Straits Times 3 Aug 09;
THE Group of Eight climate action agenda calling for an 80 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 has been rightly criticised as mere hot air. Without any specific short-term targets or a roadmap, lofty declarations like the one made in L'Aquila could end up as ineffective as the Kyoto Protocol. The only concrete 'achievement' of the G-8 was its commitment to keep mean temperature under 2 deg C over pre-industrial levels - essential to prevent irreversible disruption of the global climate system.
While G-8 officials were congratulating themselves for reaching an agreement on emission cuts by 2050, scientists were looking at alarming satellite images showing that Arctic ice has shrunk considerably over the past four years. Nasa scientists have said that a recovery in the thickness of perennial Arctic ice was unlikely.
The other G-8 'achievement' - in setting a 2-degree warming target - would still spell disaster for developing nations dependent on rain-fed agriculture. Governments have been coy about spelling out what such a rise in temperature might mean for countries' food supplies.
Columnist Gwynne Dyer, quoting an unpublished study by an Indian think-tank done on behalf of the World Bank, concluded that a 2 deg C increase would result in India's agricultural production falling by a whopping 25 per cent. If this estimate is even half accurate, it underscores the urgency of adopting mitigating policies. However morally justified, the refusal of developing countries to join in a global effort to counter global warming amounts to shirking their responsibility as co-managers of the planet.
Developing countries bear the heavy responsibility of lifting their millions out of poverty - and right now, that can be accomplished only by burning the fossil fuels that cause global warming. The responsibility for finding a way out of this conundrum lies mostly with developed nations, but developing countries cannot hide behind the argument that the West bears sole historical responsibility for the problem.
At a recent Tallberg Forum in Sweden, interestingly titled How On Earth Can We Live Together?, former Costa Rican president Jose-Maria Figueres summed up the response needed to face the multifarious challenges posed by global warming as 'three decouplings'.
First, decouple growth from carbon emissions: Contrary to the common belief that reducing carbon emissions is a costly undertaking, significant gains can be made through the efficient use of energy. The development of renewable energy and associated technologies also opens up good business opportunities while mitigating the effects of climate change.
Second, 'we have to decouple our personal satisfaction from over-consumption', he said, pointing to the carbon cost of excessive consumption in the developed world. 'In our world today, one billion people over-consume and are wasteful, and six billion people do not have enough.'
The third challenge is to 'decouple our political and democratic participation from the context of the nation state'. This, of course, is the toughest challenge. Voters elect their leaders to deliver welfare exclusively to them, not to other regions. Yet, given the close integration and interdependence of the world, Mr Figueres says: 'We need to understand that the governments that we elect at local, regional and national levels are ever more members of a global community of governments that need to coordinate actions among themselves so that we all can live better lives.'
However logical, Mr Figueres' call for the election of partners in a global government will inevitably be met with yawns. The timidity of the G-8 leaders in refusing to provide a medium-term target is evidence of their focus on electoral support back home. Vague promises to cut emissions in the future satisfy their global posturing without incurring any political cost.
Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to rise and the glaciers continue to shrink. Mother Nature was quite clearly not a signatory at the summit at L'Aquila.
The writer is editor of YaleGlobal Online
