What does the G8 joint statement tell us about how our representatives plan to tackle climate change? The joint statement is here.
These are some of the things it says: (my emphases)
“We have agreed on a policy agenda to promote a smooth adjustment of global imbalances which should take place in the context of sustained robust global economic growth. We have taken stock of the progress made to date and discussed further challenges lying ahead. Our agenda builds on discussions at the IMF and other international fora. Open markets and competition are crucial elements, as are our efforts to promote freedom of investment and the dynamics of innovation described hereafter.”
Almost the first point in the statement. In one sense, obvious; a strong economy supports more effective investment and action, (hence a truism). Alternatively, a message that says ‘we’ll promote adjustments so long as they don’t threaten this.’ At least, an indicator of the criteria under which decisions will be evaluated; it will always be economic. (not really a surprise, but important to have in the background of discussions).
“Oil producing countries have increased investment in oil production capacity”
– So, in the shorter term, we’re expecting to increase our oil production and use – great.
“Humanity today faces the key interlinked challenges of avoiding dangerous climate change and ensuring secure and stable supplies of energy. Since we met in Gleneagles, science has more clearly demonstrated that climate change is a long term challenge that has the potential to seriously damage our natural environment and the global economy. We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy security. Tackling climate change is a shared responsibility of all, and can and must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialised economies, while avoiding economic distortions.”
Grist covered this yesterday, as have others. The G8 agrees that action is urgently needed. Wow! That was big of them. But note that the two go together, in both parts of this sentence and in other parts of the report; reduce emissions and increase energy security. Later on, the logic of this becomes apparent; ‘we’re going to keep energy price inflation down (don’t ask how) but demand greater efficiency in production and use. Given that producers already want to increase their efficiency (to increase profitability), this boils down to ‘make end-user usage more efficient’. Oh, good. What does this suggest to us?
“We confirm our determination to work among ourselves and with the global community on global solutions that address climate change while supporting growth and economic development.”
Here’s the underlying metric once again; this one actually frightens me. What it appears to be saying is that only solutions which support economic growth/development will be accepted as solutions to CC. Alternatively; ‘if it costs us anything, we won’t do it’.
“We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change. We are committed to moving forward in that forum and call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December 2007 with a view to achieving a comprehensive post 2012-agreement (post Kyoto-agreement) that should include all major emitters.”
Straightforward, this one: nothing is going to change before 2012. The Bali conference is for sorting out a post-Kyoto agreement.
“To address the urgent challenge of climate change, it is vital that major economies that use the most energy and generate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008 which would contribute to a global agreement under the UNFCCC by 2009.”
Ouch! this is almost painful: ‘we’ll agree to contribute to a framework which will contribute to an agreement by 2009’. Oh, well; maybe there’ll be something to blog about before 2012 after all. Whilst the above was poor, the next has left me scratching my head:
“The global potential for saving energy is huge. According to the International Energy Agency, successfully implemented energy efficiency policies could contribute to 80% of avoided greenhouse gases while substantially increasing security of supply.”
WTF are ‘avoided greenhouse gases’? Anyone have any idea? Regardless it still gives a clue as to what sort of policies we can expect; pressure on the end-user to ‘do better’. Same old same old, then.
Looking at the statement as a whole, what does it tell us about the strategies we can expect to combat climate change? Here they are: market mechanisms, technology, reducing deforestation, improving energy efficiency. And the statement also expressly states that the ‘best mechanism’ for achieving these goals is the private sector. So; ‘we’ll encourage investors to spend money to achieve these objectives’. Definitely NOT; ‘we’ll spend taxpayers’ money to do something about this’.
As the conference is overtly about energy efficiency, it then goes on to break this down. All of the ‘key’ areas, buildings, transport, power generation and industry, are expected to ‘do better’ in terms of emissions. Again, the responsibility for action is transferred to business. What almost beggars belief is that the G8 actually states that ‘improving consumer information’ (sic) is considered to be a significant mechanism. This as much as anything reveals the actual lack of any real thought or imagination amongst our leaders and their advisers about what will actually make a meaningful difference to emissions cuts.
So what do we end up with? To me, this reads as a statement that, for the time being, everything is going to continue as before. That the majority of money to be spent on tackling CC will come from business and private investment. That cap-and-trade and reducing deforestation will, at some point, be joined by technological innovations (the statement makes a lot of innovations) to reduce emissions. In the meantime, more oil is to be available and stored, to restrain energy price inflation. That nothing will be done that costs anything, no redistribution will occur, if it damages the ‘strong’ or ‘stable’ economic base of ‘effective action’.
This is the message from the G8, then: ‘We are not going to do anything about reducing emissions apart from talk about it and encourage business to carry on doing what it has already started, and we won’t do anything which conflicts with the need to sustain economic stability. Oh; and we’ll seriously consider a 50% cut scenario by 2050, under the above conditions.’
Thanks, world leaders. The investment in time and money that the G8 represents has produced leadership stunningly devoid of content or common sense. You still don’t get it, do you? Doing nothing was never an option, but you have managed it, again. Passing the buck might be clever politics, but it is a useless strategy for dealing with the problems you have said are so important. Above all, you have clearly told us that, where there is any conflict between economic interests and the climate, the climate is going to come second.
Idiots.
Be loved.
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 9, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Phil
The same “economic growth” (an oxymoron if ever there was one) sacred cow dominates the UK Government’s white paper on energy (http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html) and their “consultation” document on Nuclear Power (http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/consultations/nuclearpower2007/page39554.html).
On page 5 of the latter, they state:
7. Our aim should be to continue to raise living standards and the quality of life by growing our economy, while at the same time cutting waste and using every unit of energy as efficiently as possible. But based on existing strategies to reduce energy demand, the IEA predict global energy consumption is likely to grow by about 50% by 2030. Therefore we will also need to transform the way we produce the energy we need for light, heat and mobility.
(The emphasis is mine.)
We must in no way sacrifice our lifestyles to save the planet.
The concept of reducing demand is totally unthinkable and taboo.
June 9, 2007 at 5:49 pm
fergusbrown
Hi, Phil; thanks for contributing. It would be difficult for anyone to make a case from this evidence that either the UK or the USA governments has got the message. Furthermore, by their example, they are encouraging China, India and other major emitters to sustain their own competitiveness by staying deeply committed to the existing energy markets. As climate change policy goes, it isn’t one.
Regards,
June 10, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Krissie
That’s just the G8 all over though. The institution exists for the sole purpose of the 8 richest countries getting together to plan on how they get richer.
June 10, 2007 at 8:00 pm
fergusbrown
Hi, Krissie and welcome to the cave.
Clearly, balance of power and differential advantage is a key issue when it comes to sustaining a strong national economy, and mutual support amongst non-competing markets helps, too. The problem, as Sachs pointed out in his Reith lectures last month, is that this kind of thinking is more or less a guarantee of failure when it comes to tackling the real problems, whether it is HIV, corruption, or climate change. Unless our leaders can once and for all get their heads around the notion that only cooperative action will work, we might as well not bother. Luckily, we maintain the option of voing them out of office if we choose.
Be loved,
June 11, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Eli Rabett
Exxon will not invest in refineries because they think we are at peak oil by 2010.
June 11, 2007 at 11:09 pm
fergusbrown
I think I get the point, uncle Eli, but please will you spell it out for us?
June 13, 2007 at 12:46 pm
inel
Hi fergus,
Sachs is correct: a new mindset is needed. Economics needs to facilitate, not constrain, climate solutions.
We do not have the luxury of time, carefully tweaking things around the edges for better presentation while business-as-usual continues its damaging behaviour behind the scenes. Nor can we wait for the majority in each country to choose to elect leaders to sort out our predicament. We need to support the leaders at all levels who have already stepped up to the plate.
By the way, thanks for asking about that CCSP document. Sorry about my delayed response. I have lots to tell you about the IoP seminar.
Unfortunately, three things became even clearer to me:
a green veneer is all some business commitments to climate action amount to. Consumers need to celebrate and support those companies and entities whose actions go beyond the green veneer and are overhauling corporate processes completely. I think a list of climate heroes would help consumers …
it is easy to be a denialist these days. Doubts are easy to sow. Most people want things to stay as they are, and will look for any reason to procrastinate.
Scientists must be allowed to communicate freely, but the public climate message framing should not be left to scientists alone ~ non-scientists need motivations more directly related to their day-to-day concerns, i.e.
stronger than job-preservation
easier than watching TV (!)
more fun than football
healthier for their bodies (as well as the planet), and
cheaper than a couple of pints of beer
—to trigger them to change their habits.
More later. I can tell you exactly which points from that U.S. DoE-related Climate Change Science Program Product Development Advisory Committee document were stressed by Lindzen at the Institute of Physics last week 😉 Actually, without going through the entire 225-page draft of Climate Models – an Assessment of Strengths and Limitations for User Applications, I can send you a list in the same sequence as points appear in the Executive Summary. Interested?
Caution: do not get bogged down in the details. They are not worth poring over (though pouring over might be an idea worth considering!) when time is short. Even without being well-versed in the details, I could tell that clever games were being played by Lindzen with selective and generalised science (as required), loose and precise linguistics (as required), appeals to emotions (as required), unsettling of certainties (as required), to achieve the goals of inaction, procrastination and/or contempt for others who act. It is easy to dissect. Harder to build.
Last but not least, I posted a cartoon to make you smile (while you continue your good work saving our planet).
June 13, 2007 at 12:59 pm
inel
Sorry my bullet points did not show up above. I hope you can make sense of my three points, and I shall even add to number 3:
1. green veneer ~ caveat emptor!
2. denialism is a doddle
3. communicators need to work well with scientists to spread key messages ‘in the clear’, by which I mean without encryption that requires the public to decipher from scientific language to the vernacular (metaphors, analogies, anecdotes and visuals can help, and need to be used much more)
June 13, 2007 at 1:23 pm
fergusbrown
hi. inel, and thanks for your points. I’ve looked at the CCSP and had some thoughts about it. As William says, there isn’t much there that most modellers don’t already know. On the business matter, I think the subject of my latest post, the WBCSD, shows what is possible. These people do not make the same assumptions as some of us, but they still reach the same conclusions about almost everything.
I am thinking at the moment along two separate lines in terms of communication of the issues; firstly, that our governments are the ones who need their asses kicked, so a proper climate science lobby is essential – though what leverage it would have is problematic. secondly, that, as Eli suggests, the opinions and actions of the general public are often founded on pre-ration, or pre-scientific intuitions about what is important, and need to be addressed as such. This is why celebrity input works so well. 1000 scientists can shout ‘look out!’ at the top of their voices, and have far less impact on changing behaviour than David Beckham saying ‘I’ve swapped my Bentley for a Prius because I believe we need to do something about emissions’.
This is one of the reasons why I like your ‘visual’ approach to the numbers.
Regards,