G-8 Leaders Reach Climate Deal

Agreement Calls For "Substantial Cuts" To Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(CBS/AP)  The G-8 leaders reached agreement on a number of environmental issues Thursday, setting long-term goals on global warming, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod.

The Group of Eight leaders including President George W. Bush cited a goal of a 50 percent cut by 2050.

This fell short of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's hope for consensus on mandatory greenhouse gas reductions, but just being open to the idea is further than the Bush Administration has gone before, reports Axelrod.

European leaders hailed the deal as progress in the wrangling between Europe and the United States over global warming, with the Europeans pushing mandatory cuts and the U.S. resisting.

Merkel, who shepherded the deal as chair of the G-8 summit in this seaside resort in northern Germany, called it "very great progress and an excellent result." With Bush resisting concrete cuts, it had appeared Merkel's summit would fall short of her goal of a substantial deal on climate change.

"We agree that we need reduction goals — and obligatory reduction goals," she said.

But the language of the declaration appeared to be well short of a full commitment. It called for the countries to "seriously consider" following the European Union, Japan and Canada in seeking to halve emissions by 2050.

Merkel, who has made climate change the centerpiece of Germany's G-8 leadership, had lobbied fellow leaders on the issue for months. The G-8 is Germany, the United States, Russia, Britain, Italy, France, Canada and Japan.

"No one can escape this political declaration; it is an enormous step forward," she told reporters.

"The agreement is a major advance for greenhouse gas emissions reduction because it bridged the very large gap between the Bush Administration's proposal of no targets and the European Union interest in setting specific guidelines," said CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk from the U.N., "and while there is skepticism because the agreement does not go as far as the Kyoto Protocol would have, it represents a reversal in the U.S. position toward finding common ground on global warming."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was asked if there was "wiggle room." He said the final result would depend on upcoming U.N. climate change negotiations.

"However, there is now a process to lead to that agreement, and at its heart is a commitment to a substantial cut," he said. "What does substantial mean? That serious consideration is given to the halving of emissions by 2050."

Blair called the deal "a major, major step forward."

But Annie Petsonk, a lawyer for the advocacy group Environmental Defense, said the summit hadn't agreed on a 50 percent cut — only on a call for all major emitters to seriously consider that option.

"Importantly, they have agreed to negotiate a new agreement under the UN Framework Convention — bound by the obligation to avert dangerous climate change," she said. "But it may be that the president is simply kicking the can down the road to the next administration to get the job done."

Petsonk said the key to getting an agreement in these new talks will be for the United States to impose a mandatory national cap on its own greenhouse gas emissions, without which other nations would be reluctant to join along. "All eyes are on Congress now. If America wants to lead, it's clear that Congress will have to do it," she said.

On the first full day of the summit, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed their dispute over a U.S. proposal to put a missile defense system in eastern Europe. Bush also waxed nostalgic about this last summit with friend and Iraq war ally Blair, who leaves office June 27.

"I'm sad about that," Bush said.

The meeting also produced an unexpected proposal from Putin, who said he would drop his opposition to the U.S. missile defense system if it made use of a Russian-leased radar station in Azerbaijan. Currently the plan is to put 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic to guard against a potential future threat from Iran.

Bush did not mention Putin's proposal, saying only that Putin had made "some interesting suggestions." The two agreed to continue discussing the issue during talks next month at the Bush family vacation home in Maine.

On climate change, Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, said the ideas in the G-8 declaration were in the proposal the president issued last week. Bush called for having the top 15 polluters meet to set a long-term goal for reducing harmful emissions, and decide for themselves how much to do toward meeting it.

"The president made clear last week that he accepted the principle of a long-term goal," Hadley said during a telephone briefing with reporters. "I think it's very consistent with some ideas that the president had last week, but it was also consistent with ideas that have been advanced by others."

The document endorses the U.N. framework for climate change talks, a key demand from Merkel. But it did not commit to Merkel's target under which global temperatures would be allowed to increase by no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before being brought back down.

Experts say the 50 percent emissions reduction is needed to meet that goal.

Bush has opposed mandatory cuts and maintains that developing nations such as China, India and Brazil must be included. He also says economic growth cannot be sacrificed for progress on climate change, and stresses cleaner technology and biofuels as ways to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, which generate the greenhouse gases believed to cause global warming.

Climate talks will begin within the U.N. framework with a meeting of environment ministers at a U.N. climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, in December.

The conference will seek to come up with a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrial countries to cut emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels. The U.S. signed the treaty but did not ratify it because it did not apply to developing countries such as China and India.

The top U.N. climate official said the agreement was "very important progress" because it committed the countries to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol by 2009.

"The important thing is to get the negotiations going, rather than to decide what the outcome is going to be," said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"I know Chancellor Merkel is declaring victory, but in fact President Bush has shut the door in the faces of the other seven leaders at the table," said Philip Clapp, president of the U.S.-based National Environmental Trust, pointing to the "seriously consider" phrase.

"That is a far cry from the United States having signed up to any such reductions," he said.

Clapp said the agreement showed progress among the other countries in reaching a consensus that could be taken up by the next U.S. president after Bush leaves office in January 2009.

Outside the summit site, protests continued.

Police used water cannons to turn back thousands of demonstrators who rushed the seven-mile fence surrounding the summit site, and police boats chased inflatable boats from the environmental group Greenpeace that entered the security zone on the Baltic Sea.

[sigotratando]

God created the earth, which is our home (garden), which He expects us to care for. The economy & "Standard of Living" exist only as concepts mostly related to a system for "personal gain & comfort". Personal Gain & Comfort are issues of Self, and when we focus too much on that, we call that "selfishness". When we increase (aka "grow" or "improve") the economy to go so far past what others on the planet can happily & comfortably live on, we call that "greed." So we are pitting the health of our home against preserving & increasing our selfishness & greed. What does Bush's faith teach regarding the morality of these two characteristics?

An economy can be complicated. But what makes it so isn't its parts, but rather the lawsuits & political fallout from humans being forced to act more responsibly, which will disrupt their personal "economy", which affects votes for a particular party, which inhibits the furthering of the party's agenda, which is about growing an economy that favors their culture above any other on the planet.

Having laws is an acknowledgment that people must be regulated to act civilly/morally and for a larger good. We have laws to protect water, earth, plants, animals, and ultimately food because we know that self-serving people (& their businesses) will poison the general population while trying to grow their economies. Why should we fear fallout unless the fallout itself is what will do the harming of the "economy" or the agenda to increase it?

[ubrew12]

I like the cap and trade. It needs to be globally enforced, with economic sanctions the cost of unenforcement. If the EU, Japan, and Canada halve their emissions and the US, China, and India do not, the former will become economically weaker while the latter surpass them economically, and the planet warms anyway.

Divide and Conquer is Bush's strategy for killing any progress made on Global Warming for now. Hopefully, better heads will prevail in a couple years.

[jimfinster]

What clestes and sjc_1 need to understand is that Bush has been resisting attempts to take away all of our rights in this manner. (Whether this was his goal or not is unimportant.)

Posted by octavianfdlr at 03:06 PM : Jun 08, 2007

What "rights" are you talking about? The right to drive a gas guzzling SUV a zillion miles per year? The right to have a huge energy inefficient house? The right to use all the electricity you feel like using?

Bush is only interested in protecting the fossil fuel industry. He cares nothing about you and your rights.

[jimfinster]

"But the language of the declaration appeared to be well short of a full commitment. It called for the countries to "seriously consider" following the European Union, Japan and Canada in seeking to halve emissions by 2050."

That is the deal!?! What a joke.

[rheola-2009]

By keeping your house warm enough (so the argument goes) to keep your plumbing from freezing, you are damaging the homes of others, for example, by causing the coast to flood. Therefore, the government must force you to let your plumbing freeze. Or to freeze to death yourself. Because you do not have the right to live.

Posted by octavianfdlr at 03:06 PM : Jun 08, 2007

That statement is just so ridiculous.

You know as well as all of us, that the hope of all thinking persons, is to replace Fossil fuel derived energy, with that of more enviremental means.

I had some admiration for your arguments in the past, even though I considered your attitude a problem, however that little bit of gross scare mongering stupidity, as copied above has really shown you up.

Stop throwing up white Elephants.

[octavianfdlr]

Once more, folks:

The major danger from climate change is not fire, but ice. Scientists who study climate change know this. They have documented the damage that has been done by ice in prehistoric times, and shown that it will happen again.

The danger from Global Warming is purely a political one. The Global Warming wolves (not sheep) who have been running computer programs for decades and claiming that their programs prove that humans are causing warming which will become disastrous, have also been claiming that preventing Global Warming is more important than individual rights.

By keeping your house warm enough (so the argument goes) to keep your plumbing from freezing, you are damaging the homes of others, for example, by causing the coast to flood. Therefore, the government must force you to let your plumbing freeze. Or to freeze to death yourself. Because you do not have the right to live.

What clestes and sjc_1 need to understand is that Bush has been resisting attempts to take away all of our rights in this manner. (Whether this was his goal or not is unimportant.)

Let's not throw away our rights because we don't like someone who didn't take them away, OK?

[sjc_1]

Bush says we will not do it if China will not do it. China says they will not do it if the U.S. will not do it. Let's stop all this nonsense. The U.S. likes to pretend that it is a leader, so lead.

Start using less fossil fuels and lead the way to a new energy future. But that would not be as profitable to the oil companies and Bush and the VP are oil and gas guys. Maybe now you start to see the picture.

[clestes-2009]

This is so stupid. Nothing is going to be done on climate change, Iraq, immigration, social security or health care until Bonzo Bush is out of office.

Bush may not be responsible for global warming, but he is responsible for not doing anything about it. The same for immigration, healthcare and social security.

However, he is totally responsible for the Iraq disaster. He could have stopped the Iraq invasion, but chose to go along with the Cheney cabal and ignored all advice to the contrary.

In 2008 there will be a democratic president and a democratic Congress and finally these issues will be addressed.

Bush has done nothing good and a lot of bad in his presidency and will pass to the next president just a LOT of problems to be solved.

What a complete loser he is. The only thing worse than Bush would be for him to die and Cheney become president. Then we would have a war with Iran, like that would do the US any good.

[feelfree1]

10,000+ demonstrators breached the security cordon yesterday, and blocked several roads. The security goons for the G8 were even outwitted by a troup of clowns, who made it all the way to the inner security wall.

Great job demonstrators!

Thank you!!!


www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/372723.html

[rheola-2009]

Hawksprings

The terrain around here is very similar, plateau like, the area is known as the N.S.W. Central Tablelands, we are on it's eastern edge, and as you we are subject to a fair amount of wind.

Generally open plains used for sheep grazing and beef cattle, in past a large amount of potatoes were grown here, however our on going drought brought that to an end.
There is some hope of an end in sight to our drought, it does appear this last El Nino event is beginning to break down.

As I have said in past, I could handle living in Wyoming, I tend to prefer the less populated and more natural area's, for example, California would not be for me.

My perfect place to live,, and would do so if not tied to my children, is abut 500miles away, a town called Yarram in Sth Gippsland Victoria, it to me has everything, proximity to the coast, close to the mountains, plenty of un spoiled bush country, lots of fishing, both ocean and stream, and a good temperate climate.

Do something about your stock exchange, as is our prime minister a lap dog of Bush so is our exchange to yours, and I am not having a good day.

Have another good one

[hawksprings]

Likewise rheola.
I have a fantasy of seeing Australia someday but I don't know how I would ever afford it.

What's crazy about Cheyenne is we are on a high plain, we're not even 'moutainous', we just get the mountain weather because of the altitude and proximity to the Rockies.

What's your terrain like?

[rheola-2009]

Hawksprings.

You are almost as high as our highest point, Mt. Kosciusko, about 180 miles south of here.
Here in Crookwell, we are 876 mtrs,approx 3000ft.

Your wife has my sincere sympathies, I had most of my fruit, and a large part of my garden wiped out by a heavy frost at the end of november last.

I would love to sit down and have a beer with you one day, never know, may get to the States at some stage, and could look you up.

I enjoy our little jousts, I hope you never take me to seriously.

[hawksprings]

rheola,
We are at 6200 feet above sea level, which I guess is about 1890 meters, right?

Currently it is 38 degrees F, or 3 degrees Celsius, and we're under a frost warning tonight. My wife is freaked out because she just planted a bunch of roses...

We have a saying around here when this happens: "It's Springtime in the Rockies..."

...

[rheola-2009]

Hawksprings

Not since the last ice age, probably will in the next

Seriously, it is a most miserable cold drizzly and windy day here today, probably similar to your day in Cheyenne, without the snow.

How high above sea level are you.

[hawksprings]

Don't be silly rheola, your July is the equivalant to our December!!!

Does it snow there in December?

[rheola-2009]

If Global Warming keeps this up, it'll be snowing here into July.)
Posted by hawksprings at 06:31 PM : Jun 07, 2007

What is so unusual about snow in July, reguarly happens here in our high country [though our high country is not quite as high as yours, highest being 7500 feet.]

Even has been known to snow in my town in july, but not for a few years now, must be something to do with the climate.

[hawksprings]

rheola,
My point, though dripping with sarcasm, is that scientists are not infallible, prone to biases and mob-mentality, just like any other human being.

I'm not ready to sell the farm and jump on the human-caused global warming bandwagon with you.

I wish I could send you some of our snow and cool you off. (I used to tell people I saw it snow on June 6th in Cheyenne. Now I'll have to start saying I've seen it snow on June 7th. If Global Warming keeps this up, it'll be snowing here into July.)

[rheola-2009]

To all you Human-Caused Global Warming Sheep:

Mock us doubters and heretics all you want, but tell me this:

How many times have scientists been wrong in the past?

We doubters and heretics will keep speaking up until you all start organizing witch hunts to silence us.
Posted by hawksprings at 11:23 AM : Jun 07, 2007
+ report abuse

And how many times have the scientists been right.
Do you rely on the potions prescribed by your Witch doctor, or the medicines prescribed by your Doctor.

I can only assume, that you would not travel in an aircraft, as a Scientist would have had some part in the design/production of the materials used in it's manufacture.

[hawksprings]

Dr. Finster, someone's gotta keep the lights on in this country.

[jimfinster]

Pretty funny, considering Wyomings ranking in CO2 output :)