This year’s G8 Summit was being billed as the eco-summit by this year’s host country, Japan, both for eco-friendly measures adopted by Summit organizers and because concerted action on climate change was a key goal.
The Summit opens today, however, amidst all but faded hopes for stronger action on climate change. The European G8 members wanted to set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the medium term (2020), but Canada and the US insist that they do not want to adopt targets until developing countries such as India and China do. Although last year’s summit produced a vague agreement that there should be a long-term commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2050, this year there is risk of backsliding from even that weak target, the “at least” might be dropped. And since reductions of significantly more than 50% are needed, this would be a major setback. Also, Europe would like to see reductions measured against 1990 levels, while Canada wants to use 2006 levels – which would help to mask Canada’s sharply rising emissions. The US has shown little interest in any firm targets at all.
As many news stories have pointed out, the upcoming US election will bring a president more proactive on climate change into the White House (both McCain and Obama support firm caps on US emissions). Thus those countries interested in an ambitious agreement are merely waiting for the end of Bush’s term of office. But this will leave little time to negotiate a comprehensive agreement by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen. The failure of the G8 to advance this issue also raises serious questions about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the G8.
The Summit offers Canada and other leading developed nations - the world’s worst emitters of greenhouse gases - an opportunity to set out what they will commit to as part of the global effort to reduce emissions. Commitment to a strong 2050 goal and stringent midterm targets against 1990 levels by the G8 countries would not only bolster the global effort to fight climate change, it would show that the wealthiest nations and their elected leaders are still a positive force in the world.
| 
lora bruncke
After watching Darwin's Nightmare, thinking back to what followed Bob Geldof's Live 8 (not much), and Bali (stressful for Canadians) I am also starting to wonder about the G8.
Bush is stalling. He knows the economies of China and India are being driven by our consumerism. When I can buy a complicated cheap toy of plastic and metal, packaged in more plastic and cardboard, all the way for China for $2, it is obvious. Most of the goods in my house are from there.
I worry Bush and Harper are handcuffed by big bad business!
One nice perk, they get to travel to exotic places:
Scotland, Bali, Japan, and next year, La Madddalena, Italy, a small Sardinian Island!
Lucky leaders!
Donald McKinnon
It's quite disappointing. This represents very narrow and perverse interests but reflects shame on all Canadians and citizens of the other G8 countries. There is no clarity to their intent, except that it is clear it will not serve all equally.
Jacqulynn Mulyk
Harper wants to see tougher emission laws in India and China, yet he would never publicly support tougher laws against the companies who have opened for business in these countries.
I am talking about the International mega corporations selling us our goods, which we seem to require in record quantities every year. We make tougher laws here, they move to Mexico, India and China for production and we still get our stuff.
How do we get our cake and eat it too? We point the finger, that's how. "You guys are the polluters!" Meanwhile, give us our cheap electronics.
I am reminded of my mom's nags when we were kids and I ask Harper, "how he can stand up and point his finger without seeing the remaining three fingers pointing back at him?"