also have a section where he contemplates “negative emissions”, in other words taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, and not just by CCS.
Today instead of meeting with plus 5, ie. China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa as last year, the G8 is meeting with the major emitters which is how Rudd gets a gig. I believe they are all going to get 6 minutes to spruik their positions. So we’ll see how they go, but Rudd has been talking down expectations.
And well he might, because India will will give them their typical spiel:
According to the G8 resolution all nations will be free to find their own path to the shared vision, which is pure Bush and leaves the whole process open to the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’. India is talking about mashing their climate change in with “the need for “an integrated approach” toward “interlinked” issues of climate change, energy security and food security.”
The only way of tightening this, as far as I can see, would be for every nation to submit a program with interim targets, for which they are then accountable. But they’d be submitting it to the UNFCCC, which is toothless in contrast with the WTO. And someone is going to have to tell them to take climate change on board too.
It’s hard to see the IPCC’s goal of capping global emissions by 2015 coming out of this. The ‘developing’ countries are responsible for at least 70% of the increase in emissions and are resisting any constraints whatsoever. Also it matters how much “overshooting” we have, and for how long. It’s hard to see any sort of reasonable stabilisation strategy coming out of this.
Meanwhile I’m betting that at the end of today China and India will still be perfectly free to build as many coal-fired power stations as they like.
BTW, is Putin there? I thought he was PM now rather than president.
Medvedev is his puppet, but Putin’s not there.
It can’t work if someone’s outside the tent.
Short update WRT Garnaut forum:
* Garnaut’s message is deeply shocking even though the broad outlines are utterly familiar.
* The number of people in suits tapping away on their blackberries was very high.
* One point that’s new in the Draft Report is the modelling of China’s emissions. Basically, the IPCC calculations for future emissions for “business as usual” are far, far too low.
* He spends a fair bit of time talking about international agreement in the draft report - a part I haven’t had time to read myself yet…
* Garnaut’s brushoff of the guy from the Citizens’ Electoral Council was amusing.
* I wish people could ask questions rather than making speeches. I’m talking about you, Ms. Solidarity and Mr. Beyond Zero Emissions. If you want to stage a political rally, do so on your own time.
Howard C,
the leader of Russia was there. Putin is the former leader, so he doesn’t get invited.
(Would you be happy if John Howard were at Sapporo instead of Kevin Rudd?)
Thanks Robert.
Of course they are. Oh, and the Sichuan earthquake apparently damaged a lot of China’s hydro generating capacity, which will undoubtedly be replaced with coal. I’m surprised that so many people here (and elsewhere) maintain their optimism that anything will ever be done. I’m surprised there aren’t more climate change “doomers” out there. Lovelock is the only notable one I can think of off hand, although Garnaut’s pretty doomerish in his language.
Its getting to the point where we you either hope like hell the denialists are right, or you head to the hills with the peak oil doomers.
John who?
Goddamn I hate grandstanding on those types of occasions. People are here to listen to the person up the front, not some waffling nimwit.
As to the 50% target, this is very disappointing because it really misses the game as I see it.
Setting a target for in 40 years is (hopefully) irrelevant. By then we will have grown up, grown some responsibility and will be able to get on with far more than that (I believe). we need short term targets, based on today’s emissions, not 1990’s. My preferred announcement would have been no more emissions growth at all for G8 and developed countries (offsettable by CDM to developing world), and a full commitment to per capita convergence by 2050.
“Setting a target for in 40 years is (hopefully) irrelevant. By then we will have grown up, grown some responsibility and will be able to get on with far more than that (I believe). we need short term targets, based on today’s emissions, not 1990’s.”
blood’ oath, wilful.
Let’s get moving pronto quicksmart. The Aussie public WANTS to get moving, at least for the easier, first 20% of the cuts. It’s like a bloke going on a diet: the first 6 kilos are easy, and it gets him in a frame of mind to keep losing weight.
Like most pious pledges by international quangos, this means nothing at all. Notice that they require a “global response”, with “contributions from all major economies”? Reality is that no developing economy is going to do anything to even restrain emissions growth, until their per capita GDP approaches that of the West.
(maybe about 2030-40). Russia, India, China have all made that very very plain. Since developing economies are now about 50% of emissions, there is no way, except economic collapse, that global emissions will decline at all.
People will beleive anything if it suits their taste for middle class moralising.
Putin is still Prime Minister. Some of the analysis I’m reading suggests that Medvedev is not completely a puppet, but Vlad is still enormously powerful in Russia.
By the way, I suggest a 20-second limit on questions at such events in future.
I was referring to a global approach to CC, not to internal Russian politics.
A friend just brought me back a copy of the CEC/LaRouche ‘newspaper’ from outside the town hall. Apparently the reason for the global warming hoax is that the oligarchy, ably led by Prince Philip, want to reduce world population so they can introduce global socialism. Kissinger, the Bush family, Churchill, Bertrand Russell, they’ve all been in it, thick as thieves.
I wish I could make that shit up.
Yep, the environmental movement is just a front for the Nazis. It will succeed where the Nazis failed. Honestly, that’s what they believe. But are they the same guys who also think the Royal Family are actually giant lizards?
Thanks Howard C.
But if you get 60% or 70% of global production under some kind of ETS, then surely financial & trading pressure can be brought to bear on the hold-out nations? Dunno how this’d go with the WTO, but here’s a suggestion (off top of head):
How about a program of tariffs applied to the goods of the hold-out nations, starting at 20% and ramping up progressively as long asd they hold out.
Or, apply same to individual corporations: only those that have reduced emissions or bought offsets remain tariff-free.
I’m trying to think of a trade/finance mechanism, so we avoid sending gunboats. I reckon the Chinese and Indians would respond.
Something like “targetted trade sanctions” which have been applied to Myanmar, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, etc at various times.
What think you, Howard C?
Brian: “First, it’s not clear what the starting point is, ie. whether it’s 1990, 2000 or ‘now’.”
It’s clear as mud:
Utterly pathetic (and predictable). But it makes for a nice headline… Smoke and mirrors, anyone?
I agree. I was being a little cursory with my comments.
There would certainly be a tipping point, but that tipping point, in terms of a percentage of global population, would need to be higher if it didn’t include the key nations, whom I would identify (just off the top of my head) as being the USA, Japan, Russia, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, India, China, Indonesia & Brazil. A combination of the biggest (per capita) emitters and the biggest nations population wise.
This way there would not be a immediate detrimental effect to the Australian economy, or any other similar sized nation implementing an ETS or other reduction of carbon emissions.
But if we are going to cut emissions, we need to have to pay to emit. That way the market will sort out the problems.
Sorry, forgot the link: http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=49262
“I’m trying to think of a trade/finance mechanism, so we avoid sending gunboats.”
Spoilsport.
Wilful - Bertie Russell? Really?
Oh yes, Russell was one of the few of the oligarchy to go on record, apparently. He longed for peasant hardships.
“spoilsport” tee hee !!
Thanks for the forum update, Robert. I expect something similar in Sydney tomorrow.
Not just future emissions, but the emissions we’ve *actually* experienced since they invented the projections - see Pielke et al Dangerous Assumptions: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/full/452531a.html and associated reactions http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/05/experts_respond_to_dangerous_a.shtml
Bush is proud of a good day’s work.
But today there was no further progress with the developing countries.
Meanwhile back in the US it’s business as usual.
wilful at 19:
It’s possible it’s the Trilateral Commission or more likely the Bilderberg Group.
Another report out of Tokyo. The UNFCCC is not happy with the lack of mid-term targets. The US has committed to “halt emissions growth” by 2025.
The G5 are not happy either:
I take the G5 in this context to mean China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. They’ve spelt out what they require.
Sorry to interrupt with something a bit OT, but really, check this out a second time:
Bill @ no. 16: “Like most pious pledges by international quangos, this means nothing at all.”
That is one snappy sentence, man, regardless of whether one agrees with the sentiment. Hoo-eee. If there were a few more people at the negotiating table carrying this sharp a blade, who knows what could have been accomplished.
This Canadian newspaper gives a another perspective on G8:
A crafty G8: The G8 has strengthened unity within itself, and shifted climate change pressure on to its competitors http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=645915
Interesting that Europe and the US are now seen to be aligned…
I’ve mentioned a paper by Amazon forest expert Philip Fearnside on previous blogs, in which he argued European governments and European NGOs had lined up against the US in earlier Kyoto negotiations (and kept forest protection out of the agreement). I’ve found an online link to it now:
SAVING TROPICAL FORESTS AS A GLOBAL WARMING COUNTERMEASURE: AN ISSUE THAT DIVIDES THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT
Here’s a quote:
The Canadian newspaper article describes a shift from the alignment outlined by Fearnside.
Interesting…
Also, there was a good interview with Warrick McKibbin on Lateline tonight.
For information. The US take on the recent Leaders of the Major Economies meeting: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080709-3.html
A quote: