Yesterday’s announcement by the G8 that the world will reduce its emissions 50% by 2050 is yet another example of the folly of long-term emissions targets and timetables. For years, climate activists around the world have believed that one of the highest priorities of the climate movement should be to pressure political leaders to adopt large emissions reduction targets. “80% by 2050″ became the mantra of the movement. In the run-up to the current G8 meeting, the EU piled political pressure on Japan and the US to adopt a 2050 target, and after yesterday’s announcement the EU President Jose Manuel Barroso called it “a strong signal to citizens around the world.”
But the focus on long-term targets has had the opposite of its intended impact. It has allowed politicians to commit to distant goals that are effectively meaningless, and yesterday’s G8 announcement is case in point. The G8 adopted a big goal — 50% reductions by 2050 — and trumpeted it victoriously from Hokkaido. The target, however, is fraudulent, and it should serve as a warning to anyone concerned with the climate.
First, the agreement is extremely vague, failing to even specify whether the 50% reduction target is below the levels of 1990, 2000, or today. Second, it makes no commitments to mid-term or immediate action. And third, it was rejected by developing countries. South Africa’s environment minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, went to the extent of suggesting the agreement may be a step backward, saying that “While the statement may appear as a movement forward, we are concerned that it may, in effect, be a regression from what is required to make a meaningful contribution to meeting the challenges of climate change … the long term goal is an empty slogan without substance.” And as the NYT’s reports:
The five main developing nations — China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, who together represent 42 percent of the world’s population — issued a statement explaining their split with the G-8 over its emissions-reduction goals. They said they rejected the notion that all should share in the 50-percent target, since it is wealthier countries that have created most of the environmental damage up to now…
Chinese President Hu Jintao went a step further in separate remarks. While acknowledging that developing nations must act, he said ”developed countries should make explicit commitments to continue to take the lead in emissions reduction.”
“China’s central task now is to develop the economy and make life better for the people,” he said. ”… China’s per capita emission is relatively low.”
Fortunately, the focus on targets and caps may be shifting. Several environmental groups criticized the G8 announcement, although much of the heat simply criticized 50% by 2050 as being too small a target, instead of highlighting the larger problems with targets and caps. James Hansen attacked the use of targets at a recent presentation to UN University. And Peter Orszag wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post today accepting the limits of caps and embracing the inevitability of cost-containment. This shift, however, has not yet embraced the role of government investments in clean energy technology.
But beyond the issue with targets, the G8 also missed a critical shift in the global climate debate: the center of political gravity for acting on climate is in the Pacific, not the Atlantic, and any workable strategy has to include China and India. As Gwyn Prins recently wrote:
At the Bali climate conference in 2007, the geopolitical centre of gravity for climate policy shifted decisively away from the Kyoto enthusiasts, such as Al Gore and the EU, to the Pacific…
The shape of the future agenda may reside with Japan. Supported by other Pacific powers, it is leading a profound shift to an approach emphasising radical improvements in energy intensity. This concentrates initially on the most energy-intensive sectors, with ambitious plans for both technology research and development and technology transfer to help China and India reduce the impact of their programmes of coal burning, which are an inescapable feature of the next 30 years.
Japan may be leading the way in a new approach with its Cool Earth Partnership, an innovative plan that has the potential to achieve real reductions in the developing world, where the majority of emissions growth is taking place. Will the G8 get it right? Stay tuned.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I’ve always been interested in the national vs. international targets question and I think there has been a lot of confusion over it. To the best of my knowledge, 80% by 2050 was only scientifically promoted as a national target (for the U.S.) and 50% by 2050 was the global target. This follows the idea that the U.S. (and other developed countries) should do more.
The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to use ppm of CO2e in the atmosphere as a target as opposed to a the percentage of reduction. I have to give 350.org credit for using this concept as an organizing model. Hopefully we can start to reframe the whole targets debate into something that isn’t dependent on baselines and varying national targets.
Though you bring up another good question Teryn - are targets even the right thing to be talking about? The science may change, thus changing the necessary target - whereas promoting investments in solutions and a moratorium on coal will have value regardless of where the science is at regarding targets.
I generally agree with Teryn here, but I do think there is a crucial scientific educational value of talking about targets and ppm - one of the primary problems we are facing is a scientifically illiterate public who doesn’t get how deep the changes that are needed are. We have to both educate the public about how serious the crisis is while avoiding the political pitfalls of focusing on long term goals.
All this being said, it’s worth noting that many groups (Sierra club being one example if I’m not mistaken) say “2% a year” - not 80% by 2050. While the MSM might not (ever?) get the important difference, it’s not like people haven’t been thinking about the problematic messaging issues around 80 by 2050 already.
Of course the broader points Teryn raises about targets being problematic still hold whether it’s 2% / year or 80% (or even 100%) by 2050.
I personally think our best message is simply saying “fossil fuel (and nuclear!) free NOW!”: While it’s of course an oversimplification, the media and most of the public understands that that we don’t think we can turn off the coal / oil / n.g. tommorrow and that the point is really “as close to NOW as humanely possible”.
It’s time to get over our fear of more urgent messaging: Social movements having been demanding justice NOW for ages: “out of iraq NOW!”, “Amnesty for illegals NOW!”, “Gender/racial/sexual equality NOW!”. It has always stricken me how most of the environmental movement (perhaps b/c of it’s geekynesss) seems to fear the “NOW!” type messaging. (you don’t hear “80% out of Iraq by 2010″!)
lastly, another good slogan is simply “Rapid, just transition to a post-fossil fuel (and nuclear!) society - NOW!”
Brian sums up my feelings well.
Teryn is right, the statement coming out of the G8 is a meaningless soundbite. And due to the fact that greehouse gasses accumlate in our atmosphere -simply having a 2050 benchmark without addressing immediate and near-term benchmarks makes it scientifically pointless.
I think a KEY problem of any sort of “xxx by 2050″ messaging is that 2050 is long ways off. And no politican, CEO, executive, or appointee will be in power come 2050. Having such distant targets allows decision-makers to stall, and not act at all - passing the buck to future leaders. And those future leaders can pass the buck right back when targets and goals are not met - under the rhetoric of “we are doing all we can, but my predecessor did not act in time”.
Kyoto is a great example of this - most countries have been failing to meet their agreed-upon emissions modest reduction targets, even with a MUCH shorter time frame than 2050.
Many of the structures setup within Kyoto (such as Clean Development Mechanism) and even the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme have done nothing to reduce emissions, but have created vast amounts of wealth and power for the same actors (Northern nations, multinationals, and energy/utility companies) that have created this mess. Often, Kyoto has hampered other efforts to reduce emissions and truly address climate justice concerns.
I agree with Brian - that we need urgent messaging. And not just messaging - but we need to create demands and targets that are urgent and immediate. We don’t have the luxury of time to think markets will adjust, transition will slowly happen, distant targets will be somehow met, or industry will slowly shift - the reality is that we need big, bold, visionary, and IMMEDIATE policies and programs. Our messaging as a movement must be focused on this - especially when factoring in the inherent political compromises that come from the US government that will result in back-pedaling.
-Matt