Opinion Sur Joven

Not enough, ridiculous, a failure, pathetic, insufficient. Those were some of the adjectives the most important environmentalist organizations in the world used to describe the resolution to fight climate change the G8 agreed upon. The Group of Eight is a forum for the governments of the seven most industrialized countries in the world (USA, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Canada and Italy) and Russia.

On July 9 the countries agreed on the need to cut carbon emissions blamed for global warming by at least 50 percent by 2050. This agreement’s particular characteristics –and its impact on the media- has two causes: the fact that it’s a multilateral agreement, which was finally signed by the ever reluctant United States, and that the G5 also participated in it.

What’s the G5? It’s a group formed by the five most important emerging countries in the world: China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, where industry is constantly growing stronger.

According to the press, the G5 members requested shared responsibility, a politically correct way of asking the eight most powerful states in the world to be responsible for the damages each of them caused, and to set easier goals, such as reducing emissions 25% by year 2020 regarding their 1990 levels.

In the middle of the whole media coverage, the eight heads of delegations ended the summit, planted a couple trees, posed for a worldwide-popular photo and claimed to be satisfied with the great agreement they’d reached. But criticism didn’t take long to appear.

Far and away

The day after the end of the summit, WWF, a giant NGO with more than 5 million member all over the world and headquarters in more than 100 countries, said they find it “pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility” by having agreed on a non-binding target regarding gas emissions.

Oxfam International, a worldwide NGO confederation that aims at eliminating poverty and reaching fair trade, said that “at this rate, by 2050 the world will be cooked and the G8 leaders will be long forgotten".

Most criticism aims at the extremely long term the leaders proposed, when the current environmental situation requires faster solutions.

Opinión Sur Joven talked to Oxfam International and WWF representatives, who explained why they think the G8 agreement is a failure.

“Stretching up to 2050 gas emission reductions implies waiting too long; this process is starting to be more and more intense. It’s a worrying scenario”, says Juan Casavelos, coordinator of the Climate Change in Antarctica Project at the Argentine WWF headquarters. “By 2030 we could get to reduce gas emissions up to 80%. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change researchers, it’s possible”, he adds.

NGOs are asking for global temperature not to exceed the preindustrial levels by more than 35.6 degrees Fahrenheit. “We’ve already had an average 33.4 increase, and look how ugly things are getting", says Casavelos, and he explains the average increase doesn’t imply that in other places on the earth temperature isn’t even higher. In Antarctica, for instance, temperature has increased almost 43 degrees over the last 50 years. (See an Opinión Sur Joven article on this issue

Louis Belanger, Oxfam spokesperson in Washington, says: “The G8 should have taken immediate steps to cut carbon emissions year on year by 2015 at the latest. People should have in mind that the impact of carbon emissions will last for decades, and the poorest populations in the world will be the most affected ones; only if we act now will the consequences be reduced”, he warns.

On the other hand, from his point of view, the richest countries in the world –the members of the G8- should have committed to allocate funds for poor nations to finance better ways of dealing with and adapting to the impacts of global warming.

Belinger said Oxfam estimates 50 billion dollars a year are necessary for that, and he insists on the fact that it should be financed by developed countries.

Open primaries

The divisions at the very core of the G8 are the reason for the complete failure to save the planet in the short term from the bonfire that’s melting our poles and blasting it with hurricanes. Both Belinger and Casavelos believe there are two sides. One is the European side, led by Germany and the UK, and the other side is formed by the US, Japan and Canada, with more conservative governments.

But there’s a heterogeneous map at the core of each “side” as well. “In the European Union there are countries with very active policies and high reduction levels such as Germany or the Scandinavian ones, whereas others are rather indifferent. On the other hand, the US federal government doesn’t make any commitments regarding this issue, but the governments of some of its states do", says Casavelos. A recent OSJ issue described the Colorado case.

The developing world isn’t a homogeneous paradise either: the emphasis made by Brazil regarding biofuels and the importance it gives to climate change (also reflected in its Congress, where the majority belongs to the environmentalist party) clashes against the low profile of China, the second largest CO2 emitter in the world.

But, if the leading countries had the necessary political willingness, what would the most appropriate global initiatives be?

Casavelos thinks "a shock of measures" is needed: “On the one hand, they should encourage energy efficiency, and on the other, they should promote renewable energy sources such as wind power and solar energy, as well as second generation biofuels Besides, they should generate policies to improve transport systems and agriculture methods to stop losing forests, and start using farming techniques that release less gas and avoid desertification", he explains. [1]

According to the representative of the Argentine WWF headquarters, “the period of time available to take action is extremely short, no longer than 10 years”, and he remembered the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, elaborated and published in 2006 for the British government. The review says: “if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year".

“That’s why in no way can we wait until 2050. Every year isn’t just a calendar year, but a lot more; the period of time is getting shorter. Every day counts for this matter”, Casavelos concludes. In the meantime, the small trees planted by the leaders of the world in Toyako, Japan, will always feel kind of deceived and confused by what the people who planted them say and do.