10 Jul 2009
World leaders at the Major Economies Forum (MEF) yesterday committed to " substantially reducing global emissions by 2050", but failed to agree to specific targets as the deadlock between developed and emerging economies continued.
Hopes that the 17-nation group would agree to a 50 per cent cut in global emissions by 2050 were dashed after India and China objected to the failure by the G8 group of industrialised countries to agree short-term emission targets for 2020.
Earlier in the week the G8 had signed up to a deal that commits them to emission cuts of 80 per cent by 2050, but the issue of shorter term targets was left unaddressed.
UN secretary Ban Ki-Moon placed the blame for the failure to reach a deal at the MEF squarely at the door of the G8 nations, telling the BBC that while the commitment to cut emissions by 2050 was welcome, shorter term targets were also required.
"This is politically and morally imperative and a historic responsibility for the leaders... for the future of humanity, even for the future of Planet Earth, " he said.
The statement from the MEF committed the countries to continuing to work to agree an international deal at the UN-backed climate change talks in Copenhagen in December.
US president Barack Obama said that the deal – which marks the first time the US and China have agreed to try and limit temperature rises to two degrees above pre-industrial levels – represented a "good start", although he acknowledged that negotiations remained difficult.
"I am the first to admit that progress is not going to be easy… every nation in this planet is at risk, but just as more than one nation is responsible for climate change no one nation can solve it alone," he said. "Developing nations want to make sure they do not have to sacrifice their aspirations for development and higher living standards, yet with most of the projected growth in emissions coming from these countries their active participation is a pre-requisite to a solution."
In a move designed to further distance the White House from the Bush administration's stance on climate change Obama also reiterated the his commitment to delivering a meaningful deal in Copenhagen. "Developed countries like mine have a historic responsibility to take the lead with our much larger carbon footprint per capita," he said. "I know that in the past the US has sometimes failed to meet its responsibilities so let me make it clear those days are over."
But observers said that the failure to agree emission targets between the MEF nations, which together account for 80 per cent of global emissions, would make it harder for them to agree a successor to the Kyoto Treaty.
Tom Picken, international climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said the onus remained on rich nations to deliver more robust short-term targets and commit funds to help poorer nations adapt to climate change.
"Rich countries bear responsibility for climate change and developing countries are right to demand that they provide new money now to enable them to develop cleanly and adapt to the effects of climate change, which is already putting millions of lives at risk," he said.
Meanwhile, President Obama's attempts to pass a US climate change bill ahead of the Copenhagen meeting hit a stumbling block yesterday when a Senate committee announced it would delay talks on the bill by a month.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer said that the committee's work on the bill would now not be completed until September. However, she added that she remained confident that the bill could be passed before the end of the year.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT LEGISLATION
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
London Assembly Member Jenny Jones argues the mayoral race could prove critical to boosting the capital's green economy
INSIGHT
INSIGHT
The science and practical application of an improved method for the specification of power and cooling infrastructure for data centres
A look at alternative approaches to managing energy for cost and/or sustainability reasons in data centres
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment