The British Prime Minister’s office confirmed later that the leaked document was genuine, but said it was being developed, and was not the final draft. Friends of the Earth picked on the document to show how little substantial progress there had been on climate change.


__________________________________________________________


Published on Monday, May 30, 2005 by the Inter Press Service

Leaked draft document provides another bleak outlook

by Sanjay Suri

LONDON - The prospects for progress on climate change at the G8 summit in July do not look too good, going by the content of a leaked document.

The document purporting to be a draft for agreements on climate change was posted anonymously on a website Friday. The British Prime Minister's office confirmed later that the document was genuine, but said it was being developed, and was not the final draft.

Friends of the Earth picked on the document to show how little substantial progress there had been on climate change. The document marks agreement at the officials level on the draft to be produced at the summit of heads of government of the G8 countries (the United States, Canada, Russia, Japan, Britain, Italy, France and Germany).

The summit will be held at Gleneagles in Scotland July 6-8. Climate change is among the two top priorities named by the British hosts, along with development of Africa.

The leaked draft calls for steps to deal with climate change, and for international financial institutions to play a role. But the general suggestions are not backed by any call to binding commitments.

Friends of the Earth hopes now for some late injection of life into the draft. ''We are at the end of May, and there is still a month to go to shape something much, much better than this,'' Catherine Pearce from Friends of the Earth told IPS.

The group lists three principal objections to the draft document:

There are no specific targets or timetables for reducing greenhouse gases from G8 nations. Without targets or timetables meaningful action to tackle the problem is unlikely;
There is no recognition of the major impact that G8 nations have had -- and continue to have -- on climate change. G8 countries are responsible for 64 per cent of all global emissions since 1800. The United States has four percent of the world's population, yet it produces around a quarter of the world's annual greenhouse gas emissions;
There is no mention of the importance of implementing the international climate treaty, the Kyoto protocol, which the United States has refused to sign, or the need for international action to curb emissions after 2012, when the first commitment period under Kyoto ends.
''It is indicative of where the stumbling blocks are,'' Pearce said. Inevitably, no stumbling block is bigger than the United States, which has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol. That refusal is only indicative of a policy of skepticism towards climate change itself.

The limited nature of the draft ''shows the kind of limits to the thinking so far, they are not pushing themselves beyond the comfort zone,'' Pearce said. The need is to ''go through a paradigm shift in the use of energy and how to fund it,'' she said. ''But how do you say at this late stage that you've got to go further?''

The draft shows officials looking at the right issues but not going far enough, Pearce said. While British Prime Minister Tony Blair is campaigning in G8 countries to push the British agenda, the new impetus to do more will have to come from all the leaders, Pearce said.

''We do not have much faith in Blair's special relationship with Bush. Bush will not give what we want, what Blair wants,'' she said. U.S. President George W. Bush had himself taken an early decision to pull the United States away from the Kyoto protocol agreed in 1997 to cut emissions that are believed to lead to global warming and consequently climate change.

There are fears that the draft agreement could even get worse than it is at present. It does not yet include any statement on the nuclear option, or an agreement on the scientific evidence of climate change, Pearce said. Statements on these issues ''could take us backward,'' she said.

Friends of the Earth wants a G8 agreement to include the following:

- Agreement on the compelling scientific evidence showing that climate change is already happening and that urgent action is now required to substantially reduce emissions.

- An agreement by G8 nations for specific, substantial and timetabled cuts in their domestic emissions of greenhouse gases.

- G8 nations must take radical action at home in order to reduce the impacts of climate change, including a change in consumption patterns and a meaningful switch to the use of renewable sustainable energy sources.

- G8 nations must stop promoting fossil fuel extraction in developing nations through international financial institutions such as the World Bank and export credit agencies.

- G8 governments should immediately phase-in public finance for sustainable clean energy.

The leakage of the draft is now set to put renewed pressure on officials from the G8 countries to improve the draft.

© Copyright 2005 IPS - Inter Press Service

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0530-06.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4650725.stm

This article is interesting.


Yeah, I'm not counting on the G8 meeting resulting in anything earth shatteringly relivant to the common folk.


c-

I'm still optimistic that these 8 men realize that failure to meet the needs of the world’s poorest nations threatens long-term global stability, that perpetuating poverty will ultimately threaten the prosperity that the rich minority has come to enjoy.

I wish i could be as optimistic as you... i was at live 8 in philly which was great.. but me and my friend were saying how we feel that this is going to accomplish nor change a thing... its just sad... but i still hold a thin sliver of hope for a better planet and a brighter future.

Climate scientists fear fudge at G8 meeting
17:25 05 July 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Fred Pearce

Climate scientists fear that this week’s G8 talks in Gleneagles, Scotland, will not hear the truth about the “clear and present danger” of climate change.

In 2004, UK prime minister Tony Blair said that action to halt climate change would be a top priority, along with poverty in Africa, for the UK's chairmanship of the G8 in 2005. To update politicians, he called a conference of scientists in February 2005 to discuss the risks of “dangerous” climate change and how to prevent it happening.

The meeting - held in Exeter, southwest England - concluded that the risks were “more serious than previously thought". UK environment secretary Margaret Beckett said she believed “the conference will be seen as a turning point in the perception of climate change. It underlines the need for urgent action”.

But Will Steffen, chief scientist at the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, who helped organise the conference, says he fears the message has not got through to the leaders. “It is clear that the risk of dangerous climate change is higher than we thought even a year ago,” he told New Scientist. “World leaders should be made aware of these developments in the scientific community.”

Another organiser of the Exeter meeting, John Schellnhuber, research director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, UK, said: "Our great dilemma is that climate change policy lags behind climate change dynamics in a most dangerous way."

He adds: "Gleneagles should acknowledge the urgency by coming up with a G8 initiative - for instance 25% emissions reductions for G8 countries by 2025." The G8 nations account for about 45% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Runaway melting
Back in 1992, world leaders pledged to prevent “dangerous climate change” when their governments signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Brazil.

The nations involved included the US, whose commitment is unaffected by the country’s subsequent rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Exeter conference failed to define dangerous climate change. But it did catalogue a series of potentially sudden and disastrous changes to planetary processes that could arise with a warming of between 1°C and 3°C, including:

• runaway melting of ice caps causing eventual sea level rises of many metres;

• the shutdown of ocean currents like the Gulf Stream;

• conversion of the planet’s ecosystems from absorbers of greenhouse gas emissions into giant emitters.

In March 2005, the European Union, which includes 4 of the G8 nations, agreed that it would be dangerous to let global warming exceed 2°C. It has already warmed 0.6°C since pre-industrial times. But because of time-lags in the natural systems, such as the thermal inertia of the oceans, the world could be within a decade of becoming unavoidably committed to an eventual 2°C warming.

Step backwards
The fears of scientists that their message has been lost intensified in June 2005 when a draft of the negotiated text of the Gleneagles declaration included the phrase “our world is warming” in square brackets, indicating that not all the eight leaders agreed to it.

But even “a simple statement that climate change is happening and that we will have, sometime, to do something, would represent a step backwards,” says Myles Allen, at climate modeller at the University of Oxford, UK, who presented a study in Exeter suggesting climate change could be twice as bad as previously feared.

The government’s main representative at the Exeter conference was chief scientist David King, but he will not be making any presentations at Gleneagles. “He has a full diary of other activities,” his spokesman told New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? ... news_rss20

Who can name the G8 off the top of their heads?

I can't!





USA
England
Canada
France
Germany
Australia
uh ... Russia
China?

Is that right? close?

Close - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and the US.

Australia's not a more powerful nation than Italy? Huh.

It's hard to believe with Berlusconi in government.

Poll: 94% of Americans Want To Address Climate Change
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2cbfab24-ed7b- ... 511c8.html

Unfortunately unlike these 94% who believe the US should make efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions, Bush says the US will not sign any deals limiting gas emissions and wants to shift debate on global warming away from limits on greenhouse gas emissions to new technology.

The Bush administration claims that mandatory greenhouse gas reductions would be prohibitively expensive, costing millions of jobs, cutting into gross domestic product, and harming U.S. competitiveness.

The problem with Bush's argument is that his estimates are based on theoretical economic models that don't fully capture how environmental policy affects technological change.

________________________________________________________

President Bush says he wants to shift debate on global warming away from limits on greenhouse gas emissions

Ahead of this week’s G8 summit, President Bush says he wants to shift debate on global warming away from limits on greenhouse gas emissions to new technology that would reduce environmental harm without restricting energy use.

In an interview with British journalist Trevor McDonald to be broadcast on ITV television Monday, Bush repeated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change and said the United States would not sign it or any similar deals limiting gas emissions.

“I think you can grow your economy and at the same time do a better job of harnessing greenhouse gases,” Bush said. “That’s exactly what I intend to talk to our partners about.”

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who hosts the three-day summit of major industrial powers that begins Wednesday in Scotland, plans to make action on global warming a top focus along with tackling poverty in Africa.

Bush spoke of his administration’s investment of $20 billion (16.55 billion euros) in developing hydrogen-powered vehicles, zero-emission power stations and other technology.

The Bush administration opposes the 1997 Kyoto treaty because officials believe it would raise energy prices and cost 5 million U.S. jobs.

“My hope is—and I think the hope of Tony Blair is—to move beyond the Kyoto debate and to collaborate on new technologies that will enable the United States and other countries to diversify away from fossil fuels so that the air will be cleaner and that we have the economic and national security that comes from less dependence on foreign sources of oil,” Bush said.

Blair, who has described global warming as “probably the most serious threat we face” wants an agreement among G8 leaders on the scientific threat posed by global warming and the urgent need for action.

He also wants greater research in so-called green technology, and to draw emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico into the debate.

Prospects of agreement when the leaders of the United States, Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan join Blair in Gleneagles, Scotland, remain uncertain.

Bush described climate change as “a significant, long-term issue that we’ve got to deal with” and acknowledged that human activity is “to some extent” to blame.

Bush also made it clear that he was not ready to slash the farm subsidies that critics say distort global trade and make it difficult for African economies to compete unless the European Union was also prepared to scrap its Common Agricultural Policy.

“We’ve got agricultural subsidies, not nearly to the extent that our friends in the EU have,” he said. ”... The position of the U.S. government is, we’re willing to do so and we will do so with our fine friends in the European Union.”

In the interview, Bush was also asked if he would make a special effort to support Blair at the summit in return for the British leader’s backing for the war in Iraq.

“I really don’t view our relationship as one of quid pro quo,” Bush replied. “Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for keeping the peace and winning the war on terror, as I did. So I go to the G8 not really trying to make him look bad or good, but I go to the G8 with an agenda that I think is best for our country.”

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07 ... index.html

Bush doesn't listen to the people who pay him.

I am so totally shocked!

Shouldn't countries like China and India be the subject of this thread? I mean there are more people under the age of 19 in China then there are people in the US. If you want to make change then do it in a place where the most people are and the place where the most consuming will be in 15 years or so.

If you think the US is bad with greenhouse gases, wait and see what China will look like.

You bring good points, but the G8 is meeting this week and we haven't let China or India (or Australia) come to the meetings yet.

Even though China is currently exempted, it has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol and will declare itself an Annex I country within the next decade and will no longer be exempted. In fact, China's per capita emission is among the lowest ones in the world. The U.S. Natural Resources Defense Council stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".

China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the U.S. (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita).

The reason the US is more mentioned in this thread is because it's the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases and there will be no solution without the involvement of the United States.

Who cares, China will be the largest producer of greenhouse gases in a a few years or decades. Why try to retrofit the US when you can start on the right track in China? China is virtually an undeveloped country except for its larger cities. China has been accumulating and using the rest of the world's raw materials at an alarming rate. China is trying to buy Unocal. I think that's a huge wake up call in my opinion to the lengths China is willing to go to accumulate raw materials, in this case oil. China's import of oil has doubled over the last 5 years and doesn't seem to be slowing down. Again if you look at the # of people and look at these developing countries, China and India are the places where greenhouse emissions are going to come from in the years to come.

Restructuring its economy??? China is still tied to the US dollar.

I'm not denying that China with its huge population and endless coal reserves couldn't surpass the United States as the world's largest source of gases, what I'm saying in that China although not having to commit to binding emission reduction targets is taking measures and its emissions have dropped. China has taken unprecedented action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions despite the lack of legal commitments.

Leaving countries' emissions aside, the US or any of these countries is certainly responsible for the CO2 that it is emitting right now and should certainly do something about it. All that's being asked of Mr. Bush is a bit of long term thinking.

But this shouldn't be about Mr. Bush, this should be about the individual companies and their choices. Because when the government makes choices it affects the consumer directly. Companies should be taking the lead and not the government. But I have a feeling until these emission free vehicles or greenhouse free power plants are affordable to the consumer it won't happen. In my opinion, this needs to come from within the companies and not from the government. If the government wants to have tax incentives or something similar, rock on.

Many companies, with few exceptions, will never take the necessary measures without government intervention. These companies will never give out a single dime to help cut these emissions unless they are certain that they will receive two back.

Do you really think we can depend on companies voluntary efforts? However, signatory countries and the companies operating within them are required to begin reducing emissions.

Several US companies have kept up and even lead the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but the difference between U.S. companies' voluntary efforts and Kyoto's mandatory ones is size and scope. In the EU, the Kyoto Protocol covers 12,000 companies. By comparison, combined U.S. efforts have enlisted only hundreds.