G8 statement on cutting global emission is flawed

The G8 summit held in Hokkaido last week did not generate major expectations and, therefore, did not perhaps result in any great disappointment. The chair's summary issued at the end of the summit undertakes the usual tour across major issues and hotspots across the globe. However, the most important part deals with the subject of climate change, on which the G8 leaders agreed to a common vision of reducing by 2050 global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by 50 per cent.

The language presented, however, states that “the G8 leaders 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”. Yet, there is no mention of the base year from which this reduction would be measured. It could, therefore, be taken to apply to the 1990 level specified in the Kyoto Protocol or 2000 or perhaps even from the date when the summit concluded. This is clearly a flaw in the statement, the result of which would be to create doubts on the resolve of the G8 leaders in bringing about a stabilisation of the earth's climate.

Even more significant, however, is the lack of any reference to the Bali action plan which called for “deep cuts” in GHG emissions by the year 2020 in keeping with assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While it would have been unrealistic to expect any agreement on a target for reduction of emissions by 2020, perhaps a statement supporting the intent of “deep cuts” in emissions would have been appropriate and effective in mobilising global support for negotiations that are underway for coming up with an agreement by the end of 2009, an important part of which would be actions to be taken in the immediate short term.

Why actions in the short term are important can be understood from the impact of climate change even in the period immediately ahead. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC examined a number of scenarios for stabilisation of the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, which in turn result in climate change and warming of the earth. If, for instance, average global temperature increase relative to pre-industrial levels was to be limited to between 2 and 2.4 degrees centigrade then the world would have to ensure that the year when CO2 emissions peak would be no later than 2015.

Clearly, limiting emissions will not be possible unless very clear targets are established for the year 2020 that would allow a beginning of reductions by 2015. Not taking early action in reducing GHG emissions would lead to severe impacts of climate change being experienced in different parts of the world.

Unfortunately, the worst consequences of these impacts will be felt by some of the poorest communities and countries, who have had hardly any role in contributing to the evolution of this problem. GHG emissions have come overwhelmingly from the developed countries, but the heaviest price in terms of impacts of climate change is being paid by some of the poorest countries.

To this extent at least the G8 leaders have either proved unaware of or insensitive to the vulnerability of the worst affected societies. There are several examples of the impacts on vulnerable regions and communities. In Africa alone by 2020 about 75 to 250 million people will be affected by water stress resulting from climate change and there is likely to be a 50 per cent decline in agricultural yields in certain countries. This would expose some of these societies to the danger of famine and massive malnutrition. Even today, over 50 countries regularly import food to meet their basic needs. With a decline in agricultural yields, an unprecedented increase in global food prices and oil, there would be very little capacity or economic means available with these nations to be able to stave off large-scale starvation, with the prospect of disruption of peace and security.

The discussions and positions adopted in the G8 this year are a step beyond what was agreed to at Heiligendamm last year and in several respects even the intention to act has been much more clearly specified. The Hokkaido statement
acknowledges for instance "our leader-ship 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".
However, here again time scales have not been indicated and no specific range of targets was discussed nor was there any reference to the IPCC report, which had a major role in defining the discussions and final outcome at the Bali conference.

The five so-called outreach countries — Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa — challenged the G8 countries to cut their GHG emissions by more than 80 per cent by 2050. They also urged the developed countries to commit to an interim target of a 25-40 per cent cut below 1990 levels by 2020.

This summit leads to the conclusion that the rate of progress on critical issues between successive summits is questionable. The leader-ship of the richest countries in the world needs to reflect their responsibility to the global community at large and the expectations that are aroused, which call for bolder measures and major changes in the interests of protecting the planet and all species living on it.

The writer is director-general, TERI, and chairman, IPCC.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Editorial/LEADER_ARTICLE_Stand_Up_And_Deliver/
articleshow/3229474.cms

---