G8 fails to set climate world alight

ANALYSIS
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

At first sight, the G8 agreement on climate change promises much.
Leaders are "committed to avoiding the most serious consequences of climate change", and determined to stabilise greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at levels that would avoid "dangerous climate change".
In fact, this is exactly what leaders of nearly 200 countries signed up to in the original UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit. So if re-stating a 16-year-old commitment is progress, then this is clearly a success.
The question ever since Rio has been what to do about it. But the reality of negotiations within groups such as the G8 is that every party needs to emerge with bits of language that they can point to and say "I won".
So here is the key sentence in all its diplomatic finery: "We seek to share with all parties to the UNFCCC the vision of, and together with them to consider and adopt in the UNFCCC negotiations, the goal of achieving at least 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050, recognising that this global challenge can only be met by a global response, in particular, by the contributions from all major economies, consistent with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."

So the EU emerges with an apparent commitment to cut emissions by at least 50%.
The US and Canadian administrations can say that it is only a commitment if the major developing countries play ball, and that the 50% figure concerns global emissions, not necessarily their own.
And the major developing countries, involved on the sidelines of the G8 summit, can point to inclusion of the UNFCCC phrase "common but differentiated responsibilities" as continued acknowledgement that far less would be required of them than of developed economies.
Off base
The host nation Japan appears to have won two key concessions.
One is that different industrial sectors could be set different targets with the aim of preserving competitiveness.
The second, which is more important, concerns the baseline year against which carbon savings would be measured.
With very few exceptions, the UN process has always used 1990 as the baseline.
But Japan argues this is unfair. The significant gains in energy efficiency it made before 1990 are effectively penalised, it says, while the gains made in Europe after 1990 through the clean-up of Soviet-era industry and the switch to natural gas are rewarded.

The G8 document does not specify a baseline year, but asked by reporters, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said it was "current levels".
This would be significant in at least three ways.
From a practical standpoint, emissions have risen by more than a quarter since 1990; so a 50% cut from now is worth far less than a 50% cut from 1990 levels.
On the diplomatic front, it would raise a big question for the EU, which has taken 1990 as the baseline for its own target of cutting emissions by 20% by 2020. The UK's domestic targets also use 1990.
And from a philosophical point of view, it would again amount to turning the clock back 16 years, and saying "we're going to ignore what we said then and start again from here".
The EU will continue to insist that 1990 stays as the baseline in UN talks; and as the G8 document does not specify any date, any party can select whatever it feels is more politically acceptable when reporting back to its electorate.
But just by raising the issue, Mr Fukuda has thrown up yet another thing for parties to argue about.
Leadership question
So it is perhaps not surprising that campaign groups have lined up to criticise the deal.
WWF said it confirmed the recent trend of industrialised countries showing less, rather than more, of the leadership required.
"The G8 are responsible for 62% of the carbon dioxide accumulated in the Earth's atmosphere, which makes them the main culprit of climate change and the biggest part of the problem", said the director of the group's global climate initiative, Kim Carstensen.
"WWF finds it pathetic that they still duck their historic responsibility, and refuse to turn from the main driver of the problem into the main driver of the solution."
Tearfund, which campaigns on issues of developing world poverty rather than the environment per se, added that using a 1990 baseline was crucial.
"Concrete commitments on climate change are the acid test of success at this summit," said international director Peter Grant.
"The G8 are crawling forward on emissions cuts at a time when giant leaps and bounds are needed."

The other main gripe of these organisations is that 2050 is too distant. They have been urging parties to commit to shorter timescales for achieving cuts, as the EU has done with its own 2020 target, arguing that this removes the option of delaying action until it is too late.
Instead, the statement merely acknowledges that "a long-term global goal will require mid-term goals and national plans to achieve them" - without specifying what these goals should look like.
Elsewhere, there is acknowledgement that the poorest countries are going to need help to adapt to climate impacts, and that clean energy technologies need to be developed and rolled out rapidly.
There is support for the rapid development of "clean coal" demonstration plants, in particular, and recognition that some countries will seek to lower carbon emissions through investing in nuclear.
Place in the world
It is important to recognise what the G8 could not achieve.
The UNFCCC is the sovereign body for making global agreements, and the two-year road leading from last December's UN climate summit in Bali to next year's in Copenhagen is still the most important route to a low-carbon future.
Nothing that the G8 or G8+5 or G20 or any other expansion of the core group could agree would change that.
What this week's gathering could have done was to point the way and ease the path, by agreeing a common front to take into the UN process.
On Wednesday, G8 countries meet the large group of "big emitters" or "major economies", the latest stage in a process formulated by the Bush administration.
The group includes major developing countries such as China, India and Mexico. And they have already set out their stall, responding to the G8 declaration with a statement calling on rich countries to go further and faster, committing to cuts of 25-40% by 2020 and 80-90% by 2050.
So far, then, this G8 summit has confused the issue rather than clarifying it.
Governments are as divided as ever on what they are prepared to pledge and what they want to achieve; and re-opening the baseline year question is potentially hugely destructive.
Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

EU includes aviation in CO2 curbs

The European Parliament has backed a law to include aviation in Europe's CO2 Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) for cutting greenhouse gases.

MEPs voted 640 to 30 for aviation to be included in the scheme from 2012. It includes both EU and non-EU airlines.

Under the UN's Kyoto Protocol, the EU is required to cut its CO2 emissions by 8% from 1990 levels by 2012.

Airlines will have to cut emissions by 3% in the first year, compared to 2005, and by 5% from 2013 onwards.

The measures will now be ratified by the 27 EU member states, which agreed the deal in June.

Industries included in the ETS have to buy and sell permits that allow them to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Airlines will have to pay for permits covering 15% of their pollution quotas, the remainder being issued free.

Aviation currently only accounts for about 3% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions, but the sector has seen an 87% increase in CO2 since 1990.

The new legislation says the revenues generated from the auctioning of emissions permits should be used to fund: measures to combat climate change, research on clean aircraft, anti-deforestation measures in developing countries and low-emission transport. Within that framework, the member states will decide how to allocate the revenues.

US opposition

US officials and US-based airlines have criticised the extension of the ETS to aviation, arguing that the EU has no right to force airlines using its airspace to abide by the ETS rules. They say the EU must wait for a global agreement to be reached.

Peter Liese, a German MEP who helped negotiate the aviation package, said that "of course, a global agreement is our final goal, but the inclusion of third country flights starting and landing in Europe is a major step for the global fight against climate change".

"Other industries like steel would very much like to be in such a situation," he added.

The ETS began operating in 2005. It applies to major energy and industrial concerns which collectively account for about 40% of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions.

The aviation deal backed by the MEPs excludes: light planes with a take-off weight under 5.7 tons, UN-approved humanitarian flights, firefighting or other emergency flights, flights by police, customs or military forces, research flights and flights by small, low-emission airlines.

The deal was criticised by the German carrier Lufthansa on Tuesday. A spokesman quoted by Reuters news agency said the ETS was "ecologically counter-productive and economically harmful".

The aviation scheme will include official flights by EU heads of state and ministers.

The European Commission reckons that the scheme could increase return air ticket prices by 4.6 to 39.6 euros (£3.6 to £31) by 2020, depending on the journey length.

Productos orgánicos 'mejores para ti' / Organic produce 'better for you'

Organic produce is better for you than ordinary food, a major European Union-funded study says.
The £12m four-year project, led by Newcastle University, found a general trend showing organic food contained more antioxidants and less fatty acids.

But researchers did admit the study showed some variations.

The findings call into question the current stance of the Food Standards Agency (FSA), which says there is no evidence that organic food is better.

Researchers grew fruit, vegetables and reared cattle on adjacent organic and non-organic sites across Europe, including a 725-acre farm attached to Newcastle University.

They found levels of antioxidants in milk from organic cattle were between 50% and 80% higher than normal milk.

Organic wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, cabbage, onions and lettuce had between 20% and 40% more nutrients.

But the study, which is yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, also showed there were significant variations.

Change

Project co-ordinator Professor Carlo Leifert said: "We have shown there are more of certain nutritionally desirable compounds and less of the baddies in organic foods.

"Our research is now trying to find out where the difference between organic and conventional food comes from.

"What we're really interested in is finding out why there is so much variability with respect to the differences. What in the agricultural system gives a higher nutritional content and less of the baddies in the food?"

He said he hoped the findings would help farmers in organic to improve the quality of their produce.

Final results of the project are due to be published over the next 12 months.

The FSA, the body which provides advice and information on food, currently states: "Consumers may also choose to buy organic food because they believe that it is safer and more nutritious than other food.

"However, the balance of current scientific evidence does not support this view."

But officials are currently evaluating organic food for nutrient and non-nutrient content, with a report due to be published next year.

However, the Soil Association said the findings of the EU project showed the watchdog should change its stance.

A spokesman said: "The FSA has always been quite sceptical of organic food when there is no need to be. This study again shows that and I would hope they change their stance soon."

Massive rise in Europe GM crops

By Tom Heap
BBC News

Figures published on Monday show the area planted with genetically modified crops in Europe has grown by 77% since last year.

This year more than 1,000 sq km (386 sq miles) of GM maize was harvested.

The biotech industry says this proves its products are appealing to farmers and are safe for the environment.

The only genetically modified crop grown widely in Europe is maize resistant to the corn borer - a moth larva which eats the stem.

The maize is cultivated for animal feed - not for human consumption.

Planted in Spain for the last 10 years, the maize is now proving popular in France where the acreage has tripled in a year and also in Germany and the Czech Republic.

Neither the pest nor the GM maize is found in Britain.

One thousand sq km (386 sq miles) is still a small fraction of the total farmed area of Europe and also tiny compared with the one million sq km (0.38 million sq miles) under GM around the world - an expanse four times the size of Britain.

Some environmental groups claim beneficial insects could also be harmed by the crop; and in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy has suspended all GM plantings until next year.

Clare Oxborrow is a Friends of the Earth food campaigner. She told the BBC that the increase in the area planted with GM crops should not be viewed as beneficial.

"The reality is, these crops have failed to deliver benefits, and more and more evidence is, in fact, coming to light showing that there are increased concerns about their environmental risks," she said.

"GM crops, GM industry is not competitive, it is not creating jobs, it is not creating any new environmental benefits, it's not accepted by consumers, and I think we need to take a long, hard look. These figures today are more about the industry trying to reassure its investors than any significant success."

But Julian Little, who chairs the Agricultural Biotech Council, an umbrella group that represents six major companies interested in the commercial use of GM crops, countered this point of view.

"For the first time in the European Union, there is over a 100,000 hectares of GM crops being grown, exploding yet another myth in the whole line of myths that said that GM crops don't work, GM crops will never be popular, GM crops will never be embraced in Europe.

"Year on year, we see increases in farmers excited about the technology, trying it - it works," he told BBC News.

Making EU climate goal 'unlikely'

The European Union's goal of keeping the global temperature rise to 2C is unlikely to be met, a leading climate researcher has warned.

Professor Martin Parry told BBC News that millions, if not tens of millions, would be at increased risk to their lives from a rise above 2C (3.6F).

Professor Parry co-chairs the impacts working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The group's full 2007 report is being presented to scientists in London.

Its summary findings were unveiled in April.

Asked what the chances were of keeping the average global temperature rise at or below 2C, Professor Parry said: "Quite little, I think, unfortunately.

And it's evident from the work of the IPCC that even with a maximum of 2C we're not going to avoid some major impacts at the regional level."

His personal estimate was that the rise could be constrained to between 2C and 3C.

Adapt and survive

The IPCC report on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation paints a picture in sober scientific language of a world where some regions see significant changes as greenhouse gas levels and average temperatures escalate.

Parts of Africa would see water shortages, as would Asian and South American zones fed by mountain glacier melt.

Crop yields would decline across the tropics; Europe would see an increase in heatwaves.

But Professor Parry said steps could be taken to help societies adapt to these impacts.

"We need to talk very seriously about major amounts of adaptation being put in place now," he said.

The Kyoto Protocol established mechanisms which would leverage money for adaptation from carbon trading. But the funds have been criticised as being too small and too bureaucratic, and there have been wrangles over who controls them.

A number of development agencies including Britain's Department for International Development (DfID) are seeking to build climate adaptation into their aid projects.

Speaking at the London IPCC meeting, held at the Royal Geographical Society (RGS), Trade and Development Minister Gareth Thomas described climate change as a "development challenge".

"Failing to tackle it will lead to floods, droughts and natural disasters which can destroy poor people's lives as well as their livelihoods," he said.

"If we want to achieve the aspirations of the Make Poverty History campaign or the targets of the Millennium Development Goals, we - governments, citizens and developing countries themselves - must rise to the challenge."

EU biofuel policy is a 'mistake'

The EU target of ensuring 10% of petrol and diesel comes from renewable sources by 2020 is not an effective way to curb carbon emissions, researchers say.

A team of UK-based scientists suggested that reforestation and habitat protection was a better option.

Writing in Science, they said forests could absorb up to nine times more CO2 than the production of biofuels could achieve on the same area of land.

The growth of biofuels was also leading to more deforestation, they added.

"The prime reason for the renewables obligation was to mitigate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions," said Renton Righelato, one of the study's co-authors.

"In our view this is a mistaken policy because it is less effective than reforesting," he told BBC News.

Dr Righelato, chairman of the World Land Trust, added that the policy could actually lead to more deforestation as nations turned to countries outside of the EU to meet the growing demand for biofuels.

Carbon counting

The study compared the amount of carbon absorbed by a forested area with the total of "avoid emissions" by using biofuels instead of fossil fuels.

The researchers examined arable land that could either be used for growing crops to produce biofuels, or replanted with trees.

"We looked at the amount of biofuels produced per hectare," Dr Righelato explained. "From that figure, we were able to calculate the amount of fossil fuels that could be replaced by biofuels.

"That gave a figure for avoided emissions, but then we had to subtract from that the carbon emissions generated during the production of the biofuels.

He said this calculation provided them with the "net avoided carbon emissions".

"This is the key factor, that is the amount of CO2 that is saved from being released into the atmosphere by using the biofuel."

The researchers then compared the net avoided carbon emissions with the amount of CO2 that would have been absorbed if forests were re-established on the land.

"In all cases, the amount of CO2 sequestered (by forests) over a 30-year period is considerably greater than the amount of emissions avoided by using biofuels," Dr Righelato revealed.

The researchers also examined the impact of clearing forests in order to convert land to grow crops used to make biofuels.

Dr Righelato said forest clearances had a large and immediate impact on the carbon cycle.

"Forest carbon stocks are in the region of 100-300 tonnes per hectare. Three-quarters of that is lost over the first year during clearing and burning," he said.

"It would take - in all the cases we examined - between 50 to 100 years to recover this carbon through the production of biofuels."

Second chance

However, he said that so-called second generation biofuels, which used feedstocks such as straw, grasses and wood (lignocellulosic material) rather than grains or palm oil, offered a much better opportunity.

"It was the one route that seemed to offer some possibilities in terms of CO2 mitigation.

"If you can extract lignocellulosic materials sustainably from forests without destroying the soil and maintain a way that forests can rapidly regrow, it is quite possible you can have your cake and eat it, as it were."

A number of nations, including Germany, the UK and US, are developing second generation biofuels, but the capital costs needed to build commercial "biorefineries" have been seen as a major barrier.

But two US researchers, writing in the Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining journal, say that rising grain prices could make the technology commercially competitive sooner rather than later.

Mark Wright and Robert Brown, from Iowa State University, US, said that a second generation biorefinery cost four to five times as much as a bio-ethanol plant that used grains, such as corn.

However, the overall cost of producing second generation biofuels would be similar to biofuels produced from food crops when corn prices exceed $3 (£1.50) per bushel, they explained.

The adoption of second generation biofuels would be welcomed by environmental groups and food agencies, who view first generation fuels as unsustainable.

Experts at the World Water Week conference in Stockholm have voiced concern that growing food crops to be used to make biofuels could jeopardise water supplies.

"When governments and companies are discussing biofuel solutions, I think water issues are not addressed enough," Johan Kuylenstierna, director of the annual conference, told AFP.