Freedom New Mexico
The G-8 summit of industrialized nations agreed last week to try to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius over the next four decades by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent.
That nonbinding agreement is likely to carry less weight than the resistance of developing countries like China and India to making much less drastic cutbacks.
The agreement among G-8 nations — the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, Japan and Canada — to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050 will be meaningless, even if they succeed, unless developing nations agree to reductions of at least 50 percent.
But China and India show no willingness to curtail their economic development by curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, they want nations like the U.S. to make the cutbacks, and pay them to make reductions as well, as much as 1 percent of developed nations’ gross domestic product.
The upshot is that all of the sound and fury emitting from the L’Aquila, Italy, summit amounts to platitudes, and probably signifies little. “Analysts say there is no indication of how the targets, or costs, will be met,” the BBC reported.
Effectively, the G-8 nations’ self-congratulatory event merely kicks the can down the road to December’s global warming summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, sponsored by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There a new plan is to be adopted committing nations worldwide to greenhouse gas reductions, picking up in 2012 where the 1997 Kyoto Protocol agreement leaves off.
Irrespective of last week’s agreement, world energy consumption is projected to grow 44 percent in the next 20 years alone. Two-thirds of that growth will come from developing nations, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Between now and 2030, global carbon-dioxide emissions are expected to increase 39 percent, largely because of developing nations’ reliance on cheap, coal-based energy, which has been described as “the fuel that powers Asia.”
Despite recent headlines, the G-8 conference couldn’t even reach consensus on when to start measuring the agreed-upon 80 percent emission reductions, saying it should be “compared to 1990 or more recent years,” which the Reuters news agency took to mean “the target was open to interpretation.”
Meanwhile, press agency AFP reported the agreement “began unraveling … shortly after leaders signed on to the deal as Russia rejected a key plank as ‘unacceptable.’”
These hoped-for greenhouse gas reductions are chess pieces moved to establish global manipulation of energy use and economic development by governmental agencies, such as proposed in the cap-and-trade legislation before Congress.
Considering that global temperatures haven’t increased for more than a decade despite dramatic increases in greenhouse gases, it’s clear carbon dioxide has more to do with control and profiteering than temperature. We’re happy to follow the advice of the Wall Street Journal Europe edition, which advised on the eve of the G-8 meeting to “take any pronouncements about greenhouse-gas emissions targets with a grain of salt.”