What do you make of the G-8 agreement to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050?

Question

"World leaders on Tuesday endorsed halving world emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, edging forward in the battle against global warming but stopping short of tough, nearer-term targets."

So there's no short-term targets, and additionally, a 50% decrease falls short of the 80% decrease in worldwide greenhouse gas emissions generally recommended by scientists.

"It falls dangerously short of what is needed to protect people and nature from climate change," said Kim Carstensen, director of the World Wildlife Fund's Global Climate Initiative.

Additionally, the goal does not set a base year (is it 50% below 1990 levels? 2000? 2008?).

"To be meaningful and credible, a long term goal must have a base year, it must be underpinned by ambitious midterm targets and actions," said Marthinus van Schalkwyk, South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_as/g8_climate_change

What do you think of the agreement?

Answer 1

Codswallop. That's not going to happen because I doubt that, as of yet, the politicians are insane enough to cause the collapse of their countries' economies. It seems like another one of those fuzzy agreements that politicians take to feel good and appease the environmentalists (and get re-elected).

Answer 2

If it cost me money, even one dime, I will fight back, tooth and nail.  how?  you ever seen a pile of tires burn?  or what a quart of motor oil can do?

Increase my cost of living and you will.

Answer 3

Personally, I don't think it will affect GW. As far as the global levels of greenhouse gas emissions go, the G8 only effects Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. By 2050, China and India will likely dwarf all G8 emissions combined.

Answer 4

I think any reductions are a start, but I agree it falls short.  Still, it is better than nothing.  I hope once we get new leadership in the US, we can plug some of the holes  (short-term goals for example), bring in some of the developing nations, and encourage the developed nations to make deeper cuts.

Answer 5

CO2 emission growth since Kyoto was signed has been lower in the US than it has in the countries that signed Kyoto.

Agreements mean nothing.

Answer 6

Its a start, but given that sort of time scale the auto industry will probably have switched to electric or hydrogen by then even without emissions controls. Since Toyota released the prius they haven't been able to keep up with demand and that was before fuel went up to the current levels.

Answer 7

The agreement should go further, at least in principle. but the G8 and everyone else is having to fight an uphill battle against political puppets like Bush and the fossil fuel industry he represents.  They're making progress.

Personally, I doubt the G8 decision makes much difference one way or the other.  I

First. f we can get the oil interests and coal lobby out of the way, the technology is there for a free market to solve the problem by replacing this 19th century fossil fuel industry with 21st century technology.

Second--and this is JUST a hunch on my part, and could be wrong (though I don't think so) we don't have until 2050. My guess--in 5-7 years the effects of global warming and climate change are going to be drastic enough to make it clear that this is a matter of simple survival--not a political football.

Answer 8

Well, talk is cheap. This statement is a joke.

How many of them will actually be alive by then?

Answer 9

Politics, especially international politics, is really not my thing, but here's what I think:

The agreement alone is nothing, merely symbolic.  Not only is the goal vague and long-term, it probably wouldn't be enforced.  I just hope by bringing more attention to the issue, it will mean the next leaders of the respective countries will feel compelled to implement real measures to reduce CO2 emissions.

Answer 10

"So there's no short-term targets, and additionally, a 50% decrease falls short of the 80% decrease in worldwide greenhouse gas emissions generally recommended by scientists."

I think you meant to say it is generally recommended by socialist, not scientists.  That is in the realm of politics not science.  Pretending you know more than you do is a political tactic, not science.

Answer 11

Who cares? Climate change is a scam dedicated to filling the pockets of the faithful.

Answer 12

Lip service.

Answer 13

I think you may be overstating the current level of "agreement" that the G8 has reached.

"The negotiations have stalled because of disagreements over what targets to set for greenhouse gas reductions, and how much developing countries such as China and India should be required to participate.

It was unclear whether nations would be able to agree to a goal of cutting their emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. A more ambitious goal of setting nearer-term targets for 2020 was considered well beyond reach."

At this stage they've not commited to any action or timetable.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/stor...

Answer 14

Decent, not great.  It could hardly be otherwise, most of the leaders are in severe political disfavor at home, they're not in a position to make a bold move.

The latest info is that the base is 2008, which fits with the above.

Note also that it's a "goal" not a "target".

All in all decent, but there'll be pressure next year (especially with new US leadership) for targets, maybe enforceable targets, and definitely shorter term targets.

x.It's.Me.x - check your question.

Answer 15

it sounds about right...its appeasement for the 21st century.  it sounds as if even the leaders of the G8 nations are starting to see the whole Climate Change thing as the farce that it is. They throw out a bogus number, some 40+ years from now, so they can look like they are doing something impactful.  meanwhile, they'll all be gone by the time this thing comes into effect, and people will have long forgotten about the great "AGW" scare...i love it. :)

Answer 16

It just proves that "global warming" is a political event, not a scientific adventure.

Why 2050?  Was it because that was a nice round number?

Answer 17

It is garbage . Do U think U could cut your energy needs by 50% I dont think so.....

Answer 18

Its not going to happen.  Dr. Jello, I was thinking the same thing about 2050 being a nice round number, as well as a 50% decrease being a nice round number.  This is an agreement among politicans and nothing more.  A decision by the G-8 regarding global emissions is meaningless anyway - what about the other 184 countries?  Particularly BRIC.  Good luck getting them on board.

Answer 19

I know you just going to report this answer also. But have you ever just reflected on reality? Bringing world economic powers to a standstill can't be done solely with a calculator and a pie chart. Nor climate...

Answer 20

Most countries have not met their Kyoto targets.  Why do you think they will meet these one?

Answer 21

Just a lot of political posturing...... nothing has changed....nor should it!

I continue to be amazed that these activists are clamoring to bring the world's standard of living down to the gutter for the sake of something that is absolutely unproven.

The power of Marketing on the naive..... what a shame!

Please..... don't fall for it!