What the G8 statement says

[parmenides3]

This is what I have written this morning, after going throught the G8 statement twice: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/69/

Basically, the whole thing appears to have been a complete waste of time and money. I'd welcome comments, here or on my blog.

Note, if you want to read all 38 pages of the statement, there's a link in the article.

:)P

[cheeky_monkey]

like the g8 leaders...i just cant be assed!

[Admiral_Bobski]

This is what I have written this morning, after going throught the G8 statement twice: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/06/09/69/

Basically, the whole thing appears to have been a complete waste of time and money. I'd welcome comments, here or on my blog.

Note, if you want to read all 38 pages of the statement, there's a link in the article.

:)P

Ooh! Looks like a "No Regrets" policy!

CB

[parmenides3]

Doesn't look like any kind of emissions reduction policy, at all. If anything, it's an economic policy which persists in doing nothing about climate change. Regardless of your opinion of AGW, you can't help but be impressed by our leaders' capacity to do SFA in a five-star, multi-million pound, guff-filled, extended photo-opportunity.

If you are concerned about AGW, there is nothing here to make you feel any better; if anything, quite the reverse.

Cheekymonkey: remember you said that when your turn comes to get annoyed at the way your future is being stuffed. You get the future you deserve.

:)P

[ANYWEATHER]

How many summits do we need? All these Politicians do is sit down and talk about how we are gonna save the world {Different day ,same old tune} As far as im concerned they can talk at these summits from now to kingdom come and it wont make any difference to cc. All of us have a responsability towards our planet, but, lets get one point straight, Politicians and the greedy comercial world are not at all worried about our Earth as long as there ok what does it matter about anyone else! These so called summits are a complete and utter waste of time space and energy ,not to mention all the carbon emissions it takes for these great gatherings to take place. What it does need is for everyone to look after the Planet, every country to look after there own, but we all no in reality that is never going to happen and until the land of the Perfect People are born lol These summits to so called "save our planet" are totally a WASTE OF TIME! :

[Thundery wintry showers]

What we need is essentially some kind of global co-operation and acting out of the interests of the globe, balancing economic factors with social factors and environmental factors.

Tackling emissions using economics will probably work eventually, but there is so much inertia within the economic system (waiting for "going green" to become 'economically viable') that if so, it will take a lot of time. If humans are indeed significantly contributing to climate change (which appears far more likely than not, given the evidence) then that means far too much time.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Doesn't look like any kind of emissions reduction policy, at all. If anything, it's an economic policy which persists in doing nothing about climate change. Regardless of your opinion of AGW, you can't help but be impressed by our leaders' capacity to do SFA in a five-star, multi-million pound, guff-filled, extended photo-opportunity.

If you are concerned about AGW, there is nothing here to make you feel any better; if anything, quite the reverse.

Cheekymonkey: remember you said that when your turn comes to get annoyed at the way your future is being stuffed. You get the future you deserve.

:)P

Here's a quote from the G8 doc...(my highlight)

Strong economies...are key to guide investment decisions, to generate technology commercialisation, to enhance energy security, to promote sustainable development and to slow, stabilise and then significantly cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.

(Point 41 of the G8 Statement.)

I have to confess to not having read the whole thing yet, but phrases like the above did jump out at me. Also it would appear that we are reading different things into their phraseology - I take phrases such as "enhancing energy security" as meaning that they will be attempting to move away from the reliance on oil and towards other forms of sustainable energy (fusion, solar or whatever).

Interesting reading there...

CB

[PersianPaladin]

I think everything will be sorted out when someone like TWS becomes prime-minister.

Edited June 9, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[parmenides3]

Hi, C-Bob: The point I was trying to make is also encapsulated in the quotation you have lifted. The assumption is that nothing can be done unless the econmy is strong, therefore nothing should be done which threatens that economy. By making economic considerations the baseline for decision-making, they are effectively saying that they won't take any risks with corporate and private wealth, even if the planet is going to ****. It also implies, to me, that nobody is willing to consider a realistic financial commitment unless there is some payback. In terms of preserving the planet, this is simply madness.

Of course, mine is only one interpretation; I welcome alternative analyses, so feel free to criticise. BTW; it also occurred to me that 'enhancing energy security' could also be interpreted as 'making sure we have a stranglehold on the Middle-East and keeping the russians from blackmailing us over gas supply'. But then I'm just an old cynic.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi, C-Bob: The point I was trying to make is also encapsulated in the quotation you have lifted. The assumption is that nothing can be done unless the econmy is strong, therefore nothing should be done which threatens that economy. By making economic considerations the baseline for decision-making, they are effectively saying that they won't take any risks with corporate and private wealth, even if the planet is going to ****. It also implies, to me, that nobody is willing to consider a realistic financial commitment unless there is some payback. In terms of preserving the planet, this is simply madness.

Of course, mine is only one interpretation; I welcome alternative analyses, so feel free to criticise. BTW; it also occurred to me that 'enhancing energy security' could also be interpreted as 'making sure we have a stranglehold on the Middle-East and keeping the russians from blackmailing us over gas supply'. But then I'm just an old cynic.

:)P

Of course, this goes back to our old debate about the "No Regrets" policy. The idea is that we really, really don't want to cripple our own economy. If these climate change policies involve spending money (which they do) then we need to know that our economy is strong enough to cope with this extra outlay - if the economy can't withstand the extra expenditure then the economy suffers and, potentially, collapses. If that happens then there's suddenly no money available with which to combat climate change and we end up in a worse situation than before. Even worse than that, because we're so committed to "fighting climate change", there really is no money available to direct towards research into sustainable energy development, so we're not even safeguarding our future in that respect.

A true long-term solution to climate change absolutely requires that the economy is strong.

With regards to your interpretation of "enhancing energy security", it would seem foolhardy to attempt to safeguard our energy requirements by "securing" middle-eastern oil when we know for a fact that it is not going to last forever - a true long-term strategy should take into account the fact that oil is finite and that renewable energy sources are vital for the future, both socialogically and economically. From what I have read of the G8 statement so far it would appear that they truly are talking about a more long-term commitment (though not explicitly).

CB

[Iceberg]

I'd like to say that this is all due to Bush and Putin, but that would be giving Blair et al too much credit.

There is very little or no appetite for any "new" or working policies to bring about a real reduction or even really a slowing down of CO2 emissions. They are prepared to sit in their towers, probably damming the developing and third world (look at the real inaction over Africa to see how much they care !).

Maybe a CAT 5 wiping out Miami ( A Richer/whiter city) will cause Bush to Act, as to Putin he's only got to gain from this.

[parmenides3]

Of course, this goes back to our old debate about the "No Regrets" policy. The idea is that we really, really don't want to cripple our own economy. If these climate change policies involve spending money (which they do) then we need to know that our economy is strong enough to cope with this extra outlay - if the economy can't withstand the extra expenditure then the economy suffers and, potentially, collapses. If that happens then there's suddenly no money available with which to combat climate change and we end up in a worse situation than before. Even worse than that, because we're so committed to "fighting climate change", there really is no money available to direct towards research into sustainable energy development, so we're not even safeguarding our future in that respect.

A true long-term solution to climate change absolutely requires that the economy is strong.

With regards to your interpretation of "enhancing energy security", it would seem foolhardy to attempt to safeguard our energy requirements by "securing" middle-eastern oil when we know for a fact that it is not going to last forever - a true long-term strategy should take into account the fact that oil is finite and that renewable energy sources are vital for the future, both socialogically and economically. From what I have read of the G8 statement so far it would appear that they truly are talking about a more long-term commitment (though not explicitly).

CB

And here lies the [apparent] conundrum. But there are two thoughts on this. (and, by the way, I think your analysis is fair and cogent). Firstly, it is clear that, as things stand, (inasmuch as there is a conflict of interest), economy takes precedence over climate. I know there is a lot of ground to cover on this, but as the statement by 23 major finaincial institutions just before the conference points out, an inadequate mitigation policy is going to cost us around a trillion dollars a year in the near and continuing future. I know of no comparable material which suggests that effective mitigation will cost the global economy this much. What do we make of this?

The second thought is that, underneath this issue lies an assumption that mitigation will, inevitably, be economically 'bad'. I can understand how sudden and extreme legislation might disrupt the markets (though perhaps only for a short while), but well-considered planning can be incorporated into business plans and investment analyses and hedged against, or adapted to, given a relatively short time. recent history shows that markets are robust to known changes in legislation under the right circumstances. By failing to give any indication of likely future action, the G8 is not giving the economy the chance to adapt and adjust. This in turn implies, given the desire to avoid global recession, that real action is simply going to be delayed even longer, to allow for adjustments. If this process continues to 2012, as seems likely, the first concerted mitgation work on a globally significant scale won't start for another ten years. If it is already close to being too late to act now, then how much more serious will the situation be in ten years' time?

:)P

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm not convinced at all that making some short-term sacrifices to the economy, in moderation, would cripple economies in the long run (it's rather a 'slippery slope' type argument to say that if we don't put the economy first, we will end up with a severe recession). It depends on how big the sacrifices are.

At the moment, the obsession with 'putting economy first' is that it's jeapordising the environmental issues. If we make too many sacrifices to the economy, then of course we could easily go into recession etc etc, but if we make just small sacrifices, and in doing so address environmental issues, the negative financial implications of the economic sacrifices may be outweighed by the extent to which there is greater scope to tackle the environmental problem.

Putting economics on the back burner is certainly risky, but if implemented carefully with long-term planning, and aiming for sustainable economic/social/environmental prosperity in future, it may end up being a short-term risk but for a greater long-term gain.

[crimsone]

Meh - it's the G8. There's a reason that the summits are surrounded by protests every year, and it's a good one. when it comes to the smaller things, cynicism isn't allways warranted. On the other hand, when it comes to the rich getting richer - not so much average people, but at the top levels - I don't feel in the slightest bit cynical, and my views pay dividends! I get to ignore the statements and laugh at the enthusiasm, and not get caught in the hype when the G8 say such things as "we'll save africa" (translated: we'll stop screwing over africa), because it just isn't going to happen where it means disadvantage for the G8. Heck - it took Bob Geldof, Bono, and a huge and well publicised campaign just to get them to pay lip service. Imagine the kind of bad image it would take to get them to actually do anything, or would even such an obvious and seriously bad image force them to do anything?

One of the curious things that's just occured to me actually, is that I recall someone on these boards presenting a well reasoned argument that a major contributing factor to climate change was the uneven distribution of the worlds wealth and resources. I wonder if the G8 have considered the same possibility? If they haven't, it's probably because it doesn't suit them, and if they have, evidently it doesn't suit them.

Edited June 10, 2007 by crimsone

[jethro]

My take on the G8 statement is no surprise there then. Admit ably, being a cynical old mare probably taints my reaction but I wasn’t expecting anything less than the apparent platitudes and apathy. With the best will in the world, countries can leap up and down as much as they like protesting about any number of concerns but unless the major players, Russia, USA, us etc are on board, nothing much will happen. And that’s precisely what I expect to happen regarding AGW. Economies around the world, especially the USA one are built on oil; I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Known, reachable oil supplies are dwindling. If the climate changes and the poles melt, yes people around the world will suffer as water levels rise but it will also enable oil extraction from as yet untapped resources. The Russians are already heading north for their oil supplies, the USA has territories within the arctic too, and we safe guarded our right to Antarctica by retaining the Falkland Islands. Does anyone really believe the powers that be will do anything to halt the polar melt whilst that carrot is there? When it comes to personalities, well Putin is ex KGB, anyone expect him to trust the West? Blair, well he just dreamt of being president, didn’t he? Or possibly King? Gordon Brown is reputed to be more altruistic, time will tell. Bush, mmm, where to begin? Not the brightest cookie in the box. Without some seriously shady dealings in his election in Florida, he wouldn’t be President, Al Gore would be. As thorns in the side go, I suspect Mr. Gore must be quite a large one, embraced by the world populace and winner of an Oscar to boot. Coincidence that Mr. Bush suddenly does an about turn regarding climate change or a response to Gore and the natives in Iraq (and their oil) not being quelled as quickly and easily as expected? You decide. As far as I’m concerned their inaction in Africa, despite all the hot air they spout, speaks volumes of their ineffectiveness and lack of conviction.

[parmenides3]

Not going to argue with you on this one, jethro. You might also be interested by the Tyndall Centre's response to the government's energy white paper: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/

:)P

[jethro]

Not going to argue with you on this one, jethro. You might also be interested by the Tyndall Centre's response to the government's energy white paper: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/

:)P

Oh P3, you disappoint, not even a quibble? I hadn't seen the Tyndall paper, says it all really doesn't it; akin to my intention to quit smoking, all the evidence points to it not being a good idea, despite saying hundreds of times I really should stop this, it's lunacy, I'm still puffing away.

Anyone else think there might be a connection between reduced refuse collections and the drive to get everyone recycling and the fact that we need more land to build on? Or is the timing of these two just another coincidence?

[jethro]

I know this isn't connected to G8 but I've just read this. It's yet another example of economic progress at any cost, and this by the man who declared earlier in the year that protecting the Amazon and the rain forest was at the top of his priorities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/11/world/am...p;th&emc=th