Climate and the G-8

By Mark Hertsgaard

This article appeared in the July 18, 2005 edition of The Nation.

June 29, 2005

The July 6-8 summit meeting of the Group of Eight industrial nations comes as humanity is drifting toward unparalleled catastrophe. Climate change, a prime focus of the summit, is on track to kill millions of people in the twenty-first century. The victims will die not in the sudden bang of radioactive explosions but in the gradual whimper of environmental collapse, as soaring temperatures and rising seas submerge cities, parch farmlands, crash ecosystems and spread hunger, disease and chaos worldwide.

As summit host, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has lobbied the heads of government gathering in Scotland to take much stronger action against climate change, a problem his science adviser, Sir David King, has called the greatest danger civilization has faced in 5,000 years. Blair has been pointing out since 2002 that the Kyoto Protocol "is not radical enough." The protocol demands 5 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by industrial countries only. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a 50 to 70 percent reduction by humanity as a whole is needed. To bridge that ten-fold gap, Blair has urged the G-8 nations, which are responsible for the majority of previous emissions, to endorse an ambitious program of strict timelines and emissions cuts.

But Blair has been unwilling to admit the obvious: His dream of a historic breakthrough on climate will come only if G-8 leaders are willing to defy the Bush Administration and plot their own course. George W. Bush has made it clear he's not interested in doing anything about climate change except study it. For Bush and his right-wing base, the non-existence of climate change is an article of faith, like the non-existence of evolution, and it doesn't matter what scientists say. Nevertheless, Blair insists the United States must be part of any climate accord, arguing, "If you simply exclude America from this equation, we'll never get it done." The result is, Bush gets a veto over the world's progress.

Subscriber Login

4 ISSUES FREE

Subscribe Now!

The only way to read this article and the full contents of each week's issue of The Nation online is by subscribing to the magazine. Subscribe now and read this article -- and every article published since for the past five years -- right now.

There's no obligation -- try The Nation for four weeks free.

.

About Mark Hertsgaard

Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation's environment correspondent, is a fellow of The Nation Institute and the author of five books that have been translated into sixteen languages, including Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future. His next book is Living Through the Storm: Our Future Under Global Warming. more...
Most Read

Issues »

Most Emailed

Issues »

Popular Topics

Blogs

» The Dreyfuss Report

Obama's Gaffe on India | He ought to be urging India to talk to Pakistan, not cross the border to "catch" the bad guys.
Robert Dreyfuss

» Editor's Cut

Bread, Bombs, and the Big Stimulus | We need a smart and focused inside-outside strategy to revive our frayed social compact -- now more critical than ever.
Katrina vanden Heuvel

» The Beat

Grijalva for Interior Secretary | Obama's considering an outstanding prospect for an important position.
John Nichols

» State of Change

Disappointment in Georgia | Palin's pick, Saxby Chambliss, wins the last Senate election of 2008.
John Nichols

» And Another Thing

Can you help "Nickie"? | Bringing the abortion debate down to earth
Katha Pollitt

» The Notion

DC to Delhi: Only Our Missiles -- Not Yours | What is Rice going to say to India: only DC not Delhi is allowed to bomb Pakistan?
Laura Flanders

» Act Now!

World AIDS Day | How to help in the fight against the AIDS pandemic.
Peter Rothberg

» Passing Through

Forget GM's Plan -- Where's The Government's Plan? | Create a demand for green cars.
Jane Hamsher

» Capitolism

Is Personnel Policy? | How much do personnel choices reflect the Obama administration's policy direction
Christopher Hayes