The Group of Eight (G8) summit brought the planet’s most powerful economies together last week to discuss issues like foreign policy, trade, and climate change. Buzz and speculation abounded before the meeting even began when the Bush Administration came out against host country Germany’s proposal to limit global temperature rise this century to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) and to cut emissions to 50 percent below 1990 levels. Instead, President Bush proposed his own plan for a series of meetings from which nations would agree on an emissions goal and then figure out how to achieve that goal on their own. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel was quoted as saying that her proposal was “non-negotiable as far as I am concerned.”

Well, turns out her proposal was quite negotiable. Rather than agreeing on concrete cuts, the G8 agreed to “seriously consider” cutting emissions 50 percent by 2050. They plan to develop a global framework on emissions by the end of 2008, and they affirmed the importance of developing nations to limit emissions.

What happened? Where’s the hard talk, the aggressive goals, the accountability? They’re just going to “seriously consider” it?

It seems that most world leaders were so happy that the United States was even in on the talks that the rest was second fiddle. British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the agreement "a major, major step forward." Yvo de Boer, head of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat said it was "a very positive outcome." The Financial Times editorialized that "the G8 summit marks a turning point on tackling climate change." Even Chancellor Merkel said she was "very satisfied" with the meetings.

Others were less satisfied. Daniel Mittler, climate policy advisor of Greenpeace International said of the meetings, “The U.S. isolation in refusing to accept binding emission cuts has become blindingly obvious…” Likewise, Philip Clapp of the U.S. National Environmental Trust said that although Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Blair were portraying the agreement positively, "President Bush didn't give them an inch. The best they could get from him was a statement that their 50 percent-by-2050 emissions reduction proposal would be `seriously considered.` That's a pretty tiny landmark."

Did the G8 leaders fall to the lowest common denominator? Would it not have been better for them to move forward without the United States and commit to Merkel’s targets?

Financial Times
G-8 Summit 2007
Guardian
Taipei Times

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.

CNN
Der Spiegel
Washington Post