Global Warming Will Heat Up G-8 Summit
Negotiations leading up to the Group of Eight (G-8) summit that begins in Heiligendamm, Germany on Wednesday stalled when the U.S. bluntly objected to the host country’s global warming declaration.
Germany’s proposal calls for limiting the global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) and cutting global warming emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. But Bush administration officials rejected those mandatory emissions targets, as well as calls to raise energy efficiencies 20 percent by 2020. They also opposed a statement that reads, “We acknowledge that the U.N. climate process is an appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change."
So late last week, President Bush went on the offensive and proposed his own climate change goal. He urged 15 major nations – including China and India – to agree by the end of next year on a global target for reducing greenhouse gases. Rather than a specific goal like Germany’s 3.6 degrees reduction, Bush called for nations to hold a series of meetings, beginning this fall, to set a global goal and then each nation then would decide how to reach that goal. At the same time, the White House specifically registered its opposition to a global cap-and-trade program.
Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed Bush’s “new determination” to fight climate change, any goal must absolutely be part of a U.N. framework. Furthermore, she said in an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel that her proposals for a 3.6 degrees cut in emissions “are non-negotiable as far as I am concerned.”
The talks promise to heat up even more during the summit, given the U.S.’s hard line and Merkel’s apparent refusal to compromise the central tenant of her plan. According to Der Spiegel, which obtained minutes of a secret meeting to plan Germany’s climate change strategy at the summit:
“Merkel refuses to allow her image as a vocal advocate of climate protection to be diminished, not even by George W. Bush. According to the minutes, Merkel insisted that her government take a tough stance and not budge a millimeter at preparatory meetings at the expert level.
…There is a lot at stake for the chancellor: her reputation as G-8 chair as well as Germany's image in the world, but also Merkel's image as a politician who gets things done.
…Publicly, the looming conflict with the Americans is in no way to be ratcheted up — softening is the order the day. ‘The federal chancellor asks that over the next few weeks, expectations regarding the subject of climate protection and energy efficiency be played down in public,’ reads one sentence in the minutes of Merkel's pre-summit meeting.”
But Merkel seems as determined to get a concrete compromise as much as Bush is determined to soften it. The Chancellor has a lot riding on this summit, both for her own image and the health of the planet. Her advisors have told her that “reaching a concrete CO2 reduction goal is the decisive yardstick” in measuring the success of the summit. Furthermore, the German public expects a success regarding climate protection at the summit…which made me wonder how much different U.S. policies would be if we were all just as loud in our demands for success.


June 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Bush will get his way and will allow Merkel to save face. That’s just the way he works.
Having the only real national greenhouse gas reduction in his back pocket when he arrives won’t hurt his negotiating position either.
Subjugating the US to a UN arbitrated Cap and Trade is a non-starter for us though. It has all the problems of Kyoto without any of the potential benefits.
June 5th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
It is amazing how folks just keep talking about a false premise/issue of CO2 causing climate change. They are both poorly educated and misled by a party line or economic criminals.
Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud.
When you base anything on a false premise everything else that follows is false. CO2 causing climate change IS a false premise.
Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class.
Additional information http://www.InteliOrg.com/co2_climate_change.html
Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest.
Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I agree with you about CO2 Dr Coles and most who are informed will agree that CO2 is the poster child.
Why did they pick CO2 rather than other more potent GHGs? I don’t know. I have a political suspicion that it’s because CO2 is the one GHG that it is almost impossible to do anything about without radically altering toward a conservation economy… others will counter that it’s just too complicated for the average person to understand. Who knows if that’s the real motivation…
I think it’s objectively getting warmer. I think Particulate Reduction plays into it with the ironic twist that our successes in fighting pollution are contributing to warming.
Again… who knows?
What we should focus on are win/win opportunities where we can cut pollution and it helps the economy and our geo-political situation. More efficient cars, homes, etc… will continue to contribute to the cause.
I also wouldn’t mind an oil tax to help pay for alternative fuel research and to also directly pay the tab on our military actions in the middle east. To me that’s logical.
I don’t think UN arbitrated Cap and Trade of the ‘poster child’ CO2 is in anyone’s best interest unless those interests are to simply harm the USofA.