Weasel words and hot air

Posted by bex — 7 June 2007 at 5:24pm - Comments

Flooding is amongst the impacts of climate change

It was a bad day for the fight against climate change. The G8 has met and published their deal (pdf) and, despite the spin, it wasn't the deal the world needs.

This summit was all about trying to secure meaningful, binding emissions reductions targets – and especially the US's commitment to them. Did it succeed? Far from it. Instead, the deal is full of weasel words like "seriously consider". As our Executive Director John said in our press response, "that's like saying aid to Africa is a good thing then refusing to actually commit to donating a single dollar".

Here's how the deal lines up, when compared to our checklist (pdf) of a what a successful deal would have been:


1. Climate change must be kept as far below a two degree increase as possible, compared to pre-industrial levels.
Verdict? The G8 reached no agreement


2. Therefore, global emissions have to start falling within the next 10-15 years, and global emissions must be cut by 50 per cent by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels).
Verdict? No binding target was set


3. Industrialised countries must take the lead and commit to 30 per cent cuts by 2020, and 80-90 per cent cuts by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels).
Verdict? No target was set


4. The G8 must clearly agree that the next climate negotiations in December will agree a formal mandate and timetable to secure the next round of binding and radical emission cuts under the Kyoto Protocol, by 2009 at the latest.
Verdict? Yes, the G8 committed to serious negotiations in Bali in December (and, significantly, the US had to concede that the UN was the proper forum for this discussion. Their attempt to set up their own parrallel process was foiled). There is also now an end-date for the negotiations: 2009, which will provide extra drive to the negotiations over the next two years.


5. The G8 must recognise that protecting intact forests is crucial for preserving biodiversity and combating climate change. With up to 25 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions coming almost exclusively from tropical forest clearance, they must commit immediately to stop the loss and degradation of intact forests by 2010 and of all forests by 2020.
Verdict? No target was set


So, another year, another unforgivable delay - at a time when the world just can't wait.

Article tagged as: climate change, g8, george bush, rhetoric versus reality
Comments Commenting is now closed

Okay, before we descend into name-calling (or maybe it's too late for that - please remind yourselves of the house rules or there'll be slapped wrists all round), it's worth pointing out that it was the police who hit our inflatables (see this story for details).

Glad to hear you're on our side sheltie - the money-grabbing accusation did make me wonder. It's one that gets slung about quite frequently, but as we're a non-profit organisation it doesn't really hold water. If you mean we want to increase our income so we can be more effective, then guilty as charged but actions like the G8 boats aren't designed to tug at people's heart strings so they cough up cash.

Their aim is deliver campaign messages to those who need to hear them - in this case seven men and one woman shielded from public opinion within a strictly-enforced exclusion zone. The only reason it was so dramatic (or cheap, depending on your point of view) was because the security measures at these events are so draconian.

When governments think they need to be protected from their people, doesn't that suggest that something, somewhere is going horribly, horribly wrong?

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 12 June 2007 at 12:12pm

So Sheltie, Greenpeace activists in tiny inflatables, trying to break into the G8, police in big launches running small inflatables over threatening lives. and you're trying to suggest that Greenpeace aren't indicating when they're turning.

I watched the video and as a qualified boat driver IMO the Greenpeace inflatables haven't violated any particular collision regulations.

Which leads me to conclude that you a) don't know what you're talking about and b) you're a bit of a prat

By emptyhand - 9 June 2007 at 12:07am

Okay, before we descend into name-calling (or maybe it's too late for that - please remind yourselves of the house rules or there'll be slapped wrists all round), it's worth pointing out that it was the police who hit our inflatables (see this story for details). Glad to hear you're on our side sheltie - the money-grabbing accusation did make me wonder. It's one that gets slung about quite frequently, but as we're a non-profit organisation it doesn't really hold water. If you mean we want to increase our income so we can be more effective, then guilty as charged but actions like the G8 boats aren't designed to tug at people's heart strings so they cough up cash. Their aim is deliver campaign messages to those who need to hear them - in this case seven men and one woman shielded from public opinion within a strictly-enforced exclusion zone. The only reason it was so dramatic (or cheap, depending on your point of view) was because the security measures at these events are so draconian. When governments think they need to be protected from their people, doesn't that suggest that something, somewhere is going horribly, horribly wrong? web editor gpuk

By jamie - 12 June 2007 at 12:12pm

So Sheltie, Greenpeace activists in tiny inflatables, trying to break into the G8, police in big launches running small inflatables over threatening lives. and you're trying to suggest that Greenpeace aren't indicating when they're turning. I watched the video and as a qualified boat driver IMO the Greenpeace inflatables haven't violated any particular collision regulations. Which leads me to conclude that you a) don't know what you're talking about and b) you're a bit of a prat

By emptyhand - 9 June 2007 at 12:07am

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK