Share

G-8 Leaders Pledge to Cut Emissions in Half by 2050

by: Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Alan Cowell  |  The New York Times

photo
"Tangible Earth" models are displayed at the International Media Center during the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit on July 7, 2008 in Rusutsu, Hokkaido, Japan. The multimedia globe designed by Japanese researchers provides real time computer generated imagery of the earth's weather and environmental conditions. One of the main issues of this summit is climate change.
(Photo: Getty Images)

    Rusutsu, Japan - Pledging to "move toward a low-carbon society," leaders of the world's richest nations on Tuesday endorsed the idea of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, but failed to set a short-term goal for reducing the toxic heat-trapping gases that scientists say are warming the planet.

    The declaration of the so-called Group of Eight - the United States, Japan, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia - called on developing nations like China and India to follow suit.

    It drew immediate criticism from environmentalists, who said it did not go far enough.

    But the leaders themselves cast the announcement as an important step forward in setting the groundwork for a binding international treaty on climate change, which is being negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations with the goal of an agreement by 2009.

    "The G-8 nations came to a mutual recognition that this target - cutting global emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 - should be a global target," Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda of Japan said in announcing the agreement.

    Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who has been a major force in driving her colleagues, including President Bush, to take a more aggressive stance on climate change, pronounced herself "very satisfied" in an appearance with Mr. Bush here before the communiquĂ© was announced.

    The leaders are here, on the remote northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, for their annual gathering, and Mr. Fukuda has made addressing climate change a priority for the meeting. On Wednesday, they will meet to talk about climate change again, this time with the leaders of developing nations, including China and India.

    Mr. Bush has insisted that no climate change agreement is workable without the participation of China and India, and the declaration issued on Tuesday agreed. White House officials said they were pleased. Dan Price, Mr. Bush's chief negotiator at the meeting, said the communiquĂ© represented "significant advances in the collective thinking."

    But Phil Clapp, an expert in climate change at the Pew Environmental Group, said the leaders had in fact weakened language they adopted at last year's Group of Eight meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany.

    "The emissions reduction goal is extremely weak," Mr. Clapp said, because it aims to reduce emissions from current levels rather than 1990 levels, as the leaders proposed last year. He added, "The science shows that we have to reduce 80 to 90 percent from current levels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change."

    The United States welcomed the agreement on Tuesday.

    "It has always been the case that a long-term goal is one that must be shared. So what the G-8 has offered today is a G-8 view of what that goal could be and should be but that can only occur with the agreement of all the other parties," said Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

    But some advocacy groups opposed it, calling it a wasted opportunity and inadequate to meet the challenge of global warming, reflecting their argument that deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions should be enforced more rapidly.

    Kumi Naidoo, a leader of an alliance called the Global Call to Action Against Poverty, said in a telephone interview from Japan that the G-8 action was "significantly too slow for us", calling the G-8 negotiations "a battle of words which underscores a lack of political will." He took particular issue with the White House, saying President Bush had "really held back the negotiation, passing the buck to China and India and not accepting that climate change is a catastrophe that the industrialized countries have caused."

    An environmental campaigning group, WWF, said in a statement:" The G-8 are responsible for 62 percent of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem."

    Another key issue in the climate change debate is the extent to which rich countries are prepared to help poor countries meet the costs of adapting their economies to the campaign against global warming.

    The South African environment minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, said that "while the statement may appear as a movement forward, we are concerned that it may, in effect, be a regression from what is required," Reuters reported. The G-8 agreement left some latitude for individual countries to set their own targets.

    "The G-8 will implement aggressive midterm total emission reduction targets on a country by country basis," Mr. Fukuda was quoted as saying.

    JosĂ© Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, called the agreement a "strong signal" and a "new, shared vision," according to news reports from the three-day meeting, which is being held in a mountain-top hotel under the gaze of 21,000 police officers guarding against potential protesters.

    --------

    Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Rusutsu and Alan Cowell from Paris.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Very disappointing. What

Very disappointing. What happened to Chancellor Merkel? Did the Bush administration threaten her behind the scenes or something? "Significant advances in the collective thinking" is an ominous statement coming from the Bushies. Merkel's "very satisfied" that the talks will do nothing to avert the worst effects of climate change? A "strong signal" that the G-8 Summit is more vacation than skull session? A "new shared vision" of oceanfront real estate? The "tangible Earth" is kinda neat, but the metaphor of a small Earth sitting in a lab in northern Japan is disturbing. And does it make ANY sense that after the G-8 decides for the planet on a 50%(?) reduction by 2050, then they're going to talk to the two most populous countries? Too much.

The part that is really weak

The part that is really weak about this is a bunch of leaders who are basically promising that someone will come along after they are dead and solve the problem. That's the real purpose of the 2050 goal. To make this all somebody else's problem and not have it be their problem.

This is a tragc farce. 50%

This is a tragc farce. 50% by 2050 is far too litle, far too late. Lester Brown, PlAN B 3.0: MOBILIZING TO SAVE CIVILIZATION, proposes 80% reduction by 2020; Jamse Hansen, NASA's chief climatologis, says that "the safe level of carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less." We are already at 385 ppm and increasing at 2 ppm per year! We will need to remove existing CO2 from the atmosphere as well as drastically reducing emissions. Hansen also says we are approaching several dangerous tipping points beyondwhich disaster will be unavoidable. James Lovelock, who gave us the Gaia Hypothesis (look it up in Wikipedia), thinks it is already too late and that we are 40 years from global catastrophe. Personally, I agree, though I don't have an exact timetable. Industrial civilization based on the exponentially increasing consumption of non-renewable resources is inherently non-viable and alway has been

“Cutting global emissions

“Cutting global emissions by at least 50% by 2050” is no pragmatic solution to global warming. Polar ice cap warnings have been revised to give the Arctic Ocean a 50% of being ice free by late summer. Previously, the best estimates of this impending disaster divined a span of decades. This early loss of ice reflection translates to near imminent disaster. Global agreements are clueless or bought out by the energy- auto cartel; ordinary people must take the bull by the horns. Let’s fund the production and fine tuning of Brown’s gas or HHO for home and auto use. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of home experimenters and handy persons are fueling their autos and heating their homes on it; yet the energy industry and corporate media do not permit its discussion. Its use eliminates particulate and CO 2 pollution with a waste product of only water vapor. Heat pumps and refrigeration technology can be made 700% efficient. Why can’t we talk about them and fund incentives for their production? Magnet- based motors can power households and industries (theoretically even metal smelters) using FREE or zero-point atmospheric energy. University science teaches the 19th Century concept that for the water molecule to be cracked to yield its components of hydrogen and oxygen, it must be assaulted with thousands of watts of electricity in a prohibitively expensive process. They will not consider the proven process of a cheap water breakdown using low- powered pulsed radio frequences. The most elementary engine modification is realized by running the fuel line through the exhaust manifold to vaporize the gas or diesel before combustion. Such a device can render an efficiency of 200 mpg for an ordinary internal combustion engine; yet such alteration is prohibited by government imposed catalytic converter laws. This simple technology was advanced in the 1920’s but the patents were bought up and suppressed by the auto-energy cartel, the same corporate outlaws who annihilated street cars, trollies and any kind of efficient public transportation. If fuels were burned completely there would be no need for catalytic converters. The government and the dominant auto- energy cartel is the problem. Meanwhile, those of us who have ‘the hearing ear and the seeing eye’ are altering, experimenting and modifying, even coming off the grid. ‘Come out of her my people’ from Rev. 18 applies precisely to this era when Empire America is having her last hurrah!