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

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!”

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.