|
July 10, 2008
The G8 doesn't do much in terms of governing the world economy does it? They just get together once in a while to have a bit of a chat and then issue vague comments on the issues they find most pressing.
Steve Bell
Sure, after years of US intransigence, President George Bush finally signed up to a G8 statement vowing to "consider and adopt" a target of at least a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. Such an agreement was described as "major progress". Major progress to 'consider and adopt'? Why the need for consider? Is this really a major step on from last year when the G8 agreed to "seriously consider" a goal of halving emissions by mid-century. I guess 'adopt' is the big new word that signifies a step forward.
It all sounds like an "elaborate smokescreen" to try to fool the world that the G8 are showing international leadership on global warming, doesn't it.The reality is that the global economy more or less governs itself, with the G8 only pretending they govern. They then use cigar smoke and champagne bubbles to disguise this pretense. The reality is the G8’s impotence to deal with energy, climate change and financial crisis.
As an editorial in the Financial Times acidly observes:
For proof that the G8 has outlived its usefulness, one need look no further than the inability of the world’s richest democracies to forge an agreed global strategy for tackling climate change. The refusal by China and India to endorse its proposed cuts in carbon dioxide emissions renders this week’s G8 summit in Japan pointless. Any notion a club of eight nations could run the world – never plausible – is now so discredited as to call into question the value of all its declarations... The G8’s problem is that it has become so divided and poorly led that its annual summits have deteriorated into little more than photo opportunities and exercises in drafting bland communiqués.
Surely it is time to bring in India and China? How can you discuss climate change without them? Rudd's contribution on this was that rich countries adopt binding targets to cut emissions. Poor countries accept something called "measurable and verifiable actions" to achieve the same result. What does "measurable and verifiable actions" actually mean for countries that reject targets, are caught up in an economic boom to get on with here, and are trying to lift a whole generation out of poverty.
|
And abit of a sumptuous meal