G8 statement on carbon reduction is hot air

Leaders of the richest and most polluting G8 nations have said they will “consider and adopt” a goal of 50% cuts in carbon emissions by 2050. But does this actually mean anything in practice?

So how much progress was made on climate change at the G8 summit? At first glance, it looks promising: the leaders of the richest and most polluting nations are talking about 50% cuts in global carbon emissions by 2050.

Make no mistake, that’s a lot. Because developing countries will demand the right to pollute more for years to come, to lift millions of their people from poverty by burning coal to produce cheap energy, the bulk of the suggested cut must be made by rich countries - the G8. Britain could face up to 95% cuts in its carbon output within four decades to meet its share of the load - a staggering ambition.

Some have criticised the apparently weak wording of the G8 statement - the leaders say they will “seek” to “consider and adopt” the 50% target. In fact, presented in its true context, the pledge is what green campaigners have been calling for.

“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.”

The alphabet soup stands for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the official way that countries sort out global climate treaties - and the only way in which developing countries such as China and India get a say. This statement is the G8, and the US in particular, saying they will do things properly.

Many questions about the target remain: what year will the 50% cut be measured against, for example, and what will be the shorter term goals needed to make it happen? But it could be a starting point.

This is where it starts to get a little fuzzy. The UNFCCC is currently trying to agree a successor to its 1997 Kyoto protocol, to restrict emissions over the crucial next two decades. One of the key blanks in that emerging deal is the lack of a long-term goal, or vision, to set the speed of the cuts. It could be a 2C maximum temperature rise, or a 450ppm limit for CO2 in the atmosphere, or, at a push, a halving of global emissions by 2050.

So, has the G8 provided the answer? Not yet. The same G8 countries agreed to “seriously consider” the same 50% cut by 2050 last year. Then, just a few months later at UNFCCC talks in Bali, the US retreated from that position, saying it was premature to set a long-term goal.

The UNFCCC held a meeting in Bonn last month at which a long-term goal was barely discussed - yet a few weeks later the rich countries have presented one, albeit the same as 12 months previously.

So what’s going on? Britain claims the US has shifted its position, but Britain has been claiming that for years with little hard evidence. The acid test will be the UNFCCC meeting in Poland in December - any more US stalling on a long-term target will expose the G8 statement as hot air.

Once such a vision is established under the UNFCCC, then countries are effectively locked into a process that will lead to shorter-term targets to slash emissions, and action. A 2050 goal expressed through the G8 makes no such demands and is safer political territory. The US knows this full well. So do the developing nations and green groups, hence their reluctance to embrace it. There is a long way to go yet.

Source - The Guardian