Bob

June 1st, 2005

G8 DOCUMENT LEAK PREPARES GREENS FOR SUMMIT FAILURE
BLAIR’S CREDIBILITY ON CLIMATE CHANGE IN TATTERS, SAYS GREEN MEP

Tony Blair’s credibility is in tatters after a leaked document revealed the G8 summit of world leaders would back away from agreeing new targets and action on tackling climate change, Green Euro-MP Caroline Lucas said today.

Throughout the recent election campaign Blair’s environmental credibility rested on future plans to exercise world leadership on tackling climate change – but the leaked draft agreement shows the UK has no intention of delivering on its promise at the summit, which takes place in Scotland in July, said Dr Lucas.

“The leaked document, which purports to be a draft agreement on measures to tackle climate change, shows the G8 is intent on doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whilst creating a false impression of action,” she said.

The draft communiqué, which was leaked and posted to the Internet last week, contains no targets or timetables for reducing G8 nations’ greenhouse gas emissions, no mention of US implementation of the Kyoto Protocol – or proposals for co-operation beyond the Kyoto Protocol’s current arrangements, which expire in 2012. The ‘Draft G8 Text on Climate Change and Sustainable Energy’ also leaves open the future role of nuclear power in G8 countries.

Dr Lucas, South-East England’s Green Party MEP and a member of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, added: “Tony Blair has told us he wants to exercise global leadership on efforts to tackle climate change, and that he will use the G8 summit as a vehicle for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel dependence, and for persuading the US to sign up to global efforts to avert a climactic catastrophe.

“All along his words have been as empty and deceptive as his appalling record during eight years of office would lead us to expect.”

ENDS

Note to Editors: The leaked document can be viewed in full at http://carroll.org.uk/post/48

For more information please contact Ben on 01273 671946, 07973 823358 or ben@greenmeps.org.uk

http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk

Ben Duncan
Media Officer to Caroline Lucas MEP
benduncan@greenmeps.org.uk
01273 671946 (office)
07973 823358 (mobile)

_______________________________________________
GreenMail mailing list
unsubscribe: greenmail-unsubscribe@lists.greenparty.org.uk
https://lists.greenparty.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/greenmail

Also, The Green Party in Scotland has picked up on the leaked draft and responded with a motion to the Scottish Parliament:

That this parliament notes with grave concern a leaked document entitled “Draft G8 Text on Climate Change and Sustainable Energy”, which suggests preparations for a weak approach to climate change at the G8 summit in Scotland in July; recognises that climate change is inextricably linked to poverty as its effects will compound and worsen poverty in developing countries; calls on G8 leaders to issue immediate clarification on the status of this document; and believes that if G8 leaders are not intent on taking meaningful action on climate change and poverty then they will not be welcomed here.

Questions to the G8
http://EnergyChallenge.de/G8.htm

There is no real understanding of the looming energy crisis & its impacts on life as we know it. There is no mention of Peak Oil (oil demand outstripping supply, predicted by many to be imminent) nor of Contraction & Convergence (a simple framework for globally allocating the right to emit carbon in a way which is consistent with the physical constraints of the biosphere, and which has been proposed to the UN since 1990 by the Global Commons Institute). There is reference to hydrogen for transport, but no recognition of the net energy issues around using hydrogen. Transport needs to be drastically reduced, not business as usual but with hydrogen.

Below I’ve picked out a few paragraphs which highlight why I think this document is seriously inadequate. Greens have been arguing for sustainable development for decades. The time has come for implementation now - not just more talk!

In 7. (& 54.) “Some $16 trillion will be invested in the world’s energy systems over the next 25 years.”
What account does this figure take of oil depletion? As oil price rises, global economy slows so will there really be $16 trillion to invest? And invest on what? A truly low-carbon infrastructure or more greenwash?

In 16. “We note, for instance, that China has an aspiration to halve the energy intensity of its economy by 2020.”
Given how China’s energy demand has risen in recent years, this isn’t as good as it sounds (and it’s only an ‘aspiration’). If oil prices do rise, China has huge coal reserves to draw on, which will do little to help reduce climate change regardless of so-called clean coal technologies.

In 23. “Transport energy use is expected to nearly double worldwide by 2030. However, improvements in fuel efficiency and new technologies offer the opportunity to reduce both local and global pollutants. Policies such as vehicle labelling and tax incentives can encourage consumers to take up these technologies.”
No mention of reducing number of vehicles on the roads or changing haulage methods. This all seems to be about the myth of environmentally friendly vehicles.

Similarly in 25 (Aviation) no mention of reducing flights, just making fuel cleaner. Green flights? Only the birds & the bees manage that one, I’m afraid!

In 33. “Statement on nuclear power, to be added following discussions”
Hmmm - watch this one! Regardless of the waste & true costs arguments, no one seems to mention that uranium too is a non-renewable resource. Nor that nuclear power only addresses electricity generation. I believe research from England has shown that 100 nuclear power stations would be required just to fuel the current numbers of vehicles on UK roads, which brings us back to uranium reserves - the more nuclear power demand, the quicker uranium reserves run out.

Hope this helps!
MM x

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
“At first people refuse to believe that a strange new thing can be done.
Then they begin to hope it can be done.
Then they see it can be done.
Then it is done and all the world wonders why it was not done centuries ago.”
Frances Hodgson Burnett