Morts Musings

So, after much build up, and anticipation, the G8 have had their climate change meeting in L’Aquila, but what did it achieve?
On the positive side, there was a general agreement that we should try to prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees celsius above their 1900 levels, a level beyond which the Earth’s climate system might be become dangerously unstable, according to the UN.
While I think this recognition of the need for action is certainly a good thing, you’ll have to excuse me if I’m not terribly impressed. Afterall, if this 2 degree rise really would spell disaster for human society, and the planet’s life as a whole, it’s hardly a great step forward to acknowledge that we should try to prevent it. To me it’s more akin to saying that one should try to avoid putting one’s head in a hungry lion’s mouth, or placing sensitive body parts in an operational food blender, i.e. it’s common bloody sense!
So, while I find the statement, a little comforting; at least the gravity of the threat that climate change poses is now being publically acknowledged by the international group who has the most chance of actually doing something about it. I’m still not sure that very much substantive has really been achieved this week!
Afterall, if the best statement they can come up with is that we shouldn’t completely bugger up the world’s climate, then my cynical mind has to think it’s likely because that’s the most positive thing the assembled world leaders managed to agree on, and, if that’s the case, it infers that there’s an awful lot they didn’t manage to come to any sensible agreements on.

Ok, ok, maybe I’m being unfair, the G8 did undertake to reduce their emissions by 80% by 2050, a noble goal indeed, but also a pretty hollow one when no interim targets were set to act as markers on the path to this realising this dramatic cut. I mean, really, it’s the easiest thing in the world for leaders to commit their countries to targets whose deadlines lie far beyond their own term of office; it’s just gloss, PR, something positive to crow about which will require no effort on their part what so ever! It would appear that I’m not alone in thinking this either, Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General, has publicly criticised the G8 for their failure to set any interim targets for reduction in emissions too. He has stated that big cuts are needed in the near future, and that a 2020 target for reduction in emissions should also be set. I have to say I agree. If it’s important to make these levels of cuts by 2050, then, surely, the earlier we start the more chance we have of meeting the target? if we end up making great progress in the next decade or so then it takes some pressure off towards the end of 2050 deadline, whereas, if we leave it ’til the last minute, as seems likely from current signs, we might find that we’re not able to do enough fast enough, even with the best will in the world!

Ban, and I aren’t the only people who sceptical about the G8’s commitments, the, so called, G5, developing nations, weren’t too impressed by the 2050 pledge either, if their response is anything to go by. They’ve refused to sign up to a global target for a 50% reduction in CO2 emission by 2050, apparently wanting to see more action, and assistance, from the developed world before they’re willing to commit to such targets. On one hand I can see their point entirely, they shouldn’t have to forego the benefits that becoming a developed economy generally offers, just because they started this development later than America & the European nations, but I also have reservations. Currently a great deal of the West’s manufacturing is farmed out to these developing nations, because production is generally both cheaper, and less regulated, than it is in developed nations; for big business, with an eye only for the bottom line, it’s a no-brainer!

My concern is that this arrangement effectively gives everyone license to do very little about climate change now, while we still, maybe, have a chance of making a difference.

The West still gets to farm out a load of it’s manufacturing to third world countries, who refuse to take action on climate change, because the West isn’t doing more itself. So, we still get our cheap socks, and other little bits & pieces which keep us in the lifestyle we’ve all become accustomed to, while being able to feel that the developing world is still the problem, that they’re the ones who aren’t doing enough. When, in reality, a large part of their manufacturing is aimed at our consumers, & wouldn’t be happening but for the western demand for cheap goods.
I’m not sure there is an easy answer, but ultimately I think I large part of starting the ball rolling has to happen here in the West; We need to accept that cheap consumer goods come at a greater overall price, a toll that’s being stored up for our old age, and for our children. We need to be willing to pay a decent price for goods, so that wherever they’re produced it’s done with an eye to environmental costs, as well as mere unit cost and profit margin. Whether that means producing our goods here in the West, where environmental considerations are, to an extent, legislated for, or paying more to the developing world to have them produce our consumer toys in a more environmentally friendly manner.

Overall, although this week’s meeting has undoubtedly a positive step forward, in the sense that it has further raised awareness of the climate change, and acceptance that it is an important issue which will effect us all, I’m not sure that it’s actually managed to achieve very much of any susbstance. Lets hope the politicians show a little more willingness to commit to meaningful short term action when the UN meets in Copenhagen, in December, to discuss a strategy for reducing carbon emissions between 2012 and 2050.
I won’t be holding my breath, but here’s hoping!