World

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 14°C / Lo 9°C

G8 Summit

US agrees landmark pledge to slash emissions

G8 commits to cutting carbon output by 80% – and tells China and India to follow suit

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor, in L'Aquila

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, at the Palazzo del Quirinale in Rome yesterday, where Mr Obama met the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano

EPA

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, at the Palazzo del Quirinale in Rome yesterday, where Mr Obama met the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano

The world's richest nations agreed last night to cut their carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 in a dramatic attempt to secure a new global deal to combat climate change.

Leaders of the G8 group of countries also agreed to set a limit of C on global temperature rises, the first time they have imposed such a ceiling. In return, they urged developing countries including China and India to cut their emissions by 50 per cent over the same period.

President Barack Obama cleared the way for what Gordon Brown called an "historic agreement" at the G8 summit in Italy by signing the US up to a firm emissions target for the first time – a complete contrast to the intransigence of his predecessor, George Bush. The G8 move is designed to revitalise United Nations-led talks on a global "son of Kyoto" agreement, which reach a climax in Copenhagen in December.

In talks in L'Aquila today, President Obama will try to persuade nine non-G8 nations, including China and India, to "jump together" with the G8 countries by agreeing to halve their emissions by 2050.

But an immediate breakthrough in today's 17-nation negotiations is unlikely. The Chinese President, Hu Jintao, returned home from Italy abruptly after ethnic tensions increased in China's western Xinjiang territory. The developing nations want firm guarantees of subsidies from the rich nations' club to help them meet the cost of converting their industries to low-carbon technology. They also want the G8 members to be more specific about their interim targets for reducing emissions by 2020.

Another potential stumbling block is the baseline on which the G8's emissions cuts will be calculated. Their declaration left this unclear, prompting critics to describe it as a fudge. Britain backs a 1990 start date but the US favours a later one – meaning it would have to make a smaller reduction. However, officials hope the G8's gesture will draw developing nations into serious and ultimately successful negotiations by December. One said: "There's a long way to go yet. There will be setbacks along the way. But we now have a decent chance of getting there."

Mr Brown said: "For the first time the G8 has agreed [on] what I believe are vital decisions that take us on the road to Copenhagen and change the way we look at energy policy in the future. We have agreed for the first time that average global temperatures must rise by no more than C. That is an historic agreement. We have agreed as the G8 that we want to cut our emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 and we believe that this will allow the world to reduce its emissions by 50 per cent."

The Prime Minister has proposed a $100bn global fund to ease the path to a deal by helping developing countries become more energy efficient. There was no agreement on that last night, while some non-G8 members want a bigger fund.

José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president, said: "We are not yet where we would like to be but I think things are [moving] in the right direction for Copenhagen."

But the breakthrough failed to satisfy green groups. While welcoming the G8's move, they criticised the group for failing to produce targets for 2020.

Antonio Hill, a spokesman for the charity Oxfam, said: "The G8 might have agreed to avoid cooking the planet by more than C, but they made no attempt to turn down the heat any time soon. 2050 is too far off to matter – poor people are being hit today. We must see emissions cuts of at least 40 per cent by 2020 and G8 money to help the poorest countries cope with climate chaos."

Tobias Muenchmeyer, Greenpeace International's political adviser, said: "While agreeing to keep temperature rise to below C without a clear plan, money or targets on how to do this, the G8 leaders will not have helped to break the deadlock in the UN climate negotiations."

Mr Brown scored a victory over the summit host Silvio Berlusconi by securing a shake-up of the G8's system of aid to the world's poorest nations to stop them backsliding on their promises. With Italy and France unlikely to deliver on pledges they made at the Gleneagles summit four years ago, Mr Brown and Mr Obama joined forces to try to prevent a repeat of the failure.

From now on, the G8 club will publish annual progress reports on the aid given by its members. A review next year, by when the Gleneagles promises were due to be kept, will lead to a "Gleaneagles 2" process so that the G8 can "catch up" by 2015, when the landmark Millennium Development Goals are due to be met. The Italian Prime Minister resisted Mr Brown's move for greater accountability over G8 aid commitments, but Japan and Canada joined the US to ensure that Mr Berlusconi was outmanoeuvred.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

US agrees landmark pledge to slash emissions
[info]ozziepaul wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:52 am (UTC)
2050 is far too far away. If we follow the science rather than the politics we need an 80% now so a timeframe of 2020, at the outside, is what we need and that still running a damned close race. It is do-able. All the technology exists. What is lacking is the political will and the determination to put the long term health and survival of the planet before the short term profits of the multinationals. What is needed is the realisation by politicians that we are in a dire emergency like World War 2 and that now is the time to pull all the stops out.
just a silly game
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 02:34 am (UTC)
Too little too late, of course. And we know this is all empty rhetoric because tomorow they will be back on the bandwagon of stimulating economic growth, promoting coal and building airports, whilst doing nothing whatsoever to contain population growth and totally ignoring teh issue of Peak Oil.

It's all just a silly game to keep the proles confused, to keep them believing that the so-called leaders are doing something, and that system has a future, even as it falls apart.
A junketing of pledges
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 06:20 am (UTC)
There are so many positive negatives in these G8 proposals that it all comes down to good intentions. The pledges are without serious commitment and the only way any of these targets may be met is by population disasters.
This is grandiose window dressing, while the great moral pontificators are junketing and convincing themselves of progress.
I shall not see 2050, nor will billions who watch this charade repeat itself over the years, but my guess is that plague pandemics will be the tools of redress, rather than the conscientious disciplines of "civilised" governments.
An elite class has formed around the world, which is becoming increasingly untouchable, and perpetuated by the pragmatical philosophy of Dawinism, controls the cosmetic deeds of governments.
Barack Obama
[info]egupta wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 06:47 am (UTC)
What a wonderful man--and Michelle is a perfect role model for all girls and women.

Elizabeth
A collective madness
[info]rooster281 wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 07:43 am (UTC)
These two headlines from the G8 summit show the madness of the current time. "The G8 agrees to climate targets - G8 leaders fear double dip slump"

It won't happen because it can't, unless these "World Leaders" wish to condemn millions to poverty and starvation. In 2050 the history books will look back at this period and wonder what caused this lunacy.
[info]toolan wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 07:53 am (UTC)
So, they meet their emmisions target - and global temperatures continue to rise / fall / stay largely the same - what then ? Will these stone-age half-wits begin burning virgins to placate the great god ClimateChange ? Such hubris will beget a very unpleasant nemesis for us all.

By all means, give us clean air [ a much needed by-product of current thinking ], but don't
kill us all doing it !

Toolan
Another Kyoto
[info]had_it wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 08:22 am (UTC)
Will having the US on board mean that the signatories to the new protocol will do anything to meet their targets this time? I doubt it. And, with the US on board, who will we blame for our failings?
Near-Zero CO2 Plan Wanted
[info]redroseandy wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 08:49 am (UTC)
None of these Governments have adopted a Near-Zero CO2 plan and this is the only way that the targets they have set will be hit. The market will not do the job so central planning has to.
[info]piemanz wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 09:31 am (UTC)

Well it's a good coordinated start on controlling global warming emission standards, but the big concern is setting an appropriate baseline for CO2 levels, the uk wants to use a 1990 level where as bigger polluters want to use baselines from early 2000, which have much higher CO2 levels so in a sense an 80% cut will not be so dramatic.
What emissions? America doesn't manufacture goods
[info]colin_brown wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 10:01 am (UTC)
like they used to. Instead, the UK and the US prefers China to produce our goods using energy that's harnessed by burning filthy coal (the biggest C02 pollutant on the planet) which these Globalists then have the temerity to tax non-polluting Westerners for.

It's the biggest scam of our time and we are expected to pick up the tab!

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
Re: What emissions? America doesn't manufacture goods
[info]almightymat wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:54 pm (UTC)

Sooo....the pollution is being caused by the production of goods for our consumption, but we are in no way responsible?

Your argument has more holes in it than the ozone layer, old chap...
Negotiation beginning...
[info]pcsobilly wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 10:03 am (UTC)

Its not good enough as already stated, targets for 2050 will achieve little or nothing in effect.

Yesterday it was reported that representatives of the "G20" had met to specifically address the agenda of the G8. At this meeting the G8 reps proposed binding targets within a timescale of the next 10 years to 2020, the Chinese and Indian representatives refused to discuss any agreement on reductions and stated that they would only enter discussion of any targets or timescale once the other G8 members had agreed to provide substantial financing to pay for "damage" through adverse effects of climate change within their own and some other "developing" nations. The Chinese premier returned to China after this position was established.

It seems apparent that whatever is agreed by governments here in Europe and the U.S. or our actions individually, in the whole, until such a time as the Chinese and Indian governments believe it is in their interest to act we will continue to hurtle into a future no one desires.
The tyre gives out cool air when you press the valve. Do you call this cool or flat?
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:27 pm (UTC)
US agrees landmark pledge to slash emissions
Pledge. The tsunami had the pledge. We pledge of giving all the employees the right to work in the atmosphere that gives us the maximum output but we put the CCTV even in the loo to see they do not steal the toilet papers. Katrina pledge to empty the water and let them come back. In the meantime, we fix the houses. Nevertheless, the population majority is Spaniards, Latinos and colored so we pledge we will fix these and that. Al Gore comes and gives us the DVD on the water level and the dangers to the Scotland. He is interested in Scotland. Whales need the protection and BBC rings me up on,?Have your Say? I say and the Japanese go kill 100 the same day.
The word pledge is undertaking, oath, took a solemn oath of loyalty, a formal or legally binding pledge to do something such as tell the truth in a court of law, made formally and often naming God or a loved one as a witness, a swearword, especially one that uses the name of God or another sacred name in a disrespectful way, something delivered as security for the keeping of a promise or the payment of a debt or as a guarantee of good faith, a toast drunk to somebody or something as a gesture of goodwill or support. Does that say, ?Here is my cash? What about yours??
The tyre gives out cool air when you press the valve. Do you call this cool or flat?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Landmark for politicians but not for the world
[info]pebbens wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 12:29 pm (UTC)
It maybe a "landmark" agreement, but notice the politicians sign up to something that they have no control over that length of time... anyway the target should be 2020, and the excuse "costs too much" should be eliminated as there won't be anywhere to spend it soon...
2050?
[info]fcbarca wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 02:14 pm (UTC)
I mean, seriously, that amounts to no change at all as we all know these agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on...They'll amend it and change it and ultimately do little in the way of adhering to it.

Propaganda...2050???...I mean, come on
Landmark Schmandmark
[info]gerryj wrote:
Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 04:09 pm (UTC)
This is a cruel hoax. Obama's cap and trade program does nothing to cut CO2 or much of anything else. One cannot reduce by 83% the CO2 from a coal fired power plant. If you're going to burn something you'll consume oxygen and emit CO2 and that's a scientific fact that Obama nor anyone else can change. All Obama is doing is paying lip service to utopian goals with unobtainable limits and horrendous taxes on Americans. I'm sure all you European Greens will be happy about the taxes on American industry so you can have a price advantage.

Cleaning up the environment is a fine idea and should be done with prudence not zealotry. America needs to build Nuclear power plants to replace coal fired plants which actually reduce CO2 emissions and drill for oil here so we can stop sending trillions of dollars to our phylisophical and economic enemys.

Everything else is just plain dumb. By the way; hundreds of scientists now say that if they knew then what they know now they wouldn't have bothered with Kyoto treaty because global warming is a hoax.
YOU ARE MAD What does Al Gore think of the complete affair?
[info]famulla wrote:
Friday, 10 July 2009 at 07:02 am (UTC)
Andrew Grice, Political Editor, in L'Aquila Obama and Brown with the Muslims Eh I love that
Y2K sounded like so.
Tell me. What does Al Gore think of the complete affair? He started this too and now he is quite? There must be a reason. Suppression of speech?
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date