The headlines in the lead-up to the Group
of Eight (G8) meeting in Rostock, Germany, have focused on
the dispute over the proposed declaration on
climate change.
German Chancellor
Angela Merkel wants the rich countries to commit
to limiting global warming to two degrees
centigrade. This will involve cutting greenhouse-gas emissions
to 50% of their 1990 levels by 2050 and increasing
energy efficiency by 50% by 2020.
Merkel's
proposal drew predictable opposition from US President
George W Bush. However, to
contain further damage to his battered image, Bush
called for a conference of the biggest greenhouse
gas polluters to deal with global warming. This
has alarmed Merkel, who wants to keep the process
securely within the United Nations.
It is
tempting to compliment Merkel, as many have done.
But anybody would look good beside Bush. In fact,
given the immediate, extreme threat posed by
global warming underlined by the most recent
report of the International Panel on Climate
Change, Merkel's proposal of a 50% reduction from
1990 levels by 2050 is simply too little too late.
As the German Green parliamentarian Barbel Hohn
noted at a Berlin conference on Sunday, the rich
countries should be talking about at least an 80%
cut.
A close look at a leaked draft of the
G8 declaration reveals that the Merkel-Bush
quarrel concerns details not substance. The
guiding principle of the document's approach to
climate change is to "decouple economic growth
from energy use". In other words, economic growth
remains central and sacrosanct, meaning that the
G8 will not likely propose any cuts in consumption
levels.
For instance, instead of calling
for a radical cutback in automobile use, the
declaration accepts as a given that the number of
motor vehicles will double to 1.2 billion by 2020.
It proposes to expand production and accelerate
development of non-fossil fuel alternatives for
future cars such as synthetic biofuels and carbon
dioxide-free hydrogen.
The draft
declaration cannot call for deeper cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions, because its authors
realize that maintaining a growing "efficient and
competitive economy" while radically reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is not technologically
feasible at this point. The solution: lower the
targets and try to convince the public that this
is simply being realistic.
Looking for
technofixes There are three elements in the
declaration's strategy for dealing with climate
change. One is increasing energy efficiency - or
getting more bang for every unit of energy
generated.
A second element is
diversification of the means of generating energy.
Here the draft makes the obligatory nod toward
renewable energy sources like wind and solar. The
emphasis, however, is on nuclear. Indeed, the G8
draft goes out of its way to present nuclear
energy, despite its proven dangers, as a key
alternative because it allegedly contributes
little to global warming.
Specifically,
the draft states that the G8 leaders "endorse the
peaceful use of nuclear energy by those interested
countries that are also committed to
non-proliferation and international nuclear safety
standards ... endorse international initiatives to
further develop peaceful and carbon-free nuclear
energy and to realize the potential for nuclear
energy to contribute to the energy needs of
developing countries ... [and] will examine
creative ways for international finance to make
nuclear energy more available to developing
countries."
The third element is technological
innovation. Here the document stresses
accelerated development of futuristic technologies
to address global warming. The paper specifically
urges "prioritizing national and international
research and technology cooperation ...
of the different carbon capture technologies and
to clarify geotechnical conditions for secure CO2
[carbon dioxide] storage".
Indeed, the document is
obsessed with technofixes, among them "clean coal,
carbon capture and storage, offshore wind power,
second-generation biofuels, hydrogen ..." Although
he may be wrong that nuclear power is the way to
deal with climate change, Environmentalist James
Lovelock is right that it will take 40 years
before such new technologies become really
feasible - and by then it will be too late.
The only effective response to climate
change is to radically reduce economic growth
rates and consumption levels, particularly in the
north, and in the very near future. The climate
change section of the G8 declaration is a long and
all-too-transparent exercise to get around this
reality.
Promoting
investment The other parts of the
declaration are even worse.
Curiously
enough, the declaration begins with a long warning
to developing countries that "erecting barriers"
to foreign investment flows will "result in a loss
of prosperity". According to the document,
"Freedom of investment is a crucial pillar of
economic growth, prosperity and employment." The
G8 is signaling to China, Brazil, India and the
other dynamic developing economies that their
investment regimes need to be more hospitable to
Western investors.
Continuing in this
vein, the second part of the document is also
addressed to developing countries. Innovation, it
says, is central to economic growth, and it can
only continue to play this role if there is
"strong protection and enforcement of intellectual
property rights".
The writing bears the
fingerprints of the northern pharmaceutical
industry and the high-tech lobbies. Here the G8 is
warning Thailand, India, Brazil and African
countries to stop using methods like compulsory
licensing to enable their populations to gain
access to cheap drugs to fight HIV-AIDS and other
pandemics, and telling China and the Southeast
Asian countries to restrict the diffusion of
advanced technologies through tighter enforcement
of corporate intellectual property claims.
Targeting China, recycling Africa There is, interestingly, a section entitled
"Responsibility for Raw Materials: Transparency
and Sustainable Growth". The G8, the document
states, seeks "to support resource-rich countries
in their efforts to further expand their resource
potentials while promoting sustainable
development, human rights, and good governance".
Why is the G8 suddenly concerned with
"increased transparency" in the extractive sector
when their corporations have so long opposed
efforts to control their depredations in the
developing world?
The answer is
transparent in their "call on our trading partners
to refrain from restraints on trade and distortion
of competition in contravention of World Trade
Organization (WTO) rules and to observe market
economy principles".
China, which has been
concluding scores of mineral extraction agreements
in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, is
undoubtedly the main target of this section. The
document reflects the fear among many rich country
governments and corporations that the Chinese
might end up shutting them out of resource-rich
areas.
As for the G8 declaration on
Africa, it is mainly a recycling of old,
unfulfilled promises to increase development aid,
along with the usual platitudes about promoting
good governance and more effective public
financial management, institutionalizing
"market-friendly" development frameworks, and
"improving our response to fragile states".
At the Gleneagles summit in 2005, The
Financial Times notes: "The G8 committed itself to
increasing overall annual aid levels by $50
billion by 2010 and doubling aid to Africa.
Official figures show almost all these countries
are behind their targets."
I usually don't
agree with The Times' editorial page. But this
time it is hard to dispute its conclusion: "Nobody
expects much from this increasingly outmoded
talking shop of the complacent rich." I couldn't
have said it better.
Walden
Bello is executive director of Focus on the
Global South and professor of sociology at the
University of the Philippines. He is currently in
Rostock, Germany to observe the G8 meeting.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
