All right, the more I read about this G8 climate agreement the more it becomes clear that the Bush administration completely outplayed the other developed countries on this. That, at least, they're good at.
Blair, Merkel, and Sarkozy all went into the summit staking their credibility on forcing an agreement: mandatory emissions cuts based on a shared target. The U.S. said: f*ck you. They begged. They pleaded. The U.S. repeated: f*ck you.
Meanwhile, the U.S. made a canny counter-proposal: a series of new talks, including China and India, to stretch out 18 months and produce "aspirational goals." Obviously it's toothless, but it did offer European leaders the chance to save some face and claim victory. It had the desired effect of dividing them and diluting the pressure on Bush. Blair, who is desperately casting about for a legacy other than the Iraq War, was quick to declare Bush's tepid offer a breakthrough. Meanwhile, Sarkozy, who's the new kid on the block and knows that Bush needs him as much as he needs Bush, noted dryly that the U.S. needs "to make another effort."
So after some intense lobbying, this is how far the U.S. was willing to move: it agreed to "seriously consider" the other developed countries' target of 50% cuts by 2050. Having said unambiguously that it will not accept any hard targets, what reason is there to think the answer will change after serious consideration? It also agreed that climate negotiations should continue under UN auspices (strange world where this is a concession).
In exchange, the Euro leaders dropped their demands for hard targets, endorsed Bush's toothless aspirational talks, and declared a "huge success." This is obviously making the best of a bad situation, returning to their expectant publics with something rather than nothing. But make no mistake: other than a vague acknowledgment of the problem and the need to cut some emissions, at some point, somehow, the U.S. basically gave the rest of the world the finger yet again.
The most revealing line I've read about it comes about halfway through this NYT piece:
When Mr. Bush turned to [Merkel] and said he has "a strong desire to work with you" on the issue, the chancellor pursed her lips.
I bet.
Here's the section on climate change from the G8 declaration (PDF):
We are therefore committed to taking strong and early action to tackle climate change in order to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports, global greenhouse gas emissions must stop rising, followed by substantial global emission reductions.
In setting a global goal for emissions reductions in the process we have agreed today involving all major emitters, we will consider seriously the decisions made by the European Union, Canada and Japan which include at least a halving of global emissions by 2050.
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
A scary new climate study will have you saying ‘Oh, shit!’
Seven reasons for optimism about the Senate climate bill
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 6:38 am
07 Jun 2007
It is well-known that he speaks very good German -- but that is ironic, because he learned German while he was working in the KGB office in East Berlin. Every time he opens his mouth and speaks in German, no doubt there are people in the West with long memories who shudder ...
As for the substance of the agreement, and the negotiations leading up to it, there was some conservative commentator on the NewsHour last night, who seemed quite pleased with the outcome, and who made the point that the Europeans are "process-oriented" and the Americans are "results-oriented." That went right over my head. My guess is that it has something to do with Merkel's satisfaction that at least the UN has been accepted by the US as the formal context in which these (apparently toothless, but whatever) discussions are supposed to take place.
I am disappointed with the relative reticence of Nicolas Sarkozy. It seems that had he joined forces with Merkel in a more forceful way, they could have accomplished something more substantial. None of the other leaders was in such a position of strength: Putin could not be distracted from his Third Reich/Cold War tactic; Prodi and Abe are politically weak at home; Blair is so negligible that one wonders why they even bothered to invite him; and Harper is as much W.'s lapdog as Blair ever was. But Sarkozy could have done more, if he were really committed to the issue. Instead, he seems to have played this cute game of not wanting to be seen as a clear opponent of the US just yet, on the one hand, and trying to win or maintain the approval of French greens, on the other, by expressing criticism and doubt after the statement was released.
Back to Vladimir: He and W. seem to have made up, by agreeing to have the missile defense system (which anyway no one believes really works) put in Azerbaijan. Wow!, what a twist! Who saw that coming?! But a good thing it is, no?, just in time for the Bush family picnic. I hope Vladimir shows up wearing a prisoner's overall, printed with the words "Property of Guantanamo Naval Base," as a sort of joke.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
onkl Posted 7:09 am
07 Jun 2007
"The United States is now on a bandwagon they cannot stop," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, a German expert on climate change who is Merkel's chief adviser on climate policy. "That is more than I expected. In a way, climate common sense prevailed at the last minute."
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:35 am
07 Jun 2007
grist.org
Permalink
onkl Posted 9:59 pm
07 Jun 2007
This aside, I do agree: it certainly could have ben better.
Permalink
amnoelle Posted 4:05 am
08 Jun 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:31 am
08 Jun 2007
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003739 ...
Up north, climate change receives a warm welcome
QAQORTOQ, Greenland -- The biggest island in the world is wind-raked, gripped by ice over four-fifths of its land, prowled by polar bears, and its coastlines are choked by drifting icebergs and sea ice. Many of its 56,000 people, who live on the fringes of its giant ice cap, see the effects of global warming -- and cheer it on.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink