by frog
A new global deal on climate change heralded by G8 leaders as a significant step forward yesterday ran into trouble within hours as developing nations including China and India rejected it because they believe the commitments are not strong enough.
Non G8 member countries have good reason to be concerned:
The environmental campaign group WWF said: “The G8 are responsible for 62% 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.”
Oh well, there’s always next year’s G8 – it’s not like we may only have until 2012 to do something. Actually in terms of ambitious, sustainable rhetoric the G8’s proposal to ‘consider and adopt’ a target of at least a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 is positively Helen Clarkesque – which is a vast improvement on where George Bush was a few years ago. Gordon Brown diplomatically described it as ‘major progress’. Very true given where the G8, and in particular the White House, was starting from. It does seem though everyone is waiting for next year when things might be easier going:
They pointed out that the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, was already committed to an 80% cut in US carbon emissions and his Republican rival, John McCain, to a 60% reduction. Both candidates’ commitments would be sufficient to meet the US required contribution for a worldwide cut of 50%, seen as the minimum to avert catastrophic climate change.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Wed, July 9th, 2008
Tags: , carbon emissions, climate change, Frog, frogblog, G8, George Bush, Gordon Brown, green, new zealand, party
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Pachauri’s 2012 comment is very telling.
> If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.
As others have pointed out, even if we stopped emitting any CO2 into the atmosphere tomorrow, plugged all the volcanoes, shot all the cows and packed humanity off to Mars in a spaceship, the CO2 concentration will still increase for perhaps 50 years.
Given this, it takes a remarkable mind to come to the conclusion that Pachauri does. A more reasonable assessment might be that if we do nothing until 2012, we will see no CO2 drop for 55 years. Big deal. Why do we want a CO2 drop anyway?
My view is that we need a sustained effort to double CO2 concentration in the world. This will increase crop yields by perhaps 50% or more, and help feed the starving millions. If it managed to add half a degree to global temperature along the way, then good. Brrrrrrr.
Pachauri’s real problem is that the planet was only warming at the rate of perhaps 1.5 degrees per century from 1979 to 1998, and now isn’t warming at all, and hasn’t for 10 years. If it doesn’t restart soon the people might decide that malaria is more deserving of government money. He is right to be worried- the global warming movement has only a few years left to try to lock in legislation – and then Pachauri will be out of a job.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fifty percent enough to avoid catastrophic change? Not a chance. We’ll need a lot more than that, and sooner. The reality is that G8 countries are looking at 90% reductions based on 1990 levels if we’re to cap atmospheric GHGs at reasonable levels – and even then the chances of avoiding really bad damage don’t look good.
(Cue Private Fraser)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
consider and adopt’ a target of at least a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 is ….a vast improvement on where George Bush was a few years ago.
I don’t think so. As I have said, the European Union is on record as wanting an agreement to require developed countries to cut their emissions by 25 to 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2020. The United States opposed those targets, so they are hardly gong to set mid-term goals as they believe the target can only be met if the major developing countries who are not part of this agreement play ball – they won’t – and that the 50% figure concerns global emissions, not necessarily their own. It’s like an out clause. Last year George Bush agreed to seriously consider at least 50 percent cuts in emissions by 2050. But the US policy is still a halt to the growth of greenhouse gases by 2020 and a halt to growth is not a cut. so for the US to “consider” and “adopt” a 2050 target is empty rhetoric wen its policy is to do nothing in terms of cuts until 2020.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The US position will probably change sometime next year i’d imagine…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
how so?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Optimist… the TEMPERATURE would continue to rise. The CO2 levels would respond a bit faster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)