The Reading Blog

At this week’s G8 summit in Japan, leaders from the US, Japan, Russia, Britain, Canada, Italy, Germany, and France agreed on working toward the goal of cutting by at least 50% by 2050 worldwide greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. This feeble, loosely-worded, non-binding agreement is not the kind of urgent action we need to combat climate change caused by human activities.

Les Whittington’s “G8 Climate Deal Falls Short, Critics Say” article in the July 8, 2008 Toronto Star wrote that,

Environmental groups derided the agreement as a loosely worded arrangement too full of loopholes to be effective. It appears intended to paper over the stark divide between Bush, whose country did not sign the Kyoto treaty, and European countries that favour strong climate change action, the groups said.

Clare Demerse, a policy analyst with the Pembina Institute, said the accord was at best “a baby step” in the global effort to tackle global warming. “The world was looking for leadership from these countries and was hoping to see a breakthrough,” she said. “But we saw a real lack of leadership.” She said it was unfortunate that the G8 appears to have watered down its commitments to appease Bush, who has long opposed targets for reducing emissions, even though the U.S. president will soon be out of power.

The accord was only marginally stronger than the one reached during last year’s summit in Germany, when the G8 agreed to consider significant 2050 goals for emissions reductions.

Antonio Hill, spokesperson for Oxfam International, said, “At this rate, by 2050 the world will be cooked and the G8 leaders will be long forgotten. Rather than a breakthrough, the G8’s announcement on 2050 is another stalling tactic that does nothing to lower the risk faced by millions of poor people right now,” Hill commented.

Analysts said the agreement was badly weakened because it does not stipulate a base year to measure the extent of emissions reductions needed to reach the goal of 50 per cent cuts by 2050. A senior Canadian official confirmed that the G8 will leave it to each country to determine what base year to use when calculating anti-pollution measures.

“While the statement may appear as a movement forward, we are concerned that it may, in effect, be a regression from what is required to make a meaningful contribution to meeting the challenges of climate change,” South African Environment Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said in a statement. “To be meaningful and credible, a long-term goal must have a base year. It must be underpinned by ambitious mid-term targets and actions,” he said.

The G8’s environment communique was in keeping with the position adopted by Bush and Harper [Prime Minister of Canda] that all nations—not just wealthy countries—must agree to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause climate change. This approach clashes with the view expressed by leaders of developing countries who argue that industrialized nations are responsible for the bulk of pollution and must take the lead in reducing it.

This stalling, effectively passing the hot potato to our children and grandchildren may be diplomatic (to appease President Bush), but is totally irresponsible. Clearly we need a new administration that will take a proactive leadership role on this urgent issue. As the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, the US has a responsibility to clean up its act and be the good example for others to follow.