US Trying to Weaken G-8 Climate Change Declaration
WASHINGTON — Negotiators from the United States are trying to weaken the language of a climate change declaration set to be unveiled at next month’s G-8 summit of the world’s leading industrial powers, according to documents.
A draft proposal dated April 2007 that is being debated in Bonn by senior officials of the Group of Eight includes a pledge to limit the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, as well as an agreement to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 
The United States is seeking to strike that section, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
Many scientists have warned that an increase of more than 3.6 degrees this century could trigger disastrous consequences such as mass extinction of species and accelerated melting of polar ice sheets, which would raise sea levels.
The documents indicate that American officials are also trying to eliminate draft language that says, “We acknowledge that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change.” Industrial and developing countries have used the United Nations as the forum for crafting climate agreements for years.
Neither the White House Council on Environmental Quality nor the State Department could immediately be reached for comment. Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has consistently advocated more climate research and voluntary energy-efficiency measures as the way to address global warming.
The G-8 leaders are scheduled to sign off on the global warming declaration during their June 6-8 summit in Heligendamm, Germany.
Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, along with outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, have been pushing for a strong statement on climate change as part of the June meeting, and newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said in his acceptance speech last week that global warming is his top priority.
The US representatives in Bonn, however, are trying to soften the message of the statement by deleting sections that would call on the industrialized world to modify activities linked to warming.
They also proposed striking one of the document’s opening phrases, which says, “We firmly agree that resolute and concerted international action is urgently needed in order to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and sustain our common basis of living.”
Philip Clapp, who heads the advocacy group National Environmental Trust and has read the document, said US opposition to the draft declaration could strain the country’s relationship with its allies and jeopardize the world’s ability to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decade.
“The administration is proposing to eliminate any statement that acting on global warming is urgent and all measures that will begin to reduce global warming pollution, including any proposal to improve the energy efficiency of our economy,” Clapp said. “A continued US refusal to take a lead in combating global warming will set back progress for years.”
In New York today, former president Bill Clinton and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will convene an international meeting of government officials and business leaders to trade ideas on ways to curb global warming.
Mayors and governors of more than 30 localities from Colombia to South Korea, along with chief executives from international companies, will join Clinton and Bloomberg for the conference that ends Thursday.
Although cities cover less than 1 percent of the earth’s surface, they are disproportionately responsible for polluting it, contributing 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
“Cities must take responsibility for our contribution to global climate change,” said Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, one of the participants. He will announce his own city’s carbon-reduction plan tomorrow in California before traveling to New York.
The New York conference will include discussions on building greener cities, using renewable energy sources, transforming waste into energy, and finding ways to engage the private sector in the effort.
Bloomberg recently unveiled a 23-year plan to make New York sustainable over the long term. The city now has 8.2 million people and by 2030, there will be an additional million people living there. Conference participants are expected to discuss Bloomberg’s most controversial program, which proposes charging motorists extra money for driving into the most congested parts of Manhattan as a way to reduce traffic and pollution.
The state Legislature must approve the congestion-pricing scheme, and many say it is a near-impossible hurdle because a great number of lawmakers from the city’s outer neighborhoods of commuters will not support it.
The Bloomberg administration wants to reduce New York’s emissions by 30 percent by 2030.
Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases, essentially trap energy from the sun. City buildings, which consume electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, and steam, contribute heavily to emissions.
Material from the Associated Press was included in this report.
© Copyright 2007 The Boston Globe
Is it even conceivable that the G-8 could be part of the solution for global warming?
Actually, let me re-phrase that.
It it even possible that the G-8 could be part of the solution?
My oh My,
buffalo_ken
This is a must see video. Links at http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/459
A Child pleaded for the Future, but we didn’t Listen
Video: “I am Only A Child” (6:40) - This is a speech that Severn Cullis-Suzuki gave in 1992 during the Earth Summit meeting in Rio. In this speech she pleaded for governments and corporations to stop polluting and help save the future of humanity. Unfortunately the establishment did not listen.
This is a must see video. It will plainly show you how urgent the situation has become regarding the health of the earth. The environmental catastrophe that we face right now is not a new phenomenon, and the battle to save our environment has been ragging for decades.
We must take action by removing those in power who refuse to implement the changes required to stop global warming and the pollution of the environment. If we are to save future generations from disease, poverty, and the anguish that will come with an environmental collapse, then we must hold those in power accountable.
In 1992 our leaders did not listen and we did nothing to demand change. In 2007, many of our leaders are still refusing to listen. The situation is much more grave now then it was 15 years ago, and it is time that we as a collective demanded that our leaders implement the changes required to save the environmental diversity of our Earth.
Further information on how to help to bring about change is available at Earth Focus and at Greenpeace International.
“buffalo ken”:
Are you suggesting that the G8 is a waste of time, or are you suggesting that it is a waste of time to get the United States to recognize any kind of international body on climate change mitigation? If you are suggesting the later, you may have a great point there. If you are suggesting the former, you are an example of typical American self-centered ignorance.
The primary reason that the climate is in the state of affairs it is, is because the United States has failed to do its jobs as the “world’s only superpower,” which is lead the world. We don’t lead the world, we utilize the world and then expect all other countries to do the work we are not interested in, primarily because it doesn’t turn an immediate profit. It’s the very same reason we don’t promote fair trade, as opposed to “free trade”, and why we don’t support paying our own citizens a livable wage.
We have simply been exporting our brand of Darwinist capitalism to the rest of the world for many decades. Alas, the environment, or Mother Earth, or whatever you want to call it, will not wait for us to make enough money before it decides to regulate its own temperature. The G-8 and the UN are great methods of re-establishing our international relevance, beyond war mongers.
leobixby: I think if you have read any of what I have posted at Common Dreams, you could probably answer your questions regarding any suggesting you think I am making.
At this moment, I am not trying to blame anyone because I think time is of the essence. I am trying to be a part of the many good solutions that I hope people can work together to find.
Peace,
buffalo_ken
here’s a way the U.S. could show leadership:
http://www.freepublictransit.org
the beginning of the end of autosprawl
bill May,
I support free public transportation. When it can be applied, this seems like a better idea than sharing “profits” associated with transportation, which is something I had discussed in other posts (or at least I tried to). I intend on studying the link you provided to learn more.
However, the question remains about other types of tranportation such as the transport of pollutants. How is the common interest served for this type of transport? Perhaps it might need to involve some kind of sharing of the risk and the reward associated with the transport.
IAH,
buffalo_ken
It’s good that the G8 is pushing for measures to protect the environment. But the G8 is not the United Nations, by any stretch of the imagination.
The G8 should be called the “Gang of Eight”, as it is composed of 8 world economic superpowers, and it essentially undermines the core purpose of the United Nations, which was set up to give smaller nations more control over international affairs.
The G8 is like a ‘Central Planning Committee’ for a new international corporate fascist world order.
Why should worldwide decisions be made by an elite group that excludes such large and substantial countries as India, China, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Nigeria, Congo/Zaire, or for that matter Any Country?
The G8 making international policy is like having elections and letting only rich people vote… or 8 bullies instead of just 1, or 8 feudal lords instead of 1 autocrat.
That’s not much progress, and a massive step backward from the United Nations.
As we praise the G8 efforts on environmentalism, let’s not let the Big Gang replace the far more democratic United Nations as the world’s main international decision-maker.
restore democracy, you nailed it.
RestoreDemocracy correctly characterizes G-8 as “The Gang of Eight”. They are indeed allied against the objectives of the UNITED Nations; along with USAID (United States Agency To Install Debt), IMF (International Monetary Fraud), and The World Bank (The “World’s”? Bank!? More like the Neo-Con Artists’ Bank). John Perkins’ book “Confessions of An Economic Hitman” shows how these US dominated agencies work to destabilize whole economies and industries around the world to permit US corporations to broaden their markets. The G-8 will never be part of a solution to any world problems. They create them and then sell expensive solutions to further impoverish the victimized nation. Stephanie Black makes the same indictment in DVD format in “Life And Debt” using Jamaica Kinkaid’s voice to describe the sacking of the Jamaican economy. The Gang of Eight will fight the people’s efforts to slow global heating all the way to the bank. Eventually the UN will leave NY and sanction what is left of the American Empire. This will take 10 to 20 years and millions more will have died by then. The World Can’t Wait for U.S. to Wake Up America. We need to Move-On because Democracy is Not a Spectator Sport!
“All that is necessary for the success of evil is for (persons) of goodwill to do nothing.” Edmund Burke