The G8 have spoken: We seek to share with all Parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognizing that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
Nurture comment The statement, which seems purposefully vague, also fails to clarify which nations would have to make the deepest cuts in emissions to reach this global target of 50% and whether the target would be legally binding. Or, less politely, it is yet more pointless wurble.
This is sufficiently obvious that there is very little more to say. The Grauniad says it anyway. The true answer to "why have summits" is also provided by the Grauniad. But we knew that anyway.
- Log in to post comments
Ahhh..."Unseasonal fog and clouds" in Japan AND a UK summer that's turning out to be just as shite as last year's This can only mean one thingThe ice-sheet bet is clearly going to be a close run thing!
" ... the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, ... "
50% of when?
I've seen the reports all over the news, but I haven't seen the one in which the reference year is given. If it is 2008, and the previous numbers I've seen included like 80% based on 1990, the delta could be large.
Thanks
[I think that comes under the "deliberately vague bit". But since none of them have any intention of doing anything, unless it later happens to suit them, it doesn't matter much :-( -W]
You gonna update this with Bush's bon mot?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2277298/President-George-Bush…
50% by 2050...
That means that the next fifty years will, in a near-perfect situation, see, after a first bump (because emissions will not go down immediately), emissions (of which countries?) go down to the levels of the primitive carbon-deprived '60s, or something like that.
I guess it's better than nothing, if you want to do something about carbon emissions. But most of all it's just vague politics en politicians will be eager to use it. 50% reduction! Of course, they will not tell the public that still means athmospheric CO2-concentration is rising. Nor will they tell *how* exactly this is going to be achieved, nor will they tell which countires will participate, nor will they tell what penalties there are when targets aren't met.
I find it rather sad.