Robert Weissman on the G8 agreement on global warming -

"Dragged down most of all by the anti-leadership of the United States, the G8 announced a commitment to a 50 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Well, a sort-of commitment.

The best science says the world needs at least an 80 percent reduction from 1990 emissions levels by 2050, and very likely more, so the G8 commitment is totally inadequate on its face.

But the G8 position is even more lame than it first appears. A statement from an environmental coalition including Friends of the Earth International explained the key flaws. 'First, the G8 formula is a global cut,' not imposing particular responsibility on the rich, high carbon-polluting countries. Second, 'the cut has no clear baseline. It was revealing that in announcing it, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda initially said it was from 1990 levels, then had to take back that statement and subsequently mentioned a 2000 baseline.' Third, the statement is not binding, and 'indeed, the G8 announcement reinforces the G8 as a site for climate action that rivals the UN process [for climate change negotiations] and effectively subverts it.'"

---

Additional reporting from Les Whittington -

"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, [environmental] groups said."

"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 said."

" '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."

---

Toban Black
(http://tobanblack.net/blog/?p=245)