Where are the tough targets on emissions we were expecting from the G8?

When the G8 announced a 50 per cent cut in emissions by 2050, the obvious question that popped up was ‘50 per cent cut in comparison to when?' Even Yasuo Fukuda, the prime minister of Japan where the G8 is being hosted was thrown and answered the cuts would be in comparison to present levels. This is just an example of how ambiguous and indefinite the G8 is on tackling climate change.

Moreover, the 50 per cent cut by 2050 is only a ‘goal' and not a binding target which in itself is not enough even if it were to be enforced. Shouldn't there be shorter term targets before we reach 2050 to tell us where we are headed? Setting a vague goal of reducing emissions by 50 per cent without taking any concrete steps towards it is reminiscent of last year's summit in Germany.

Even the Commons Environmental Audit Committee proposed emissions cuts of 80-95 per cent by 2050 and shorter term target of 25-40 per cent by 2020 to tackle climate change. With construction of coal-fired power stations, expanding airports and the nuclear distraction; it will prove harder to even meet the G8's lousy targets.

As the principal polluters on the planet, the G8 ought to take real steps rather than recycle the same rhetoric that we heard last year. The key player in these talks, the US who is the biggest polluter of them all has consistently refused to agree on specific targets. I join our boss, John Sauven in thanking god that this was Bush's last G8.