Following the conclusion of the G8 summit and climate change talks about a week and a half ago, I had the following to say in my post titled G8 Leaders Agree to Make an Agreement,

The leaders of the group of eight industrial nations have agreed to make an agreement on climate change in what Tony Blair calls "a major, major step forward".

Wow....I say, wow.

Al Gore has issued his statement on the events, and his words were equally tongue in cheek,

"The eight most powerful nations gathered and were unable to do anything except to say 'We had good conversations and we agreed that we will have more conversations, and we will even have conversations about the possibility of doing something in the future on a voluntary basis perhaps."'

The one result from the latest summit was the US agreeing to work with other nations towards "substantial cuts" in greenhouse gases within a UN framework. No firm timelines or goals were agreed to despite the efforts of German Chancellor and G8 Chair Angela Merkel who wanted countries to agree to work towards a 50% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.

Talks resume in Bali this December.

PS - A note of thanks to Crooks and Liars for including The Conscious Earth on their weekly roundup.

The leaders of the group of eight industrial nations have agreed to make an agreement on climate change in what Tony Blair calls "a major, major step forward".

Wow....I say, wow.

The concrete development coming out of the G8 summit is that the US has agreed to work with other nations towards "substantial cuts" in greenhouse gases within a UN framework. China and developing nations will also be involved in emissions cuts and a new international deal is to be completed by the end of 2009. Though there is no agreement on details, Blair is optimistic about the results and the road ahead.

Mr Blair told reporters there is now agreement. "The important thing is we now have an agreement - one; that we need a new worldwide agreement on climate change," he said.

"Two; that at the heart of that should be a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

"Three; in the process that will then work out what that cut in emissions should be there will be serious consideration given specifically to the goal of halving emissions by 2050.

"This is an agreement in which we want all the major countries to be involved including America, China, India and others - the developed and the developing world."

"We agreed... that CO2 emissions must first be stopped and then followed by substantial reductions," the German chancellor said.

"Now we have an agreement that there will be a climate change deal, it will involve everyone, including the US and China, and it will involve substantial cuts."

Previously, the US has flatly opposed being a part of any post-Kyoto deal. However, mounting political pressure within the US has been seen as a key factor in Bush's willingness to negotiate with the international community. There's still no accounting for the American media though, as ABC was quick to put a different spin on today's events:




Surprise, surprise.

Negotiations resume in Bali this coming December.

The US says it will reject the climate change goals set out by German Chancellor and G8 Chair Angela Merkel as this week's summit begins today in Heiligendamm, Germany.

Merkel proposes cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050, setting up a cap and trade system for carbon, and limiting global warming to 2% celsius - goals that are broadly seen as the minimum needed to avert the more severe impacts of global warming. The US rejects all of these goals and, under the guise of defending the rights of individual countries, is pushing for a US led agreement between the world's top emitters that would allow continual increases in greenhouse gases.

Speaking ahead of his meeting, Mr Bush said that instead of backing the proposed emissions caps he favoured his own plan that the worst CO2 emitting nations, including the US, China and India, meet before the year is out to put together a new long-term strategy to tackle the problem.

The US continues to promote reductions in carbon "intensity" and voluntary reduction targets. It is well established that voluntary targets do not work, and as explained here, reducing carbon intensity will do nothing to decrease overall greenhouse gas emissions and consequently will lead to increased global warming.

Meanwhile, outgoing British PM Tony Blair insists that he can convince George Bush to agree to substantial cuts within an UN framework.

Good luck Tony, we're all counting on you.

The Prime Minister's office has released the 2007 EU-Canada Summit Statement outlining the results of Stephen Harper's meeting with German Chancellor and European Union Chair Angela Merkel. It announces that both parties agree to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, they are at odds when it comes to the finer points of the math.

Harper and Merkel issued a statement saying both sides sought cuts in greenhouse gases by at least half by the year 2050. However, they remain divided on what year to take as a starting point, with the EU favouring 1990 and Canada 2006.

Oh well. What's 16 years and a few billion tonnes of C02 anyway?

The complete statement is available on the Conservative Party website.

After initially sounding somewhat limp with respect to President Bush's proposed "US led" global warming strategy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has since come out strong saying that it was "non-negotiable" that the United Nations should take the lead in global efforts to combat climate change and vowed to make no compromises that disregard the scientific evidence on the issue.

"I will not go for a 'lazy compromise' ... I will not get involved in diluting definite scientific findings like those of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental panel on climate change," she said.

The US proposal promises to do nothing to reduce global emissions and has been widely criticized in the international community, despite having effectively fooled the US media machine. It also opposes hard caps on emissions, a carbon trading scheme and the objective goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius - all elements endorsed by the European Union. Maybe the problem is that Bush doesn't have a clue what "2 degrees Celsius" is.

Climate change negotiations will take place at the upcoming G8 summit on June 6th - 8th.

Update 1:13pm: Merkel's comments were echoed by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who today rejected Bush's proposal and insisted that nations come to an agreement under the UN and not through US led negotiations.

Heading into this month's G8 climate change talks in Germany, North America is rapidly asserting itself as the world's biggest nemesis.

Following last week's leaked memo showing the Bush administration's continued opposition to hard caps on carbon emissions, the President himself has now made a new proposal that threatens to hijack the international process - by placing the US in a lead role in negotiations with the world's top 15 greenhouse gas emitters. In making this offer, Bush openly asserts that the US is opposed to hard caps on emissions, carbon trading, and the EU's goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

Canada is offering little better. Saturday's Globe reports that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to act as a bridge between Europe, the US and Asia. The basis for this bridge is recognizing Canada's right to produce more emissions than other countries because of our spiraling oil sands emissions.

Yet, the most embarrassing part of these developments is the reaction of British PM Tony Blair and German Chancellor Angela Merkel who both offered a stunning level of praise to Bush's proposal.

Tony Blair hailed the Bush initiative as an important step forward. "For the first time America's saying it wants to be part of a global deal".

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor and host of next week's G8 summit, also welcomed the initiative. "I think it is positive, and the US president's speech makes it clear that no one can avoid the question of global warming any more," Ms Merkel said of the proposal. "This is common ground on which to act."

By calling Bush's transparent diversionary tactic "a step forward" and "common ground" these European leaders are framing the failure of future climate change talks. As posted here last week, the most destructive approach is allowing the US - which under the current administration has no intention of solving global warming - an active voice in negotiations. European nations have to show the leadership the world needs and dismiss the US from negotiations and work to bring China and India fully on board international efforts.

The US can be invited back to the table once the Bush Administration has been safely put out to pasture in 2008. Until then, the foundation for aggressive reductions needs to be made now.

A leaked document shows that the US remains rigidly opposed to any action on global warming that involves firm targets and timelines. The G8 nations will be meeting next month to discuss new commitments in fighting global warming, but a memo obtained by Greenpeace outlines the firm opposition from the US.

"The US still has serious, fundamental concerns about this draft statement," a red-inked note reads.

"The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses 'multiple red lines' in terms of what we simply cannot agree to," it continues.

"We have tried to 'tread lightly' but there is only so far we can go given our fundamental opposition to the German position."

Meanwhile, Britain and other EU nations are seeking a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050, and last week Japan announced a proposal that would see a 50% reduction by the same date.

But as long as the world is hung up on US buy-in, the entire process needs a wake up call and reality check - in that order.

The US will never agree to real progress on this issue so long as the current administration is holding the presidential reins. The first step other nations need to take is to realize this and start creating solutions that have a chance of working. Step one, send the US away from the negotiating table. Step two, go directly to China and India.

China will surpass US emissions this year. Rapidly growing India is a ways behind but already clocks in at number four (Russia, China and the US are ahead of them for now). At more than a billion people each, and unprecedented annual economic growth, it is essential that these rapidly emerging superpowers are brought into international efforts immediately, regardless of US participation. If the US is throwing a wrench into those efforts, then they need to be sent home. The fallacy of the debate is buying into the notion that the US needs to be there in the first place.

The EU will continue to bring forward aggressive targets and action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Japan will also. Add the combined clout of the Asian superpowers and formal US participation becomes a side issue. These economies can establish and drive an international carbon market. Once that emerges many US companies will inevitably opt in as a viable carbon market creates new business opportunities. Also, the massive trade deficit of the US means that they'll be purchasing most of their products from other nations with way higher efficiency standards. So the US carbon footprint stands to benefit by proxy, if not directly.

This still leaves the thorny issue of direct US emissions - namely in the form of industrial, energy, and automotive emissions. For this, the best solution is their state and municipal governments. Increasingly, US cities and individual states are forging their own global warming strategies. When the international community begins dealing directly with these institutions and stops banging their head against the Bush administration wall, they will greatly help efforts already going on in the US - and inevitably, Washington will need to follow.