G8 Agrees on Goal of 50% GHG Reduction by 2050
09 July 2008
In the Environment and Climate Change document coming out of the G8 summit in Japan, the leaders of the eight countries agreed to the goal of at least a 50% reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with all major economies committing to “meaningful” mitigation actions.
We are committed to avoiding the most serious consequences of climate change and determined to achieve the stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of global greenhouse gases consistent with the ultimate objective of Article 2 of the Convention and within a time frame that should be compatible with economic growth and energy security. Achieving this objective will only be possible through common determination of all major economies, over an appropriate time frame, to slow, stop and reverse global growth of emissions and move towards a low-carbon society.
We seek to share with all Parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
Substantial progress toward such a long-term goal requires, inter alia, in the near-term, the acceleration of the deployment of existing technologies, and in the medium- and long-term, will depend on the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies in ways that will enable us to meet our sustainable economic development and energy security objectives. In this regard, we emphasize the importance and urgency of adopting appropriate measures to stimulate development and deployment of innovative technologies and practices.
Other points in the Environment and Climate Change document include:
The G8 reconfirmed the significance of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as providing the most comprehensive assessment of the science and encourage the continuation of the science-based approach that should guide our climate protection efforts. The group said it was committed to the successful conclusion of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process by 2009. “Enhanced commitments or actions by all major economies are essential for tackling climate change.”
Achieving the long-term global goal will require mid-term goals and national plans to achieve them, reflecting a diversity of mitigation and adaptation approaches.
We recognize that what the major developed economies do will differ from what major developing economies do, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
In this respect, we acknowledge our leadership role and each of us will implement ambitious economy-wide mid-term goals in order to achieve absolute emissions reductions and, where applicable, first stop the growth of emissions as soon as possible, reflecting comparable efforts among all developed economies, taking into account differences in their national circumstances. We will also help support the mitigation plans of major developing economies by technology, financing and capacity-building. At the same time, in order to ensure an effective and ambitious global post-2012 climate regime, all major economies will need to commit to meaningful mitigation actions to be bound in the international agreement to be negotiated by the end of 2009.
Sectoral approaches can be useful tools to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions through dissemination of existing and new technologies in a manner compatible with economic growth.
The G8 recognized the importance of “aspirational” goals for energy efficiency, and will maximize implementation of the IEA’s 25 recommendations on energy efficiency.
Promotion of clean energy was supported for reasons of both climate change and energy security. The G8 underscored the importance of sustainable biofuel production and use, and committed to continuing research and development of second generation biofuel technologies.
Recognizing that a growing number of countries are interested in nuclear power as a means of addressing climate change and energy security, the G8 reiterate that safeguards (nuclear nonproliferation), nuclear safety and nuclear security (3S) are fundamental principles for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Against this background, an international initiative proposed by Japan on 3S-based nuclear energy infrastructure will be launched.
Mitigation and adaptation strategies should be pursued as part of development and poverty eradication efforts with developing countries.
Recognizing that poorer countries are among the most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change, the G8 will continue and enhance cooperation with developing countries, in particular least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states, in their efforts to adapt to climate change including disaster risk reduction.
The G8 will establish an international initiative with the support of the IEA to develop roadmaps for innovative technologies and cooperate upon existing and new partnerships, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) and advanced energy technologies. The G8 strongly supported the launching of 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects globally by 2010, taking into account various national circumstances, with a view to beginning broad deployment of CCS by 2020.
To accelerate these and other efforts, we are committed to increasing investment in both basic and applied environmental and clean energy technology research and development (R&D), and the promotion of commercialization including through direct government funding and fiscal measures to encourage private sector investment. In this respect, G8 members have so far pledged over the next several years over US$10 billion annually in direct government-funded R&D. We also agree to take various policy and regulatory measures to provide incentives for commercializing these technologies.
While the main sources of finance will be the private sector, the G8 said, public resources are essential to help the poorest and to leverage private resources, notably by financing incremental costs and can be very effective in inducing emissions reduction when national policies provide incentives for low carbon investment.
In this regard, we welcome and support the establishment of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) including the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) and the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF), administered by the World Bank. G8 members have thus far pledged approximately US$ 6 billion as an ODA contribution to the funds and welcome commitments from other donors. The CIF will scale up public and private finance. They will have broad-based and inclusive governance mechanisms and, as an interim measure, fill an immediate financial gap for urgent actions until a new financial architecture under the post-2012 regime is effective.
The G8 intends to promote market mechanisms, such as emissions-trading within and between countries, tax incentives, performance-based regulation, fees or taxes and consumer labeling in accordance with our national circumstances and share experience on the effectiveness of the different instruments.
Efforts in the WTO negotiations to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers to environmental goods and services should be enhanced with a view to disseminating clean technology and skills. Additionally, consideration should be given to the reduction or elimination of trade barriers on a voluntary basis on goods and services directly linked to addressing climate change.
We also agree to encourage initiatives contributing to climate change mitigation including purchasing and investment policies and practices that promote and support the cleaner and more efficient products and services that can contribute to lower carbon emissions.
So the leaders agree that when they are all dead and buried the G8 should cut its emission by 50% in 2050 or 42 years from now. This is a very polite way of saying we do not care at all and as long as we are in power we will do absolutely nothing of importance to prevent the planet from becoming unlivable for future generations. We need massive action now to prevent a non-reversible climate catastrophe. Indeed, although the G8 leaders’ inaction currently may not amount to criminal neglect in a legal sense it certainly is in every moral sense. It is truly shameful they care so little about the people they are supposed to lead.
Here are three ideas that will matter:
1) Agree to build a fast charge infrastructure for electric vehicles of all kinds including heavy duty and build it before 2015 and let it cover every corner of the G8 countries.
2) Immediately ban further expansion of coal power and sales of incandescent light bulbs.
3) Build more wind power (currently the most affordable electricity possible) and facilitate its expansion by upgrading the power grid to deal with intermittency and make it easy to get permissions to build mega wind farms (1000MW or larger). Wind power alone can do 100% of all additional electricity needed globally in 2018 if it were just allowed to grow at 30% per year as it has done the past 20 years.
Posted by: Henrik | 09 July 2008 at 02:25 AM
Henrik - add this to your list
4) Controlled population decrease based on specified
population targets.
Posted by: cs1992 | 09 July 2008 at 03:47 AM
Henrik - add this to your list
4) Controlled population decrease based on specified
population targets.
Posted by: cs1992 | 09 July 2008 at 03:49 AM
Also include a global limit on the allowed wattage for all consumer electronics such that they must meet or exceed current AAA energy efficiency ratings.
There is no need for a fridge to use 100 watts continuous, or for any item of equipment to use more than 1 watt on standby. The power consumption of most household items are ridiculous as they stand yet would be trivial to fix.
Posted by: clett | 09 July 2008 at 04:21 AM
cs1992: Controlled population decrease based on specified population targets.
Do I hear a volunteer?
Posted by: mdf | 09 July 2008 at 05:10 AM
Henrik: So the leaders agree that when they are all dead and buried the G8 should cut its emission by 50% in 2050 or 42 years from now.
As George Carlin said, "the politicians don't give a #*(&$ about you". Everyone in the audience laughs, but what they fail to understand is that it is absolutely true. The evidence is plain, abundant, and in-your-face every single day. This GHG 'reduction' statement is especially powerful, but hardly the only one consistent with Carlin's thesis.
Is there any body of data that is inconsistent with it?
But this is no cause for concern. What does bureaucrat worship give you, anyways? Better to simply do what the market says, or, in the alternative, create the market yourselves. Just look at what high gasoline prices have done to the SUV market and extrapolate.
Posted by: mdf | 09 July 2008 at 05:27 AM
Thanks, mdf, your insight is astounding.
Nobody is suggesting that people go jump off a cliff. If every woman had at most two children and some had fewer, the population would slowly shrink. If the world population continues to grow at its current rate, everything else we do to lessen our destruction of the environment will be for nothing. No politician has the guts to suggest this course of action, it is sort of a third rail and for many reeks of communist central planning, but it needs to be done, otherwise we're screwed. So, please stop with the snide comments that imply that you think people who suggest this solution should jump off the high dive into an empty swimming pool.
Posted by: Peter | 09 July 2008 at 06:54 AM
One good way to handle it is to "generation skip." That is a single generation has fewer kids. This can be facilitated by genetic encoding for shorter female cycles, i.e. fertility is reduced from say 30 years to 20 years. Combined with a child cap of two kids per female. For the "freedom" lovers, we let them pay for more kids. If you have the money you can trade for additional kids permits. C&TK is being used now in parts of the Philippines.
Lowering appliance energy use is okay - but lower population growth gets to the heart of the matter. Less people, less energy used. Simple.
Posted by: Phil Braun | 09 July 2008 at 09:32 AM
Peter: Nobody is suggesting that people go jump off a cliff.
Then what did cs1992 mean by "population decrease based on specific population targets"? Sounds sinister to me. And, whatever he meant, why wouldn't it apply to him?
If the world population continues to grow at its current rate, everything else we do to lessen our destruction of the environment will be for nothing.
Experience in the developed world shows that, in aggregate, rich people have fewer babies. We can predict that as everyone else rises to levels of wealth in the so-called West, world population will rapidly stabilize.
That is to say, no special population control programs will be required. Those who propose such measures -- but only for other people's women, of course -- can indeed be safely dismissed as the communist nutcase female-control freaks they are.
Posted by: | 09 July 2008 at 09:35 AM
Phil Braun: For the "freedom" lovers, we let them pay for more kids.
Gee, don't they already pay for them? In fact, raising kids in Canada, USA, and other modern countries is a very expensive proposition these days. (That, by the way, is a titanic hint.)
Less people, less energy used. Simple.
Who can argue with logic like that? But why not put your money where your mouth is and go first? Curiously, one of the nasty fights at the current "theater of the absurd" in Japan (aka "G8 conference") is how the poor countries aren't taking any lectures from the rich ones re: GHG emissions until the rich ones -- which created most of the mess -- start making their own bed. Those uppity poor folk ... the nerve of them, I say!
Posted by: mdf | 09 July 2008 at 09:46 AM
Population decrease would be achieved over time by folks having fewer kids... which in turn is a natural result of greater affluence. No-one implied some sort of sinister population cull or fertility experiment for *other* people. Look up voluntary human extinction movement. I have 1 kid and consider myself part of that movement although I am not about to commit mass family suicide anytime soon.
The challenge is of course how a larger, lower-growth affluent class can continue without killing the planet - which using the current Western model it cannot. We need better policies and technologies on energy conservation as well as production, on water sourcing, on waste disposal, if we are to survive as a civilization.
Personally I think there are too many reactionary idiots that try to distort opinions to knee-jerk simplicities for us to succeed, and as such I will need to take my family to a sustainable farm somewhere remote to stay away from these people.
Posted by: Davva | 09 July 2008 at 09:47 AM
While not completely orthogonal to the problem, population is not the problem. The problem is greenhouse gases. So tax their emission. Then a family of nine who emit less than a childless couple will pay less. What's the problem with that?
As mdf correctly points out, the families of nine in the developing world are emitting vastly less than the already shrinking populations in the developed world including China. (In the developed world, only the US population is increasing, and that is only because of immigration.) So if we did a country comparison, it would conclude a *NEGATIVE* correlation between population growth and greenhouse emissions. Perhaps we should solve the greenhouse problem by encouraging more children, so they can't afford GHG-emitting technologies.
We need to get our own house in order before preaching to countries with growing populations. Attacking a false target is bound to not only blunt progress on the real problem, but create a more damaging counter-reaction. Malthus is dead. Focus on the problem at hand, not mostly-irrelevant surrogates.
[q->t to email]
Posted by: Adam | 09 July 2008 at 09:59 AM
Davva: No-one implied some sort of sinister population cull or fertility experiment for *other* people.
Read what your compatriots are writing. Right above, we have Phil Braun suggesting:
This can be facilitated by genetic encoding for shorter female cycles, i.e. fertility is reduced from say 30 years to 20 years.
So, have you installed the necessary genetic hack into yourself or your partner or your kid? Rhetorical question: of course you haven't. It's a stupid, neo-eugenics, unimplementable, idea.
Reactionary idiots indeed...
The challenge is of course how a larger, lower-growth affluent class can continue without killing the planet - which using the current Western model it cannot.
Any evidence to support this theory? Evidence against it?
We need better policies and technologies on energy conservation as well as production, on water sourcing, on waste disposal, if we are to survive as a civilization.
Water source, waste disposal, and almost all other problems we face are, or can be converted into, issues around energy production and use.
Posted by: | 09 July 2008 at 10:09 AM
Adam: While not completely orthogonal to the problem, population is not the problem.
Yes. Energy consumption in total will likely increase over time, for reasons that Davva noted. And this will be true even if the population remains the same.
Perhaps we should solve the greenhouse problem by encouraging more children, so they can't afford GHG-emitting technologies.
Heh!
A less cynical, and more co-operative approach would be to do as the developing world is arguing: solve the GHG problem.
But then turn around and sell the developing world the solution.
Posted by: | 09 July 2008 at 10:28 AM
MDF - thanks for twisting my words into something they are not. I presume too much in regards to cognitive ability when it comes to many people in this world (interpret that one and twist away).
Regardless, I have already volunteered. I have one child and it will remain that way. Last time I checked, that figure is below replacement level.
As for a family of 9 in the developing world emitting less, that's great if you want your children to live in poverty.
Posted by: cs1992 | 09 July 2008 at 10:35 AM
@Anon:
- I agree with you on PhilBraun - I think that comment was not on the list when I was writing my response. Don't think I need a genetic hack - I expect I will be dead in 40 years anyway and what my kid does is up to him.
- As for evidence to support the theory of non-sustainability - if everyone on the planet used energy like the west, where would we get the extra TwHs of electricity, barrels of oil, etc? I'm not really an environmentalist, so my concerns are not so much carbon and climate as they are the practicalities of powering the future we are creating. Evidence against? I guess if the world oil production could be expanded to 200 Billion BBls in the next 30 years that would be good evidence against. You think that likely? Me neither, unless we change to something other than the current Western model I was talking about.
- I agree that a lot of the issues stem from energy production - if you are using the broad definition that everything including our bodies is merely reconfiguration of the energy in the universe. I was at a slightly more micro point that our disposable lifestyle habits (styrofoam containers, plastic bags, PCBs) will eventually catch up with us - whether or not we are all powering our economies with 100% solar. I think the same is true for water table depletion in some drought hit areas - a result of commercial & residential use driven by population rather than of energy policy. Yes I agree that energy availability enables population growth.
Did not want to get into an argument on semantics. My point about reactionary is that we live in a world of grey and so many people want to try to say there is a black or a white position when clearly there is not. And this kind of arguing is counter-productive to advancing the cause.
This is essentially a forum on efficiency in energy production / consumption focused on transportation. My assertion is that vehicle operation AND production needs to be made more sustainable. My lament is that we will be too busy arguing about root causes and who is right/wrong/to blame to make any real change.
By the way - I am not on any political agenda as I can't vote in the US. You mentioned compatriot - I was wondering where you think I am from.
Posted by: Davva | 09 July 2008 at 10:38 AM
Gentlemen please do not take my suggestion to be a genetic "hack." A simple contraction of fertility cycle genetically is no different than growing affluence politically - which as several have noted, is the basis for slowed population growth. Lower fertility avoids the annoying problem of affluent... effluents. Since affluent people make more garbage than say a nine person family who survive on rice and beans and expel only a modicum of CO2 per person...
There is a good expectation for the Cap & Trade Kids program to continue its early success. And though it is an expensive proposition to raise kids in western culture... If you want a family of five, pay the taxes on your excess of three kids. We could even make the tax revenue neutral by re-distributing the income evenly to each tax paying adult. Then only the profligate baby makers will need to pay more. In the end it's all good.
Posted by: Phil Braun | 09 July 2008 at 09:12 PM
Let’s look at reality for once, and not fly off on tangents.
Remember, the Group of Eight (G8) is an international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
These countries no longer control the Green House fate of the earth, but the Asians: China and India. The majority of the earth’s population is centered in Asia. The G8 can’t tell them how many children to have or how much coal to burn; they are powerless. Get use to it; you or your country no longer controls your fate.
G8 green washing pronouncements are for internal consumption only; to foster the disconnected daydreams and fantasies that are apparent in these posts.
The Chinese control the “paper” that keeps the US afloat. One false move by the US or its G8 underlings and its liquidation; a fast trip down the rabbit hole; a swift kick into the street. Its time for the Chinese to inherit the earth; the China century is here. Try to adapt the best way you can, but to do that, get rid of the illutions.
Posted by: Axil | 11 July 2008 at 01:01 AM
Paper ain't worth the... paper it's written on. Ask the World Bank about third world loans.
Posted by: fakebreaker | 11 July 2008 at 09:53 AM
@ fakebreaker
If the US Treasury bill is now worthless it is because of the witless current neo-con leadership in Washington that ditto heads like you support. Three billon a week for the oil war; all on loan from China; what a disaster! Jesse Jackson should work on you instead of Obama.
Posted by: Axil | 11 July 2008 at 11:13 AM
"Since 2004, loss-making state-owned companies have been joined by overbuilding municipalities, erecting white-elephant office blocks in attempts to turn themselves into the next Shanghai. None of these losses have resulted in bankruptcy; instead the cash flow deficits have been covered by the Chinese banks. As a result, these banks have an enormous volume of bad loans $911 billion at May 2006, according to a later-withdrawn estimate by Ernst & Young, which must surely have ballooned to $1.2 trillion to $1.3 trillion now."
"Since China's economy is around one fifth the size that of of the United States, the Chinese banking system's bad debt problem is in real terms about five times that of the United States, or about 40% of its gross domestic product. "
Ooops!
Posted by: fakebreaker | 11 July 2008 at 12:16 PM
@fakebreaker
Bush proposed today a 5 trillion dollar bailout of Fannie May and Jennie Mack in the next leg of the neo-con financial disaster. You and your kind really have nerve to open your mouth on this web site.
Posted by: Axil | 11 July 2008 at 12:20 PM
Oww!!! What goes around comes around?? Don't make me listen to hysteria!! Anyone got a job other than histrionic propaganda hack?
Posted by: fakebreaker | 11 July 2008 at 11:15 PM
It is never a question of debt but of the ability to handle debt and who owns that debt. Yes, China has debts but they also have a trade surplus in the 200 billion US/year range with the US alone. The US housing bubble basically destroyed trillions of dollars of value. With money flowing in, who is in better shape?
Out of over 2 trillion in treasury bonds owned by foreigners, the chinese are second with a little over 400 billion. The japanese hold over 600 billion. It is used as political leverage.
Could it be used without destroying themselves? No. Any destructive use of held foreign debt would also be ruinous to themselves.
Could China survive it? Probably better than the US. Out of 13-14 trillion dollar US economy, 70% is driven by consumer spending. China has much higher pent up demand, which is just starting to ramp up. The same for India. Frankly games of who blinks first are for megalomaniacs. Unfortunately, those are the ones who seek power out the most and those in power have egos.
Lastly, because of the undeveloped nature of their economies, the Chinese and India have no choice but to give conservation serious consideration at whatever they do. They do not wish to strangle their fledgeling economies, but the limitations of their environment is already forcing them to look to better policies. Chinese pollution is costing them in terms of handling it and in lives. China in 2006 spent twice as much on renewable power in 2006 than the US (10 billion).
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn12925-china-on-target-to-meet-renewable-energy-goal.html
Should China do more? Yes. Should the G8 tie their efforts to China? No. The cumulative damage has already been done and it wasn't by China or India. These countries no more want weakened G8 countries than anyone else. Their own futures depend on it but you cannot ask them to run even before they can walk. Those countries that have the means, need to free up the capacity so that other countries can raise themselves out of poverty.
Posted by: aym | 12 July 2008 at 11:50 AM
"Their own futures depend on it but you cannot ask them to run even before they can walk."
Of course you can ask them to walk in step with others - since we have learned the result of not doing so. If renewable energy is itself an emerging industry, how does reliance on non-sustainable resources help an emerging economy? China's health issues alone will erase any economic gains from carbon-fueled industrialization.
"Every year, air pollution in China causes as many as 400,000 premature deaths and 75 million asthma attacks. Meanwhile, 25 percent of the Chinese population, mainly in rural areas, is drinking unclean water."
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=231281
The point is EVERY nation must participate at maximum levels to end reliance on non-sustainable energy. G8 has unfortunately modeled ecologic damage - why repeat the mistakes?
Posted by: fakebreaker | 13 July 2008 at 08:21 AM