G-8 climate chiefs urge leaders to agree to CO2 cut target

Monday 26th May, 03:41 PM JST

KOBE —

Group of Eight environment ministers urged their leaders Monday to agree at the July summit on a target of halving global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, while prodding developed countries to ‘‘take the lead in achieving a significant reduction.’’ ‘‘Strong political will was expressed to go beyond last year’s G-8 agreement and to reach an agreement on a shared vision of a long-term global goal at the G-8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit,’’ the ministers said in the chair’s summary issued after a three-day meeting in Kobe.

The ministers’ call may pave the way for a landmark accord on the long-term emissions reduction target by G-8 leaders at their July 7-9 summit in a resort area near Lake Toya, Hokkaido, building fresh momentum in the fight against global warming. But the ministers failed to converge views on medium-term targets, only calling for ‘‘effective’’ targets for industrial economies while taking into account ‘‘the findings’’ of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the summary said.

‘‘We need a long-term target and we need for the developed countries a clear mid-term target for CO2 (carbon dioxide) reduction,’’ Matthias Machnig, Germany’s secretary of state for the environment, said at a news conference after the meeting, urging the G-8 leaders to clearly show both targets at the summit.

Machnig said medium-term targets, which are closely linked to a new carbon-capping framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol after it expires in 2012, are important for both the environment and the economy as energy and energy-related businesses may find it difficult to make investments before learning the shape of a new framework.

But U.S. delegate Scott Fulton, speaking on behalf of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson, said that Washington finds it hard to accept the long-term and medium-term targets without the participation of major emerging economies such as China and India.

Environment Minister Ichiro Kamoshita said Japan will play an active role in U.N. negotiations for a post-Kyoto framework, but that Japan has yet to decide whether to announce its medium-term target before becoming fully engaged in the talks, which are scheduled to conclude in December next year.

Despite such differences, the G-8 ministers agreed on the importance of having emissions ‘‘peak and then decrease within the next 10-20 years,’’ the summary said.

Developed countries ‘‘must commit to quantified national emission targets, actively adopting measures to reduce GHG emissions, while further acts to mitigate emissions by developing countries are also necessary,’’ it said.

The ministers also said it is ‘‘especially crucial’’ for ‘‘countries with rapidly increasing GHG emissions,’’ or emerging economies such as China and India, to ‘‘strive to curb the rate of increase.’‘

In Sunday’s session of the Kobe meeting, the United States, which has been reluctant to set a long-term target, said it is important to ‘‘go beyond’’ the Heiligendamm agreement, according to a Japanese Environment Ministry official.

But Washington said the envisaged target must be one to aspire to rather than being binding, the official said.

Kamoshita said Sunday in a speech that in order to halve global emissions by 2050, ‘‘There is a strong expectation that developed countries will strengthen their reduction measures and aim for reduction goals much higher than 50% to demonstrate their leadership.’’ But his call was not reflected in the chair’s summary.

As for carbon-capping measures, the ministers recognized the effectiveness of employing market mechanisms such as emissions trading and carbon taxes in curbing emissions, and said, ‘‘Countries should further explore the possible utilization of these economic instruments according to their own national circumstances.’‘

The ministers agreed to continue dialogue among major economies on crafting a post-Kyoto arrangement, including Japan’s proposal for the launch of an international network of institutions to facilitate the transition to low-carbon societies, according to the summary.

The ministers welcomed British and Italian proposals to host meetings later this year and next spring, respectively, on establishing the research network.

The G-8 climate chiefs agreed that a Japan-proposed, bottom-up, sector-by-sector approach to slashing emissions ‘‘can be useful tools for setting national reduction targets,’’ the summary said.

Using energy efficiency in each sector as a yardstick, the sectoral approach involves determining potential reduction volumes on an industry-by-industry, area-by-area basis that would then be tallied for a quantified national target. Areas include offices, households and transportation.

On biological diversity, the ministers agreed that it is necessary to pay ‘‘sufficient attention’’ to the links between climate change and biodiversity, while emphasizing the need to develop ecological networks of such areas.

Among other issues, the ministers called for actions by both importing and exporting countries to exclude illegally logged timber from the market. They also agreed to promote the so-called ‘‘3Rs’’ approach of reducing waste by promoting reuse and recycling.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 24 Total Comments Show All

Farmboy at 07:15 PM JST - 27th May

"Apparently in 2048 all the fish will be gone too according to latest studies."

While I do believe the reports about global climate change are well-researched studies with reasonable conclusions, and I do not believe the 31000 scientists who signed a petition but did no research include many people who know squat about global warming, I fear I must point out that the main author of the fish studies you mention is, get this, Boris Worm, PHD. Sorry, I just HAD to mention that.
weedkila at 07:54 PM JST - 27th May

I do not believe the 31000 scientists who signed a petition but did no research include many people who know squat about global warming,

???
sf2k at 04:13 AM JST - 28th May

@weedkila

You have to be careful too of information which, although true, is cherry picked and doesn't really fit in with the overall picture.

Yes I completely agree.

In my view, because we have oversaturated the oceans with our own C02 generation, any external effects, sun spots etc, cannot be absorbed, thus we are playing with planetary systems. Effects on the oceans determine ice age or greenhouse so hence scientists in their cubicles declare one swing or another. In the 70's the swing was to ice age, now it's not. This is more a representation of how long systems take affect and I don't see the two as contradictatory. It's also possible that the earth is always heading toward one swing or another at any given time.

However, I think any evidence of cooling is used as an excuse for inaction, not in further understanding, nor an opportunity for corrective action. Yes, it was cold this winter, again weather systems are not linear. All we can go by is overall trends. We all want it neat and tidy, but natural systems aren't always so.

The overall trend is that insurance companies will be going out of business at some point due to all this weather instability caused by climate change. The losses are just too great. A calm year would be a bonus.

Forget politicians. If we can get those companies on board to get humans off this bent cool culture to be planetary cancer, then no matter what challenges we face we do so in maintaining the livability of earth.

I've heard the sun spot theory before too, but it's like saying lightening struck my house while I was busy lighting it on fire. It probably would have been prudent if I wasn't an idiot.

The overall trend, regardless of reason, is that concentrations of C02 continue to rise and will have side effects. Let's stop pissing in our own pool for a while to give natural systems a chance.

Thanks for the links. I too take it all with a grain of salt but I'm also thankful that with each one I get a better picture of what's what.

As long as it forwards the discussion.
sf2k at 04:34 AM JST - 28th May

oh btw, scientists are under peer review and are constantly pitted against each other like an international thunderdome. This haraning goes on and on until something breaks or is proven. High school lunch hour meets debate club.

reminds me of the Australian doctor who determined that ulcers or heartburn (sorry i forgot which one) was in fact from a virus infection. Scientists around the world panned this theory. Until it was proven of course.

My fear is that in the zealous attempt to prove one side or another, we'll just have to wait until we've screwed up the planet to prove it, which of course is insane. This is the flaw of science, but it's all we've got.

Thankfully until recently anyway, human political thought has always been ahead of science. Science was used to support slavery and the Nazis, but political and society manner decided over time to fight it, ignore it, and to not give it value anymore for the greater good. I think you'll agree that this is a good thing.

I'm also sure I'm not 100% correct on the science either, but by god let's take prudent measures against any questionable greenhouse gases and any pollution. Let that be our political direction within the science.

If I could somehow combine the best practices of the G8 together, wouldn't that be the most spectacular prudence ever seen? This is the magnatude of this summit's failure.

This is where the politicians have failed and continue to do so. The G8 doesn't really do anything meaningful. All I can say is take action personally. Look at your own situation and do the best you can for you and your family.
Farmboy at 08:17 AM JST - 28th May

weedkilla, I was referring to the reports that this petition included many without credentials as climate change scientists, to put it mildly. http://envirowonk.com/content/view/214/2/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition

Actually, it would be interesting, as a "scientific" experiment, to try to sign the petition from www.oism.org/ yourself....give yourself a degree in science, maybe try signing twice, and see if you are challenged. My hypothesis is that you won't be, as these folks seem to have an agenda. (They offer DVDs about protecting yourself and your family in case of a nuclear catastrophe, it seems. My weirdness alarm bells are alerted when I look at their website above.) Anyway, here's the link:

http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/InstructionsForSigning_Petition.html
sf2k at 10:00 AM JST - 28th May

Peak Oil is also a case of too much C02 production. Of concern as well is that because oil is dwindling, the next logical replacement is coal, which will be more polluting.

energybulletin.net/primer.php theoildrum.com peakoil.com

IEA (International Energy Agency) pegged 2012 as a major 'oil supply crunch' because demand is at 2.2% a year but non-OPEC can only handle 1%. Should OPEC then take on the rest of demand, they run out of slack in 2012. Please note oil doesn't run out, but demand exceed supply. Apparently they're concerned and will be doing a review this summer.

If you see IEA talking about Peak Oil, then politicians will get going on C02 emmissions due to economic reasons, not climate change, even though the two are related.
weedkila at 02:47 PM JST - 28th May

sf2k:

It's also possible that the earth is always heading toward one swing or another at any given time.

Exactly, it's very natural and it's been happening for billions of years. There is nothing new now about the swing back to cooling.

I recommend you take a look at the comedian, George Carlin, and his take on the planet (for a bit of light heartedness : )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

I think any evidence of cooling is used as an excuse for inaction, not in further understanding,

Not at all. Pollution of any kind (and please don't confuse that with carbon emissions or climate change) is a concern and we should be doing something about it. But this nonsense about CO2 causing climate change is part of an agenda. As one climate scientist from MIT recently said "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."

The powers that be are pushing for a world wide carbon tax. It will be worth billions, no, trillions to them. I can provide a number of links and more scare mongering articles on how dire it is that everyone gives their carbon money to the church of global warming although a quick google search should bring up plenty of results.

Here is a link which explains how this climate change agenda will negatively affect everyone, especially the poor. Only the rich will reap the rewards. It's all about money and possibly, depopulation (to be frank.)

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2008/031008newproposals.htm

(note: you'll probably need to add underscores on either side of 'new' in the above url as the link gets broken when posting.)

Perhaps we should talk about the God of Global Warming, Al Gore, and how massive his carbon footprint is (I can provide the links if you'd like.) He also heavily invested in green technologies. Not a bad thing but it shows it's worth $$$$ to him. Or how about John Travolta, another GWarming adherent who is insisting everyone cuts back, yet he owns 3~4 large private planes. This is hypocrisy at an extreme level. Do you think that perhaps they know something the majority of people don't?

I've heard the sun spot theory before too, but it's like saying lightening struck my house while I was busy lighting it on fire.

How can you dismiss something as complicated as sunspots and the sun's effect with a line like this?
weedkila at 02:53 PM JST - 28th May

Farmboy:

I checked out your link. To be honest I am very dubious about wikipedia on matters of history and politics because I'm aware of who runs it and how much censoring goes on. For example in one section titled 'Signatories' it talks about the "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?) etc etc.

This is what the article on the petition has to say: "In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists,"...

I was referring to the reports that this petition included many without credentials as climate change scientists,

You mean like the main stream media, politicians and so on? On the other hand the article says "...including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties."

They offer DVDs about protecting yourself and your family in case of a nuclear catastrophe, it seems. My weirdness alarm bells are alerted when I look at their website above.

You really think that's their motivation for organising 31000 signatures? LOL

give yourself a degree in science, maybe try signing twice, and see if you are challenged.

nice try

Moderator: All readers, back on topic please.
weedkila at 03:50 PM JST - 28th May

sf2k: (continued)

The overall trend, regardless of reason, is that concentrations of C02 continue to rise and will have side effects.

Where is your evidence on side effects? (I'd like to see it from sources that are not compromised by govt. grants or corporations that are not set to profit from this climate change thing)?

I'll quote 2 sources to the contrary: The first is an article titled "Consensus Shattered As Major Scientific Study Says Global Warming Is Natural" You can google it but part of it says:

"The so-called scientific consensus that global warming is man-made has been shattered with the release of a major new study backed by three universities which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is explained by natural factors and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant." -- Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that temperature fluctuations over the past three decades are not consistent with greenhouse model predictions and more closely correlate with solar activity.

The study was authored by "Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia)" and it appeared in last December's "International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society."

The second is titled Don't fight, adapt -- We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change. This was an open letter to the UN by top scientists and included Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

Please read the list of signatories and their credentials. It is linked at the bottom of the letter and is impressive.

And a few links to Al Gore's heavy carbon footprint:

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2007/02/gorescarbonfo.html http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/02/27/al-gores-size-221-000-carbon-footprint/ http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Farmboy at 04:01 PM JST - 28th May

OK, back on topic. I don't believe the G-8 climate chiefs will agree to a real target. For the U.S. there are too many doubters, like weedkilla, among the politicians to show any leadership (a non-binding target isn't a target), among the developing nations, like China and India, a target would act as a limit on growth, which they won't accept, and in Japan, I'm not sure... One group in Japan seems to just want to wangle the rules using carbon trading, etc. and another group seems to be moving forward toward developing wind, solar, and other options. A lot of the rest of the world seems willing to have targets, but their cuts won't overcome the increases from the rest of the world.

It should be an interesting future at any rate...lots of floods, storms, icebergs melting...I just wish I liked water sports more than I do...I'll probably need to do a lot more swimming:-)
sf2k at 04:22 PM JST - 28th May

I read Lester Brown's Mobilizing to save civilization verions 3.0 . It's free online also.

If I take your meaning correctly that the fate of the sun and earth is to make humans extinct all on it's own, without our inputs muddling the situation, this surely must also be fought? Hence the setting the house on fire while ligthening hits it comment.

stable climate is the goal of the G8 summit, not blaming everyone. In blame nothing will get done.

Starting with C02 as a limit goal is at least a start. If we can't be bothered and go back to watching sports, we're not worth the trouble anyway.

Nothing will matter until it's too late and we are in a crisis. Weather can easily swing the other way, since it's not linear, and change opinion again. For the worldwide majority of science, this is not open for debate. That there are detractors is normal in science.

Science has moved it's ball into the court of politicians, but they have done nothing. It doesn't matter what science says at this point, politicians will not act anyway

I hope it all works out, but when arguments ensue noone wants to watch
weedkila at 04:55 PM JST - 28th May

If I take your meaning correctly that the fate of the sun and earth is to make humans extinct all on it's own, without our inputs muddling the situation,

No, the amount of sunspots is a major factor in whether mean earth temperatures increase or decrease. Nothing to do with extinction.

Nothing will matter until it's too late and we are in a crisis.

It seems you are easily misled and perhaps even enjoy 'the crisis'.

Did you know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere actually FOLLOWS temperature by 100s of years and not the other way round. In other words, CO2 has little or nothing to do with so-called climate change. It's the SUN which is the main driving force in climate change.

To be honest, you guys have twisted any facts I've brought up to suit your own argument without really looking into it. If you are truly interested in knowing the score look at the links I've listed, particularly the free online documentaries. I'm outta here.
Farmboy at 05:15 PM JST - 28th May

The point about CO2 following temperature is erroneous, and is disputed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
weedkila at 05:23 PM JST - 28th May

..lots of floods, storms, icebergs melting...

One more thing since it's relevant is weather modification. You might also like the site as it's called the ecologist.

Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.

http://www.theecologist.org/archivedetail.asp?contentid=1215
weedkila at 05:45 PM JST - 28th May

The point about CO2 following temperature is erroneous, and is disputed here

OK, fair point. Possibly true, possibly not. If you watch Al Gore's movie you'll see he keeps the CO2 chart and the temperature charts separate. If one is placed on top of the other, however, you will see that CO2 lags temperature by a considerable period. Deliberately misleading? I don't know, but for a man who does not walk the talk I am sceptical of claims like this.

I've also seen a Canadian professor lecture on the ice samples and how they are related to the CO2/temperature difference. He explained it logically and clearly.