Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
G8, Poor Nations Seek Deal to Stem Biodiversity Loss
SYRACUSE, Italy - Environment ministers from major rich and developing nations put the final touches on Thursday to an agreement to slow the alarming rate of extinction of species around the world.
A coral reef in the depth of Ras Mohammed protection area near Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt, July 2005. The environment ministers of rich and emerging nations have sought new commitments to stopping the alarming loss of biodiversity on the second day of climate change talks in Italy. (AFP/File/Tarik Tinazay) Members of the Group of Eight (G8) industrial countries and major developing economies, meeting for a second day on the island of Sicily, discussed a "Syracuse Charter" aimed at extending a deal to slow biodiversity loss by 2010.
"Defending biodiversity can play a key role in the battle against climate change and the reduction of the gap between the world's North and South," said Italian Minister Stefania Prestigiacomo.
Almost every country in the world in 2002 agreed to a "significant reduction" in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. The European Union has set an even tougher goal, of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010, but scientists warn extinctions are gathering pace.
By some calculations, extinction rates are running at 1,000 times their natural pace due to man's influence: three species disappear every hour and between 18,000 and 55,000 species a year, according to U.N. figures.
"The effort made by the international community so far has not been enough, as the loss of biodiversity shows," said Maurizio Gubbiotti of Italian environmental NGO Legambiente. "We need precise, shared actions, concrete and measurable ones."
The Charter, under the slogan "Biodiversity is Business," aims to employ the environment as a tool for development.
CLIMATE TALKS BEGIN
Around 1,000 anti-globalization and environmental demonstrators marched in Syracuse on Thursday under the banner "No G8," but tight security meant they could not pass close to the castle where ministers were meeting. Delegates began closed-door talks on Thursday on climate change, with attention focused on the position of the new U.S. administration which has injected fresh momentum into U.N.-backed negotiations for a new global emissions pact.
U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, overturning his predecessor George W. Bush's refusal to take part in the previous Kyoto deal. But the U.N. official in charge of the Copenhagen talks said on Wednesday that more was needed.
Italy played down hopes of a breakthrough in Syracuse, saying there will be no joint statement on climate change.
"You have to see this as a process and this is one step in a long process," Denmark's Minister for Climate Change and Energy Connie Hedegaard said.
Scientists have said industrialized countries as a whole needed to reduce carbon emissions by between 24 and 40 percent from 1990 levels to avoid severe impact from climate change. The United Nations has set a goal of halving emissions by 2050, but has not set a base year for the comparison.
The G8 meeting grouped for the first time nine developing economies, including Brazil, India and China -- by some calculations the world's largest carbon producer -- in an effort to forge a worldwide consensus. Many delegates called for these economies to also make explicit commitments to cut emissions.
"Big, emerging economies which are growing rapidly and consuming energy, like China or India, must pay a certain share of the reduction in carbon dioxide. Without them the proposal to cut emissions by half by 2050 will be impossible," Nobuo Tanaka, head of the International Energy Agency, told Reuters.
"We need to act urgently, that is probably the most important message that these ministers will deliver to their heads of state," he said.
(Writing by Daniel Flynn; Editing by Michael Roddy)
- Posted in

5 Comments so far
Show AllProfitable development is causing the loss of biodiversity but industrialists are calling for more money (from profitable development) to protect biodiversity.
if i am dreaming, please wake me up...if i am awake, please knock me out...
Global Start Date: the Autumnal Equinox, Sept. 22, 2012...no more electricity, no more industry...the whole world switching to farming, hunting and gathering together...that gives us 2-3 years to rip up the pavement and plant this planet with all sorts of edibles and other vegetation again...
We simply cannot continue as we are, so change must come, and quickly...
"no more electricity, no more industry...the whole world switching to farming, hunting and gathering together.."
...and inter-tribal fighting. Or will we have learned to control our population humanely through birth control?
I realize my position is easily refuted, but I would say, simply: what we are doing will lead to certain doom, therefore, doing the opposite would seem a logical course of action, if one wishes to avoid doom...
Thanks to embedded forces of powerful control, I see no way forward without fighting, or without locally-grown food...the question begs: what is worth fighting for, if not the survival of the very, and only, world we inhabit? I would even venture to suggest that, if fighting were more common among the general populace, we would have much more physically-fit and capable citizens, and, probably, some fewer citizens, which would partially address your concern about population...sometimes, I think if we accepted a much more open sexual environment, we wouldn't have so many people getting fat, either, as they would always be considering the opportunity to seduce a new mate, so might maintain a look that would behoove...I would also hope we would control population via an increased appreciation for planetary capacity via ecological education...am I describing individual sacrifice in the name of greater good? why, yes...
Not to get too Dances With Wolves, but there are very real psychological differences between having your fighting done for you (or to you) by mercenaries or indentured prisoners, against an opponent you've no personal quarrel with, for some vague or misstated purpose, at the direction of punitive, authoritative leaders; and fighting for the personal rights and responsibilities inherent with living according to one's own beliefs and efforts...
You do bring up one of the valid concerns, though, which is the historical truth regarding technological advances and military conquest (raping, pillaging, murdering)...if a tribe of gardeners is invaded by a tribe of marauders, what's to be done? and who's to warn the gardening tribe in the next valley?
there was a guy who said, Love Thy Enemy, and Turn The Other Cheek...
while I hate the thought of compromise, there may be no way to get many on board without maintaining some small bastion of surveillance and weaponry, but, God, things get so messed up so quickly...
I'm wandering, now...take it easy, eze...
Excellent article! Agree that we cannot continue as we are and definitely change must come. But wait, I thought 'change' was already here and in the White House!
Anyway, let's now change gears to nice thoughts like Mother's Day...go to www.halegroves.com for fruit basket ideas.