Next weekend the G8 will get together to talk shop. Environmental shop to be precise.
The 17-member body, which produces 80 percent of global emissions, will try and find common ground on the climate issue prior to Copenhagen (where a new UN climate agreement will be hashed out, in case you’re out of the loop).
They key point of contention: setting a base year for emissions. While the G8 has committed to a 50 percent emissions reduction by 2050, the 50 percent of what has yet to be determined. Many developing nations (most notably India) would like to see a base year of 1990 for the new climate agreement. This would require developed nations to make significant emissions reductions, leaving more space for countries like India to continue to expand their carbon emissions without exceeding the overall global reduction. (India has already stated unequivocally that it will not be party to the climate treaty.)
But Japan is having none of it, and is pushing for a more recent base year.
It’s an interesting debate to be sure. Certainly we’re all in agreement that carbon must be cut, but at what cost? As Dinesh Patnaik, a top Indian negotiator put it, “We are not keen on numbers like 50 percent reduction by 2050 by (rich) countries, which will freeze the existing imbalance in the distribution of the carbon space.”
Carbon space is what has allowed the west to prosper. Is it fair to punish developing nations, just as their economies are gearing up for action. Moreover, is a climate agreement that doesn’t involve India, which in 2007 was responsible for eight percent of global emissions (and growing) worth having at all?
