Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


G8 ministers call for deal to halve output of greenhouse gases by 2050

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 May 2008
ENVIRONMENT ministers from the world's leading industrial countries, the G8, yesterday called for an agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, and said developed nations should lead the fight against global warming.
In a statement issued after talks in Japan, they urged their leaders to set a target to halve global emissions when they hold a summit in July.

They also acknowledged calls for mid-term emissions reduction targets for 2020.

The three-day meetings of G8 ministers – from Britain, Japan, the United States, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Russia – and observer countries, in Kobe, Japan, also aimed to revive momentum for wider UN-led talks on a new global warming pact.

Ichiro Kamoshita, Japan's environment minister, said: "We expressed the will to come to agreement at (the Toyako summit in July] so we can halve emissions by 2050. Advanced nations should show leadership to reach this goal."

A joint statement stressed the need for global gas emissions to peak within the next ten to 20 years, and called on developing countries with rapidly expanding greenhouse gas emissions to curb the rate of increase.

While signalling the need for mid-term targets, ministers made only an indirect mention of a UN scientific finding that rich countries should make cuts of 25-40 per cent by 2020 to avoid the worst effects of global warming.

Yvo de Boer, the UN's climate chief, and environmentalists, had called for progress toward such a reduction pledge by G8 countries.

The European Union has pledged a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and has offered to raise it to 30 per cent if other nations sign on.

However, the US has not committed to a mid-term goal, demanding commitments from top developing nations such as China first. Japan has also failed to set a 2020 target.

The US is the only major industrialised country not to have ratified the Kyoto Protocol global warming pact, which commits 37 nations to cutting emissions by an average of 5 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Washington has argued that the pact would damage the American economy and is unfair as it does not obligate developing nations to make similar cuts in emissions.

The Japan talks struggled to overcome divisions between rich countries concerned about growing emissions in the developing world and poorer nations which argue that industrialised countries must take the first steps to address warming.

Mr de Boer said that rich nations needed to set national and global targets to send a message to business.

He added: "If you're a businessman or woman in any country and you're about to build a $500 million power plant, a global goal doesn't tell you what investment choice to make.

"But if you know the country you're in plans to reduce emissions by x per cent by 2020, you're going to want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem."

MORE INFO

CALLS for the public to eat less beef to reduce the amount of methane produced by cows were criticised by Scotland's farming leaders last night.

The United Nations's food and agriculture organisation has estimated that livestock warms the planet more than transport. But research indicates the only way to reduce cows' emissions would be altering their diet and keeping them indoors.

James Withers, chief executive of the National Farmers' Union Scotland, said: "Trying to force this type of change on farmers is ridiculous and would, in effect, kiss goodbye to the Scottish beef sector. Governments need to realise they can't have everything. They want farmers to produce more food and feed the planet, but they want swingeing cuts in methane from our cattle."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 27 May 2008 12:16 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change , The G8
 
1

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 27/05/2008 00:28:52
The representitives of the New World Order are quite right about emissions. Lets start by getting all of them a really good send off, how about a hanging for the people who are letting the rich getting even more obscene, and the poor even more deprived.

Getting rid of this lot would in fact get rid of a problem that is complete rot. No more spin to make us focus on the rubbish their media preaches, and a bit more focus on topping the lot of them and starting again. Looking for a hangman?, ill do it quite gladly.
2

Tatties ower the side,

Johammesnurg 27/05/2008 05:55:45
Great Photo!!!!! Looks like Minister Ichiro has been sniffing greenhouse gases all morning!!
3

Unimpressed one,

27/05/2008 08:14:51
"Mr de Boer said that rich nations needed to set national and global targets to send a message to business."

And the message is that politician and their green luddites are using a cudgel in the form of a non-existant myth that is 'climate change' in order to promote an anti-capitalist agenda. Meanwhile thwarted by 'rich' nations' red tape, the multinationals will thrive in the developing world which has all along seen through this charade but are only too happy to comply with the rules since it is to their competitive advantage. 'Climate change' is on schedule to achieve what communism failed to deliver - human and economic stagnation.
4

Yada,

27/05/2008 08:49:14
#3 Quite right. But time the little people started bombarding the press with letters every time they use the words "carbon dioxide" and "pollutant" or "greenhouse gas" in the same sentence. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant; it is essential for all life on this planet. The current level is nothing alarming or unusual. Most life in the oceans evolved when concentrations were four or five times what they are now. It is not a "greenhouse" gas; it cannot "trap" the sun's heat the way glass does in a greenhouse.
The aim is economic stagnation and has everything to do with eco-nuts working to an agenda which is anti-people and anti-civilisation.
Man-made global warming is a myth; mankind can do virtually nothing about climate change. In fact he has about the same chance of affecting the earth's temperature (which is currently what, by the way? Anyone know? No? Thought not!)as Canute had of turning the tide.
5

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 27/05/2008 09:15:39
Like most one-shot solution merchants, this group is totally unnecessary burden on any part of the world developed or not. The constant preaching of the same mantra about "having" to reduce so-called greenhouse gases by x percent by (pick a year) is leading to increased taxation (the real goal) and a reduction in transport, industry and the economies.

If you can't get China, Japan and the USA to sign up for this, you must know that a) they're not taken in by the propaganda b) their economies will thrive at the expense of ours and c) it won't make any difference to the climate anyway since their "pollutants" (CO2?!) far outweigh anything that the UK or our farty cows can produce, even assuming that all that bad carbon dioxide and methane had anything much to do with it in the first place.

Oh - and why not let's just drop eating beef for that last reason. Absolutely barking. However there's usually a good and covert reason for these apparently mad decisions so the usual caveat applies - who gains?
6

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 27/05/2008 09:17:22
More MMGW propaganda.

Personal carbon credits anyone?
7

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 27/05/2008 11:16:29
So I take it that this includes legislation to limit the incidences of animals (including humans) farting?

I take it that it also includes legislation to prevent methane from escaping from marshes as well as legislation to ban dead bodies from decaying?

These people are just idiots.
8

Unimpressed one,

27/05/2008 12:23:25
"These people are just idiots."

On the face of it so it would seem. But how many junkets to far flung places will Joe Public be getting courtesy of the taxpayer. Carbon offsets? - money for literally nothing. Wind turbines? - vast public subsidy to line the pockets of power companies and developers. So idiotic it may be, but follow the money.
9

Geomac 1,

Scotland 27/05/2008 13:14:51
What a bunch of drivel - setting a target for 2050 when UK emissions increased by 8% in the past year!!!! Hopefully, most of those idiotic politicians will have passed on to greener pastures!!!
10

Geomac 1,

Kinross 27/05/2008 13:16:34
#4 Yada - well said. I couldn't agree more. But then politicians wouldn't have a tool to engender fear into the populace and to act as a basis for raising taxation??
11

PJ,

Edinburgh 27/05/2008 14:16:11
#7

Would the green tree hugger veggies, have to offset their emissions from normal meat eaters as they are higher emitters of flatulence (farting) due to all those lentils they eat?

I heard that scientists in Germany are working on a pill that helps cut carbon emissions in cattle, which maybe these green tree hugger veggies could take! But apparently this has a number of side effects which they are trying to sort out, then again I can only assume that if you trap the gas inside the cow one of the drawbacks is that it might explode.

Nasty, think of all those cattle and vegans blowing up everywhere.
12

John Blackley,

Florida 27/05/2008 20:07:30
Did groups of people from Britain, the United States, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Russia really fly all the way to a three-day jolly in Kobe, Japan so's they could berate us peasants, some more, about our disgusting production of greenhouse gasses?

I smell more envirotaxes coming up - brace yourselves.
13

,

27/05/2008 21:09:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
14

Em,

27/05/2008 23:49:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYl4hkFRdTk
15

Hmm ...,

27/05/2008 23:49:57
... I suppose that if their job, on which future promotions are based, is to promote "the environment", it is easier to jump on the bandwagon instead of actually thinking about what would help improve our lives.

I read once that a committee will collectively reach a decision that not one of the members would have taken himself and there is a lot of truth in that.

But really, is it necessary for them to support the anti-capitalist Trots who are masquerading as "Green" these days, knowing that Trots are unacceptable in a civilised society?

Even a politician could surely find a better career route than that!
16

,

28/07/2008 14:46:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.