A day after G-8 leaders signed a declaration saying that the developed countries of the world had an obligation to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, the Canadian Environment Minister said that an 80% reduction would not be "practical" for his country.

Their 2050 commitment is a reduction between 60%-70% of 1990 levels.

With Bush off the scene, it appears that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is assuming the position of most recalcitrant world leader on climate change.  This comes on the heels of his refusal to join a new international organization designed to promote renewable energy strateiges and cooperation worldwide.

The United States-led "Major Economies Forum" met today on the sidelines of the G-8 summit to discuss progress towards a global climate change deal scheduled to be completed by the end of the year.  The Guardian has published a draft declaration from the meeting.

The only major accomplishment was a recognition that average global temperature needs to be stabilized at 2 degrees centigrade by 2050.  How the world is going to get there is still unresolved.

Particularly disappointing was the absence of an agreement on specific reduction targets to be met in the mid-term (by 2020).  Major developed country emitters, the US, Canada and Japan have been unwilling to make any mid-term commitments, preferring to shift focus to 2050.

Developing countries--whose emissions levels are rising significantly--argue that the historic big emitters need to take steps immediately before they will agree to any of their own reduction targets.

This is one of the key issues to be worked out before a global deal can be reached.  Unfortunately, there is little time.  A more vigorous agreement would have pushed the UN negotiations forward.  As it stands now, low-level negotiators will meet next month in Bonn to continue talks.  In the autumn, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon is convening a meeting of world leaders prior to the opening of the General Assembly.  If the stalemate between the US bloc and developing countries is not broken by then, the prospects for an effective agreement to come out of Copenhagen will begin to recede.  

Via Jake Schmidt at NRDC, the declaration [.pdf] from the G-8 meeting has been released.

Significantly, the G-8 leaders (US, Canada, UK, France, Italy, Russia, Germany, Japan) agree that the global average temperature should not exceed 2° from pre-industrial levels and that there should be a 50% global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  Furthermore, developed countries should reduce their emissions "in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 compared to 1990 or more recent years."  The G8 countries also pledge to "undertake robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions, taking into account that baselines may vary."

On the one hand, it is good to see that a 2° warming limit should be achieved.  However, without explicit mid-term (2020) reduction targets, it is unclear how exactly the world will get to that level.  The science tells us that immediate action needs to be taken on reductions to stabilize the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the economics tells us that it will be cheaper to take these actions in the near term.

The fact that there was such wiggle room in the base year for measuring reductions is troubling.  The US and Japan have been obfuscating the extent of their commitment by using more recent years as their base--as opposed to the 1990 levels that are the base years for the Kyoto Protocol.  Thus, the Waxman-Markey Bill promises a "17% reduction" in emissions by 2020 using 2005 as the base year.  In reality, the reduction only gets the US to 4% of the 1990 levels--lower than our negotiated obligations under Kyoto.

Tomorrow the G-8 leaders will be joined by representatives of the "Major Economies"--most notably developing countries such as China, Mexico, India, and South Africa.  As I posted earlier, these countries are not likely to embrace the current G-8 language without developed country mid-term targets.

The leaders of the G-8 and the world's other large economies will be meeting in Italy this week to discuss a number of issues, including climate change.

The meeting is significant for a couple of reasons. First, it represents an important step on the way to a comprehensive climate treaty scheduled for completion in Copenhagen in December. The global meetings held under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have made some progress towards Copenhagen, but no conclusive agreements on emissions reduction targets, financing for developing countries, or technology transfer have emerged. In fact, the current negotiating document is about three times as long as the one produced before last month's meetings in Bonn. Progress at the G-8 summit could help streamline the UN talks so something substantive is accomplished in Copenhagen.

Second, this meeting marks the first time this year that national leaders--not lower-level ministers--discuss climate change in a multilateral forum. I think, in general, state interests frame international negotiations more than the personality of leaders, but it is significant in moving talks forward when government heads address important issues.

Thirdly, it will be interesting to see how the US position has evolved with the election of Barack Obama and the passage of the Waxman-Markey energy bill in the House of Representatives. On the one hand, Obama's active engagement and Congressional action represent a significant divergence from past US recalcitrance. On the other hand, the Congressional bill is weak on emission reduction targets and Obama has played his cards pretty close to the chest as far as what his position is for a post-Kyoto agreement. At some point Obama is going to have to stake a clear position and other countries will have to react to it. Will this be the week?

For some good background on the issues, the AP has a good story and so does the Washington Post.