G-8 summit’s greenhouse decision ‘unsafe’

Environmentalists downplay a decision, made by the most powerful countries in the world, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050.

The summit, held in Japan, decided to set the goal as such so that it was compliant with “economic growth and energy security,” as said by leaders in a statement. The leaders also said in order for the goal to be reached they will need the help of all major economies, including India and China.

Critics argue 50 percent reduction in the given time frame isn’t enough. The year 2020 is highly recommended as a safe target for emissions to be cut in half.

Members of Oxfam International, a group that dedicates itself to fighting poverty and injustice, dressed as leading officials and held balloons representing carbon emissions in an act to demonstrate a more serious situation regarding greenhouse emissions. “At this rate, by 2050 the world will be cooked and the G-8 leaders will be long forgotten,” Anthony Hill, a spokesperson for Oxfam International, stated. “The G-8’s endorsement of a tepid 50 by 50 climate goal leaves us with a 50-50 chance of a climate meltdown. Rather than a breakthrough, the G-8’s announcement on 2050 is another stalling tactic.”

The European Union is more eager to reach a higher target. They would like to cut the emissions as they were in 1990 by 25 to 40 percent by 2020. Japan, the United States, and Canada are opposed to such a target.

Ben Wikler, a member of the environmental campaign AVAAZ, blames the governments’ childishness and lack of responsibility for the decision. “The failure to act on 2020 targets is a failure to take responsibility, and our members around the world feel that there is a childishness to not taking responsibility.”

The director of the WWF Global Climate Initiative, Kim Carstensen, agrees the decision was an unsafe one.  “So little progress after a whole year of minister meetings and negotiations is not only a wasted opportunity, it falls dangerously short of what is needed to protect people and nature from climate change.”

The United States was the only party among 175 to reject the Kyoto Protocol, a plan to limit atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, ten years ago. A reason given for the opposition was the protocol did not restrict emissions in India and China. Last year, at the Bali conference, the United States signed an agreement for negotiations involving a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. The White House claimed their effort alone is useless. “The negotiations must proceed on the view that the problem of climate change cannot be adequately addressed through commitments for emissions cuts by developed countries alone. Major developing economies must likewise act.”

In 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark, there will be another Bali pact. The event is designed to be a guide for more climate talks.