US, allies want global pollution slashed _ by 2050

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - US, allies want global pollution slashed _ by 2050 stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

TOM RAUM and JOSEPH COLEMAN | July 8, 2008 11:06 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
U.S. President George W. Bush, left, talks with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev, right, prior to a group photo at the G8 summit in Toyako, Hokkaido, Japan, Tuesday, July 8, 2008. Medvedev says his first talks with U.S. counterpart George W. Bush since his election as Russia's president brought no progress on the issues dividing the countries. (AP Photo/RIA Novosti, Dmitry Astakhov, Presidential Press Service)

TOYAKO, Japan — World leaders embraced for the first time on Tuesday an ambitious but nonbinding goal of slashing greenhouse-gas emissions in half by midcentury to stave off global warming. Unimpressed environmentalists called the effort too slow and too uncertain.

Leaders of some of the world's richest nations praised the agreement, which endorsed President Bush's insistence that fast-developing countries like China and India join in the effort. But one environmental critic suggested that by 2050 those leaders would be forgotten and "the world will be cooked."

Details were scant in the statement issued by the Group of Eight. Some could become clearer Wednesday when China, India and six other fast-developing nations sit down with the Group of Eight industrial nations _ the United States, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Italy and Canada _ to discuss climate change strategies.

The G-8 did not specify a base year for its proposed 50 percent cut, and the actual emissions reductions and the effect on the environment could vary hugely depending on what is eventually decided. Reductions from 2005 levels, for instance, would be far less than from 1990 levels, as in the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Still, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said it was essential to set a long-term goal for global greenhouse emissions by 2050. He said the world cannot afford to wait until 2009, when nations are planning to try to conclude a new global warming treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when its first phase expires in 2012.

The United States has never ratified the Kyoto treaty, with Bush complaining that it puts too much of a burden on the U.S. and other developed countries to reduce emissions while developing giants such as China and India are given a freer rein to pollute even as they vigorously compete with America around the world.

Bush will leave office next January, and both major candidates to succeed him have said they are willing to go further in cutting back American emissions.

The G-8 statement, released by host Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda in an announcement with the verdant hills of northern Japan behind him, solidified a pledge made at the last summit in Germany a year ago to seriously consider such a long-term target.

Story continues below

But the move fell far short of demands by some developing countries and environmentalists pushing for deeper cuts by 2050 and a firm signal from wealthy countries on what they are willing to do on the much tougher midterm goal of cutting emissions by 2020.

"To be meaningful and credible, a long-term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions," said Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. "As it is expressed in the G-8 statement, the long-term goal is an empty slogan."

Said Atonio Hill, spokesman for Oxfam International, a confederation of organizations that work on climate change, poverty and other causes: "At this rate, by 2050 the world will be cooked and the G-8 leaders will be long forgotten. The G-8's endorsement of a tepid 50-by-50 climate goal leaves us with a 50-50 chance of a climate meltdown."

White House press secretary Dana Perino responded to such criticisms by saying that the G-8's action was "quite significant."

"For the environmental groups, it will never be enough," she said.

Indeed, U.S. officials hailed the declaration as a major step forward, "substantial progress from last year," in the words of Dan Price, the president's deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

U.S. officials said they expected agreement on cooperation to be reached at Wednesday's expanded meeting, even if painted with a broad brush. But the wording of the G-8 statement left a lot of wiggle room for the fast-growing economies to ease the potential burden.

And while the development appeared to be a victory for Bush, it could turn out to be mostly a symbolic one once the final statement from what the G-8 is calling a "Major Economies Meeting" is issued on Wednesday.

The decision on climate change split some of the differences between Bush and other G-8 members.

Japan and European members have been pressing for setting a long-term goal of a 50 percent reduction in global greenhouse emissions by 2050. Other members, including the U.S., Russia and Canada, have been less enthusiastic about such a target. Bush has long said that China and India and other big, growing economies must share in the pain in reaching such a goal.

The Europeans have pushed harder for rich countries to reinvigorate talks by making unilateral commitments. Germany, for instance, has pledged to cut emissions by 20 percent by 2020, and by 30 percent if other countries join the effort.

Still, some European leaders praised the Tuesday accord.

"This is a clear advance, compared with the shaky agreement from the previous year," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said, "It has always been the case that a long-term goal is one that must be shared."

"So what the G-8 has offered today is a G-8 view of what that goal could be and should be, but that can only occur with the agreement of all the other parties," he added, referring to nearly 200 countries involved in U.N. talks.

The agreement _ and the praise it elicited among European countries usually more ambitious on climate change _ reflected a desire to avoid shortcomings of the 1997 Kyoto accord.

Kyoto, while considered by many a worthy first step, has also been seen as flawed by its failure to commit developing countries like China to emissions controls, prompting the U.S. refusal to ratify it. In addition, many countries with reduction commitments, such as Japan and Canada, are falling seriously behind.

TOYAKO, Japan — World leaders embraced for the first time on Tuesday an ambitious but nonbinding goal of slashing greenhouse-gas emissions in half by midcentury to stave off global warming. Unim...
TOYAKO, Japan — World leaders embraced for the first time on Tuesday an ambitious but nonbinding goal of slashing greenhouse-gas emissions in half by midcentury to stave off global warming. Unim...
Filed by Nick Graham  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
151
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
- RTIII I'm a Fan of RTIII 108 fans permalink

Too little, too late.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 07/09/2008
- Graywolf48 I'm a Fan of Graywolf48 82 fans permalink
photo

Let's see now. Oil prices keep climbing, wages are flat or in decline. A great many people won't be able to buy heating oil this winter or pay the high price of electric heat. I have two wood burning fireplaces and will use them to keep warm. I might also consider buying a wood or coal burning stove. I live in an area where wood and coal are plentiful and still affordable. America has plenty of coal. The option many people will face is, freeze to death now or contribute to global warming and face any consequences in the future. Americans live in the present. G-8 may talk about cutting emissions, but the reality may be very different. Many have been convinced by the GOP naysayers that global warming is not real, there is no crisis other than the hysteria of the tree hugging environmentalists. Given the circumstances, I doubt they'll be able to hold emissions to current levels.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:00 AM on 07/09/2008
- Ramirez I'm a Fan of Ramirez 288 fans permalink
photo

Oh Canada?
from the Telegraph:
***********

The trouble is that - partly because of the surging commodity prices that have made all incumbent regimes unpopular - G8 is led by politicians who lack authority.

Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown are disliked at home; George Bush is a lame duck; Silvio Berlusconi is changing the law to indemnify himself; Dmitri Medvedev is regarded as Vladimir Putin's creature and, in any case, Russia does not merit inclusion in the G8...; Yasuo Fukuda... has just become the first ever Japanese leader to have a censure vote passed against him in parliament.

Of all the leaders, only Stephen Harper - the talented but curiously neglected Canadian prime minister - is able to point to a popular and successful record in office.

Some will regard it as alarming that, in current times, world leadership should rest with Canada. But the Canadian Tories are a model of how to behave during a downturn.

They have kept spending in check and reduced taxes. They are playing their full role in world affairs, notably in Afghanistan.

Rather than canting about saving the world (Mr Harper, in his quiet and courteous way, is a Kyoto-sceptic) they have addressed themselves to curing remediable ills and, above all, to putting their own affairs in order.

If the rest of the world had comported itself with similar modesty and prudence, we might not be in this mess.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/07/dl0701.xml

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:51 PM on 07/08/2008

Harper's government is in a minority situation. He is trying to look good so he can get a majority in the next election. His true hero is Brian Mulrooney, whos conservative government almost bankrupted Canada. If Harper should win a majority...Canada is in deep [sh--]. I guess Canadians had it to good so they are flirting with trouble. The conservatives should not be in power at all...not even in a minority situation. As for cutting taxes.....it was Mulrooney who put in the GST....Harper cut it by 2 %.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:01 AM on 07/09/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 27 fans permalink

Fortunately Harper is stalled in the low-mid 30s in polls, about the same as he won in the last election, so he has little hope of that majority.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 AM on 07/09/2008

2050?.........2050?..........The North Pole is supposed to melt this year........We promise that there will be no crime,only two parent loving families,food will be abundant worldwide,even the poorest of people will have a stable of automobiles,we'll all have seventy virgins at our disposal.Typical corporate meeting with the same BS.The key words are "ambitious and non-binding",translated, it means we're all talking through our *#@.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 PM on 07/08/2008

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. 2050? There will be no one around on earth by that year.....................

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 07/08/2008
- Marlyn I'm a Fan of Marlyn 87 fans permalink
photo

"nonbinding" ???

Well then, I'm sure Bush will be fine with it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 PM on 07/08/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 291 fans permalink

Nukes can only supply 25 years of the worlds energy.

Who many times do you have to hear it?

Nukes= 25 year, nukes = 25 years... get it?

Existing state of the art, available reactors are once through uranium 235 reactors. In just 25 years of suppling the worlds energy, the quality of available uranium will plummet. just like the easy sweet crude is gone, then we repeat the whole scarce resource disaster for the uranium wars. Worse, we get 1 Million years of deadly intractable waste.

Nuke energy is a total boondoggle.

Wind and solar are far faster to implement then even ONE reactor. 20GW per year wind installed increasing 30% per year. 100 GW installed per year by 6 years. About the time you Might finish one reactor for 1GW. Solar 1GW/year ONE machine. 30 cents per watt.

cheaper faster sustainable forever. Wind and Solar.

See my profile for details and links.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 PM on 07/08/2008
- Marlyn I'm a Fan of Marlyn 87 fans permalink
photo

"Nuke energy is a total boondoggle."

Absolutely. Nuclear power plants are expensive to build and take a long time to build, and then produce waste that is radioactive for millions of years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 PM on 07/08/2008

That's just not true! Regarding uranium levels the UKENERGYREVIEW among others reported that rich uranium ore is going to be around for the "forseeable future". Secondly, we have breeder reactors, to produce more fissile material. Thirdly, if we recycle the "waste" like must of the industrialized that uses Nuclear do, we would not need to mine at all for almost two decades. And finally we already have thorium reactors, and there is plenty of thorium out there.

If we reduce the amount of red tape it takes to build a reactor we could built a reactor in less than three year, which is the same rate it takes the Japanese to build them. Nuclear reactors are expensive to build but they are very cheap to operate.

I think we need to increase drastically the share of renewable sources, however, nuclear energy is a good source of baseload power that can help us became less depended in coal therefore it should be part of the solution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 AM on 07/09/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 291 fans permalink

Read my profile and links. Breeder reactors are still science fiction, not off the shelf reactor technology, repossessing is not worth it. The reason you hear we have enough uranium for the foreseeable future (25 years is their normal horizon) is because it's only being used for 16% of the worlds energy.

"Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand - also called the "Red Book" - estimates the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock, which can be mined for less than USD 130 per kg, to be about 4.7 million tonnes. Based on the 2004 nuclear electricity generation rate of demand the amount is sufficient for 85 years,"

That's 13 years worth of the worlds energy needs.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 07/09/2008
- robbor I'm a Fan of robbor 8 fans permalink
photo

1/2 by 2050 ????????????????????????

kiss your butt goodbye

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 PM on 07/08/2008
- Marlyn I'm a Fan of Marlyn 87 fans permalink
photo

Bush is fine with it, as long as he doesn't have to do it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:28 PM on 07/08/2008
- Collielady I'm a Fan of Collielady 91 fans permalink
photo

How big of them. It will be too late.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 PM on 07/08/2008

Oh no!!!
What will happen to the plants of the world? They do know that plants use CO2 to grow, don't they?

Cut air pollution by using nuclear energy for the generation of electricity. If a reduction in CO2 also results and that makes some globalwarminmongers happy, more the better.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:32 PM on 07/08/2008

Absolutely, let's go nuclear, as soon as we solve the problem of the waste. Great minds STILL haven't come up with a permanent solution, even after 40+ years of trying. Nuclear waste contains plutonium, which has a HALF-LIFE* of 250,000 years and is the most toxic substance on Earth. If one particle gets in your lungs you're dead. We could continue to do what they've been doing all these years, let the next generation try to figure it out. Meanwhile, the stuff keeps accumulating and leaking into ground water. Pretty soon the Earth will be covered in nuclear waste and our ground water will be contaminated and the global climate change issue just won't matter. Problem solved!

We still don't know the extent of the damage to the land, animals and people from the Chernobyl meltdown. We do know that there has been a huge increase in the cases of thyroid cancers in the areas affected by the fallout. Did I mention the good part? How terrorists could use the plutonium, or its parent, uranium, to build themselves some cute little bombs?

*Half-life is the length of time it takes for one-half of a substance to dissipate. For plutonium it takes 250,000 years for half of it to dissipate, then 250,000 years for half of that to dissipate, then 250,000 years for half of that to dissipate, which is to say the stuff lasts FOREVER!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 PM on 07/08/2008
- Rubyfoo I'm a Fan of Rubyfoo 7 fans permalink

That's a very sweet gesture, and it probably doesn't matter that it's kind of late since we've likely passed the tipping point and destroyed the planet.

Cheers,

Ken

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:51 PM on 07/08/2008

Why is there more life at the equator than at the North Pole? I thought being warm was bad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 07/08/2008
- Mavericks I'm a Fan of Mavericks 4 fans permalink
photo

Puppies are warm and snakes are cold...does that have anything to do with it too?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:24 PM on 07/08/2008

Simple Math Equation for the Flat Earth People/ Global Warming doesn't exist

Planet Hot = People Dead

Can't cut or raise taxes on Dead People

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:18 PM on 07/08/2008
- danoj I'm a Fan of danoj 17 fans permalink

Actually less peolpe have died in recent years in europe due to winters being less harsh. That's the problem with global warming we simply do not know what the outcome will be. for every person that says it will doom mankind a person can be found who will speak an opposing opinion. For every scientist that says it is happening there is one tha says it's not. It's all in what you believe; global warming is the modern liberal religion and they put it above all else. I just want some perspective, but every time someone has an opinion that doesn't meet the global warming lefty nut standard they are shouted down.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:48 PM on 07/08/2008
- polaris12 I'm a Fan of polaris12 17 fans permalink

If you are serious you should read the reports of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which represents the preponderance of scientific thinking on the subject. It's not a one for one difference of opinion. Since there is nothing 100% certain, we should follow the uncertainty principle and err on the side of caution, if err we must. If we do nothing to reduce the build up of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, a point will be reached where no remedial action can be taken and we will suffocate in our own wastes - not us, of course, but our children and their children. This is about increasing the efficiency with which we use energy and reduction in its overall use. Even if no global warming were involved, we would still want to do it, because oil and many other natural resources are not renewable.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 PM on 07/08/2008

Sorry, it simply is not true that for "every scientist that says ... one says it's not." There is absolute consensus in the reputable scientific community that global climate change is real, it's here and it's effects will be ultimately devastating for the planet and you will have to learn to live with that. This isn't a matter of belief or opinions. It is an accumulation of F-A-C-T-S that have been building up since the 1950's. We have blithely ignored these facts for a very long time and now we are seeing the consequences of that willful ignorance. Those who choose to grasp at straws and say it's not happening are just whistling past the graveyard.

It is true that there are some effects of climate change that can be seen as positive. But they are few and far between and do not truly counter the negative ones, which are horrific to those who are affected.

For a rational discussion of the global climate change issue and solid solutions that we can take by 2035 -- not 2050, when it will be way too late -- see George Monbiot's book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 PM on 07/08/2008
- Marlyn I'm a Fan of Marlyn 87 fans permalink
photo

"we simply do not know what the outcome will be."

Of course, you are right, but I'll make a wild guess that in 700 years everything on Earth will be dead and the human survivors will be living out in space on AXIOM.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 07/08/2008

And when heat waves....such as you can't imagine yet, start killing large masses of people....how will you spin that? In just a few years we will be in "solar maximum". Each solar maximum is hotter then the one before. This one should bring some "doozer" heat waves throughout the world. This is happening because of rapid climate change [toward hotter]. The earth was warmer through most of it's history...but natural changes happen very slowly [imperceptable in a human lifetime].

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 AM on 07/09/2008
- avraamjack I'm a Fan of avraamjack 21 fans permalink
photo

.
The G8 lacks sufficient ambition.
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 PM on 07/08/2008
- oafishcad I'm a Fan of oafishcad 46 fans permalink

Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow we fry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 07/08/2008

LOL, I can't wait for my Global Warming Rebate Check. I'm going to party like its 2099

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 PM on 07/08/2008
- bikerdude I'm a Fan of bikerdude 76 fans permalink
photo

Plan? That's probably gas pains from all that exotic food they were consuming...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:22 PM on 07/08/2008
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next › Last » (5 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect