Ford Delivers FlexFuel PHEV to DOE
EPA Upholds Challenge to Permit for Refinery Expansion

Science Academies of G8+5 Call for Commitment to 50% Cut in GHG by 2050, Adaptation Planning

The science academies of the G8 countries, as well as those of China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa (the G8+5 countries), issued a statement urging the G8+5 leaders to make “maximum efforts” to cut global greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, and “to commit to these emissions reductions.” The statement also called for action on adaption.

Since 2005, the Academies of Science for the G8+5 countries have called on world leaders to limit the threat of climate change. We have advised prompt action to deal with the causes of climate change and cautioned that some climate impacts are inevitable. However, progress in reducing global greenhouse gas emission has been slow.

...As the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, these impacts become more severe and spread both geographically and sectorally. To stabilize the climate, emissions should eventually be limited to the net absorption capacity of the earth, which is less than half of current emissions. Immediate large-scale mitigation action is required. At the 2007 Heiligendamm Summit, G8 leaders agreed to seriously consider halving global emissions by 2050. We urge G8+5 leaders to make maximum efforts to carry this forward and commit to these emission reductions.

Mitigation policies are essential, but not sufficient. Adaptation is necessary if the worst impacts of climate change, now and in the future, are to be alleviated. Mitigation and adaptation can complement each other and if pursued together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change impacts.

The statement called for all nations, but particularly those participating in the 2008 G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan, to take the following actions:

  • Call on G8+5 governments to agree, by 2009, a timetable, funding, and a coordinated plan for the construction of a significant number of CCS demonstration plants.

  • Prepare for the challenges and risks posed by climate change by improving predictive and adaptive capacities at global, national and local level and supporting the developing world in carrying out vulnerability analyses and addressing their findings.

  • Take appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.

  • Promote science and technology co-operation, innovation and leapfrogging, e.g., by transfer of some basic critical low-carbon and adaptation technologies.

  • Urge governments to support research on greenhouse gas reduction technologies and climate change impacts.

The academies also issued a statement on meeting global health challenges.

The G8 comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.



Al Gore for President.


Nothing will come of this.

John Taylor

The biggest reduction in GHG has came from installing wind turbines rather than other forms of energy production. We now see these as price competitive with coal in initial installation, and cheaper to run.

Soon I expect to see decommissioned coal plants converted to hydrogen, and used to transfer energy from night to day, and for peaking power. (make hydrogen from water at night, then in the day burn it in a gas turbine, and use the exhaust heat to fire the old coal furnace).



I agree with you. The world could easilly multiply 100 times the number of wind turbines in operation. Off shore units are very few, even if it is often the most productive places.

Existing large hydro reservoirs can also be used to store excess wind produced energy. Hydro turbine-generators can easily be adjusted to produce more or less. They can be (fully) used to supply peak demands and during periods with low wind energy. Extra (over hydro equipment) may be needed in some places to maximize the wind/hydro combo operation.


It's all about risk management. You don't have to be an Al Gore disciple to think a little insurance (CO2 reduction) is warranted. The good news is that most CO2 reduction solutions also solve other problems such as air pollution and energy supply problems. If you make the polluter pay then the alternatives to fossil fuels become much more attractive on a level playing field.


It has always disappointed me that no one has seen the advantage of off shore windmills that are compressed air based and not electricity based. Here are the advantages I see as follows:

Eliminate the use of copper in the mill and undersea cables. At $4/lb that is a lot of money. Use only concrete, steel, and plastic in the construction.

Use water pressure to contain air compressed by the mill in large expandable plastic bags constrained to the ocean floor at about 800 meters in depth.

Use these bags to save wind energy, balance load, and release for use in peak generation situations.

Pipe this air to a land based generation station via steel and/or plastic piping for conversion to electricity.

Please fell free to perfect my thinking.


Store energy as compressed air in bags under water? It sounds as if you are describing the system University of Nottingham's Professor Seamus Garvey is developing. Click here for BBC coverage.

Bradford Wade

Sorry. Forgot my name and email when I rewrote the post above.


John’s vision could very well come true if we could develop a cost effective hydrogen electrolyzer that can be mass produced. Current platinum based electrolyzers will not do it. However, new non exotic material nanotech based electrolyzers look very promising.

It appears that hundreds of billions of dollars can be saved on infrastructure by simply converting existing coal and natural gas power plants to burn hydrogen generated by inexpensive electricity from wind mills (solar electricity is still some 3 to 5 times more expensive per kWh than wind power so it need more time to mature as an economically viable energy source. Offshore wind farms are not economically viable yet. They cost twice as much to install than onshore wind farms. Give it 5 to 10 more years and offshore wind farms will be economically viable).


The revenue streams from coal etc are lifeblood to govt's and industrialists Just look at the wealthiest nations and compare the economic clout to the wind industry at present(if you can even find it)
The Accountants will just have to find new ways to raise revenue... After they find the courage to tax the big polluters out of their illgotten gains...
A tax on fossil or new carbon needs to cover this transition.
So it seems we have legacy political and economic obstacles to clean energy introduction.
These institutions need be up to speed to clear a path for this substantially new way of doing buisness.
In the meantime they rip pillage and gouge at unprecedented rate.


@ thomas:

"Al Gore for President."

Might want to rethink Al Gore for anything other than a self-service award. His investment company holds a 9.5% stake in Camco Intnl. Ltd. - a large carbon asset trading company. Global warming for fear and profit.

Best Science Websites Guide

I believed to know from Visitthebest known things is a drop, unknown things is like a sea.

The comments to this entry are closed.