The Obama administration is coming back from the G-8 meetings with no agreement from other nations — both European and developing — on reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases such as CO2.
This has not been clearly reported; as so often seems to happen these days, the clearest statement on a murky news situation comes not from the news pages, but from the editorial, as in this from the NYTimes:
Before the leaders gathered, their negotiators had already settled
on a draft communiqué, committing to a 50 percent cut in worldwide
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The industrial countries would cut
theirs by 80 percent, and the developing countries would make
“significant” if unquantified cuts. But on Wednesday, things fell
apart. The developing nations flatly refused to commit to the 50
percent goal by 2050.
It was not immediately clear why they
balked. (My emphasis.) Some repeated an old demand: that the United States and the
other industrialized nations — which bear responsibility for the
buildup of greenhouse gases since the beginning of the industrial
revolution — should do more and do it faster. Otherwise, the developing
nations would be left with an unfair share of the burden while their
economies were expanding rapidly.
and the other leaders of the developed world have yet to come up with
the right mixture of pressure and incentives to get the developing
countries to commit.
The administration's cap-and-trade plan can be criticized, but I don't see how anyone who wants to see the world act to reduce the risks of climate change could argue with Obama's closing statement:
future or we can let events shape it for us. We can fall back on the
stale debates and old divisions, or we can move forward and decide to
meet this challenge together. I think it's clear from our progress
today which path is preferable.
Of course, that's not to say that some (such as Ted Rall) won't snipe…and memorably so:
Kit Stolz 