If you aren't in Italy you might not realize, but two events have occurred on global warming pollution where leaders of the 17 largest emitting countries are trying to make progress in the run-up to Copenhagen (this December).

The first event is the annual Group of Eight (G8) which brings together the 8 largest industrialized countries and now regularly has global warming on the agenda (as I discussed last year here).  The second is the "Leaders Summit" of the Major Economies Forum (as I discussed here) which brings together the world's 17 largest emitting countries.  The G8 declaration has been released on July 8th (available here) while the Major Economies Forum statement was released on July 9th (available here ) (pdf).

These meetings are notorious for taking small steps and are often criticized as being "big on grand statements and small on detailed actions".  But how often do you get the leaders of the world's biggest countries in one place making joint political declarations?  And given the critical need for Heads of Government to weigh-in if we are going to have any chance of success in Copenhagen (as I discussed here), these events come at an important juncture.

Over the past week there has been a lot of moving parts so I thought I would try to help pull it all together and frame the context.  So here goes.

Global "Yardstick" to Solving Global Warming. A number of countries have set forth an objective to hold global temperatures to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).  But notably the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada had refused in the past to set forth that "yardstick" as the aim of the worlds efforts to solve global warming.  It took a little nudging — including a letter from the CEOs of 47 major US organizations to President Obama — but this "yardstick" is now committed to in the G8 agreement and is included in the Major Economies Forum statement.  So effectively you have the world leaders (or at least the major emitters) committing to keep global warming to a level below which scientists tell us a number of very damaging impacts will occur.

So now all the world's actions will be judged against that yardstick and we'll be able to ask: "how does this or that measure up?"

Global Emissions Objective in the Medium-Term. If you read any of the stories prior to the meetings, there was a lot of back and forth on the issue of whether or not there would be a commitment to cut global emissions to 50% by 2050.  Well here is where it ended up.

• The G8 statement includes a reiteration of their "goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050". They essentially made this statement last year so this isn't too new.
• The Major Economies Forum statement does not include this global objective, but they agreed to develop such a 2050 global goal by Copenhagen. China and India wanted the US (in particular) and other developed countries to commit to deeper near-term targets (in 2020) than they were willing to commit to. And they wanted greater clarity on the amount of incentives that the developed countries would propose to support developing countries emissions reduction efforts.

In some sense this is where this process was last year (as I discussed here), but of course the world hoped for more this year with the change in US Administration.  We'll need to be much further along in that debate on this issue by Copenhagen.   But more important than this "global effort" in the medium term is the contribution that individual countries undertake towards this global effort and their path to that target (as I'll discuss below).

Developed Country Targets. The G8 countries agreed to cut emissions to 80% by 2050.  They fudged the year to compare that target against (1990 or a more current year), which is very important in terms of how much emissions are put into the atmosphere.  But this is still a modestly big step for these countries as they are now committing to a significant trajectory to reduce their emissions.  While this is where President Obama has been as a part of his campaign and since he has taken office, this is the first time that he committed to this in a meaningful way internationally.  And for Canada and Russia this is a stronger signal than they've provided to date (although there has been some "misunderstanding" on the Russian side about what they actually committed to as this AFP story outlines).

So now you have the world's wealthiest countries committing to dramatically shift to clean energy.  Some are likely to argue that this will have a huge cost, but all credible analysis (including NRDC's available here and even that of the climate opposition's available here) shows that the cost is very reasonable for this transition –  less than a postage stamp per day in the US.  And oh by the way we create a bunch of new jobs (as we've documented here).

Developing Country Emissions Reductions. In the international debate, the issue of whether and how much developing countries would reduce their emissions has been at the top of the agenda for a while (as I've discussed here and here).  While the actions and statements from developing countries have greatly changed over the years, the political commitment from developing country leaders at formal summits hasn't solidified that new position.  Well that has slightly changed this week as the Major Economies Forum agreed that developing countries will commit to essentially "slow the rate of growth of their emissions in the near-term" ( as the New York Times is also reporting).  The G8 agreement includes even stronger language, but that is in a sense easier to agree as it doesn't require developing country support.

And importantly the Major Economies Forum also agreed that developing countries (actually all countries) would:

• undertake "transparent nationally appropriate mitigation actions, subject to applicable measurement, reporting, and verification" (which has become a central issue to securing a strong agreement in Copenhagen as I discussed here
• "prepare low-carbon growth plans" (which is an important aspect of the international negotiations as I've discussed here< ).

While much more clarity will need to be provided before the US Senate will be completely satisfied, this is a solid building block to get an agreement in Copenhagen and ultimately something that the US can implement domestically.

Working to Develop the Financing Incentives for Developing Countries. Providing "significant, targeted, and effective" incentives to help developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to the impacts of global warming will be essential to getting a strong agreement in Copenhagen.  That is an important, but difficult challenge for many developed countries, including the US (as is evidenced by our efforts to convince Congress to deliver this funding in the climate bill and elsewhere as I discussed here).

So that is why the Major Economies Forum: "asked the G20 finance ministers to take up the climate financing issues and report back to us at the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh in the fall" (as President Obama committed to in his final statement after the Major Economies Forum meeting).  So the upcoming G20 meeting will now become a hugely important moment to see whether or not developed countries can deliver the necessary financial incentives to help to break-open the current stalemate between developed and developing countries.

————————

So it isn't too surprising that the stories on the global warming events are painting a mixed picture.  This kind of event is always a mixed bag — you want more parts good and less bad parts.

And when looking at what was achieved at these two global warming events, I think there are some emerging signs to build upon.  By no stretch of the imagination are we there yet as we still have a lot of work to complete before we'll be in a position to get a strong agreement in Copenhagen.

Looking at the totality of what was accomplished I would say global warming won this "coin flip"…just barely, but enough at this stage in the negotiations to warrant a little optimism.

We have less than 6 months to put the world on the correct path, the solutions are obvious and available but the politics to solve global warming is "complicated".  So it is easy to feel as if the challenge can't be addressed quickly enough (as I discussed here).  So I thought it was perfect to end with the words of President Obama after the Major Economies Forum meeting (as I couldn't say it any better):

…I think that one of the things we're going to have to do is fight the temptation towards cynicism, to feel that the problem is so immense that somehow we cannot make significant strides.

But ultimately, we have a choice.  We can either shape our future, or we can let events shape it for us.  We can fall back on the stale debates and old divisions, or we can decide to move forward and meet this challenge together… We know that the problems we face are made by human beings.  That means it's within our capacity to solve them.  The question is whether we will have the will to do so, whether we'll summon the courage and exercise the leadership to chart a new course.  That's the responsibility of our generation, that must be our legacy for generations to come, and I am looking forward to being a strong partner in this effort."

——-
Jake Schmidt is the International Policy Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, read his blog at NRDC's Switchboard

Investing in energy efficiency, reducing deforestation and using low carbon energy sources can take us more than 70% of the way towards realizing the CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets various government leaders, including US President Obama, promised to fight for and deliver, according to a report released July 6 by former UK prime minister Tony Blair's The Climate Group.

Global CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions will need to peak before 2020 and then decline 50-85% below 2000 levels in order to keep average global temperature increase below the 2°C UN IPCC climate researchers believe is a critical climate change "tipping point".

The technology needed to do so is already in our hands and the costs are small as compared to both national and global GDP and the costs of dealing with climate changes if business goes on as usual, according to The Climate Group's "Breaking the Climate Deadlock: Technology for a Low Carbon Future".

Report Highlights

- Policies that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation could deliver nearly 9 gigatonnes of emissions reductions, according to the report.

- Regulations requiring or establishing feed-in tariffs that favor clean energy from renewable sources could yield another 2.1 gigatonnes of avoided emissions.

- Electric and other higher clean, higher efficiency motors and other equipment in industry and transportation could yield another 2.4 Gt of energy savings while improving building codes and standards and modernizing existing buildings could save another 1.3 Gt, according to the report.

An annual average of $1 trillion of investment is needed to scale up technology between now and 2050 to meet 2020, interim and mid-century emissions reduction targets, the equivalent of 40% of global infrastructure investment or 1.4% of GDP.

The incremental cost actually would be much lower, however, the report says, as much of this clean energy and emissions reduction investment would simply displace investments made in higher carbon alternatives.

"Estimates suggest that global incremental cost of additional investment of approximately $317 billion annually in 2015, rising to $811 billion in 2030, is required with an oil price of $60 per barrel. But if the oil price rises to $120 per barrel, this will reduce the cots by $700 billion annually–making the incremental additional cost over the period very small or even zero."

So here's your proof, nation - global warming is caused by the sun.