Dr. Jonathan Pershing is director of the Climate, Energy and Pollution Program at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C. Rob Bradley is a senior associate in the program.
An unfortunate mark of U.S. involvement with climate change is that any statement made in association with the Bush administration is greeted with groans. So it is no surprise that most of those concerned with combating climate change are dismayed at the weakness of the statement issued at the conclusion of the G8 summit.
Unfortunately, they do have some justification: The final text sets out only limited new commitments to action—and even its affirmation of the science is much less forceful than that called for by the overwhelming scientific consensus. Drawing on this, conservative pundits have even characterized the statement as a shift by Europe toward the Bush administration's position.
However, both the meeting itself and the language in the communiqué prove this claim false. Tony Blair placed climate change on the agenda of the meeting of the world’s most powerful nations because he knows it is one of the most important challenges facing the international community.
Even another horrific terrorist attack did not keep the leaders of the world’s biggest economies from responding to the issue at hand. “We will act with resolve and urgency now to meet our shared and multiple objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving the global environment, enhancing energy security and cutting air pollution in conjunction with our vigorous efforts to reduce poverty.” While surrounded by the verbiage that marks all such texts, this is the statement that the G8 countries—including the United States—signed.
The United States has long argued that it could not act because any effort would be too costly, and it could not accept domestic targets when major trade partners such as India and China were not taking equivalent measures. Both of these claims may also have been put to rest in Gleneagles, Scotland. The former is countered in part by the success of the European emissions trading regime, where even though prices are rising, they remain at levels only about one-tenth those suggested by fearful U.S. prognostications. As for the latter, Blair invited India and China to the table—along with Brazil, Mexico and South Africa; taken with the G8, this group of countries is responsible for 66 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. And neither the United States nor other G8 members could claim inaction from these invitees: Brazil has the world’s most advanced biofuels program, China has automobile efficiency standards that rival any in California, and India is among the world’s top users of renewable energy.
For George W. Bush, climate change is the issue that refuses to go away. The most significant message from Scotland may be Bush’s recognition that the only way to get it off the agenda will be to solve it. The president’s signature on the communiqué indicates an acceptance that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a priority comparable to other issues like terrorism, poverty reduction and oil security.
The G8 plan of action provides some ideas on how to begin this task. It calls for new energy efficiency initiatives for buildings, transport and appliances. It sets out steps to promote renewable energy—and to enhance programs that might capture the pollution from fossil fuels. It promotes the use of market signals and government policy, recognizing that such policies will need to be shaped by national circumstances, and that one size may not fit all. And it calls for new financing efforts, including through the World Bank, national export credit agencies, and bilateral lending programs to mainstream climate mitigation policies into lending practices.
The president will have domestic help in implementing his G8 pledge. The U.S. Senate adopted a resolution two weeks ago calling for a binding federal limit on greenhouse gas emissions. Nine northeastern states are discussing the implementation of their own cap-and-trade system. California has made a major commitment to improving vehicle emissions. The Midwest and Southeast have been pursuing options for emissions reductions in agriculture and forestry. And the entire nation has huge potential for improved energy efficiency and renewable energy, even before new technologies are developed and deployed.
All that is needed to launch this new effort is a burst of political will at the federal level. The first step, to dismiss the obfuscation of the science and face up to the problem, may have been taken at Gleneagles. If so, it represents a real shift for the United States. Now we need to take the next step. The climate problem will not wait and we need to get moving right away.
