G8 Countries Decline to Seriously Limit Emissions

Why is it that once-hostile companies and conservation agencies can come together and agree on strict, numerical terms for reducing emissions but the G8 summit can only supply us with an agreement to “limit the rise in the Earth’s average temperatures”?  A great by-product of the Obama administration may be turning an eye towards our global warming crisis, as well as other green ventures, but only if other countries can agree to actual numerical targets.

“It is no small task for 17 leaders to bridge their differences on an issue like climate change,” President Obama said.  “We each have our national priorities and politics to contend with.”

“The Washington Post” reports: “The declaration by the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, a group of 17 countries that account for nearly four-fifths of the world’s greenhouse-gas production, reflects a tension between developed and developing countries that is hampering efforts to combat climate change, even as many scientists say the need to address it is becoming more urgent.”

While “national priorities and politics” may be in the forefront of these leaders’ agendas,  we all have a stake in this planet; it is our world.  Without it, what exactly are we going to do?  Politics and national priorities may not be such a hindrance once we’ve ruined the ozone.  Without a serious plan that specifically targets ways to reduce worldwide emissions, we could have quite a crisis on our hands.  The G8 almost seemed useless in this respect because the statement released implies that all of the leaders simply acknowledged that greenhouse gases and global warming is a bad thing.  However, it is more specific than that.  They did agree to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, but nothing more immediate.

Also, “The Washington Post” reports that “The countries promised to take verifiable steps to cut carbon emissions and cooperate on funding research to develop clean-energy technologies. They acknowledged a growing scientific consensus that average global temperatures should not rise more than 3.6 degrees above average levels of more than a century ago, before large-scale industrial pollution occurred. But they would not set long-term goals for reducing carbon emissions or timetables for making the changes necessary to keep temperatures in check.

The gulf between the two sides remains wide: Rich countries want poor countries to cut emissions. But poor countries want rich countries to go first, and to subsidize their conversion to fuels that emit little carbon.

China, India and other developing countries say that “if you’re not going to really help us, then we’re not going to put ourselves on the hook” by agreeing to make specific cuts in emissions, said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group. “They didn’t see us as being serious” about providing funding to ease the transition to a lower-emissions economy, he said.”

As long as this rift remains, with pricey fossil fuels and coal at its center concerning “rich” and “poor,” we will continue to argue.  And the longer we argue, the more damage we are doing to our planet.   Yet, there is an ever scarier prospect raised by some scientists when questioned about limiting emissions’ damage to the climate: it may already be too late.

Outraged, depressed or simply chill about the lack of action to curb our climate’s temperatures?  Yell about it today at SocialYell!

Ashley Strickland is a senior majoring in journalism at the University of Georgia.  She really hopes that the Mayan calendar is wrong and that the world does not come to an end on December 21, 2012.