G8 sells out the world on climate

Actual title of article-"G8 sees economy still in peril, falters on climate"

From my understanding the issue was that developing nations did not want adhere to the stricter standards set out by the E.U. and US. Namely China and India blocked any real efforts. Saying that the entire G8 is at fault is unfair and incorrect.

Luckily Obama and the other E.U. leaders were able to convince all the nations to contribute a total of $12 billion dollars over the next 3 years. the money would be dedicated to food security and sustainable and productive agriculture systems.

"This is a cowardly action from the eltists who think that they can get away with deciding the fate of this planet and our children."

This planet is going to be fine until the day the sun engulfs it 5 billion years from now. It has been through worse than a global temperature shift of 4.6 degrees. However, our children might not be so lucky.

The same was said thing back in 2000 when Bush refused to go along with the Kyoto Treaty, and guess what? We're all still here and the environment is still relatively in tact, save for all the poisons being dumped in the water.

Where is the data that suggests the increase in temperatures are what you claim it is and why you claim the temperatures will increase another 3.6 degress?

I disagree with the first poster. If they figure a way increasing temperatures increases young girls mammary gland growth and keeps them a supply of hot women, it has plenty reality. It worked with extra cow hormones <> it'll work with planet temperatures. And I imagine putting cloned meat in the stores to dovetail right along with genetically altered vegetables will do the same thing.

IT IS ALL VERY REAL.

From JanforGore "Agreeing to allow temperature to increase 3.6 degrees fahrenheit rather than pledging bold reductions now is dooming the world to climate catastrophe. We are already at 1 degree, heading for 2. Add 3.6 to that and actually meet it, and you have 4.6 degrees which means this planet would then be unrecognizable to our children and theirs. This is a cowardly action from the eltists who think that they can get away with deciding the fate of this planet and our children. If they think the world is in unrest now, wait. But of course, that may be exactly what they want. What a travesty."

The leaders of the G8 are trying to limit the increase in temperature. You assume that these people are trying to kill our planet for profit. This is not so. They are trying to prevent the rapid increase in global temperature. However, with global partners like China, who is seen as the world's worst polluter. However, they are the world's fastest growing economy, too, and this is like asking them to stop producing as heavily, which is not what they want to do.

We have to make compromises with these kinds of countries. The G8 is not an environmental summit, don't forget, it is an economic summit. The environment is not something that is high on their priorities.

You also miss the main point of this article. The climate was not the bulk of this article. In fact, only 4.5 short paragraphs are devoted to the issue of climate. The rest focuses on global economic recovery, the reserve currency issue currently at hand, and agricultural development to developing nations.

Realize that our leaders are still human. They can only handle one task at a time. That is why there are summits like the G8 and the defunct Kyoto Protocol. Harp on all you want about the U.S. not adhering to the Protocol. I'll agree with you! But don't surmise that environment is high on the priorities of an economic conference. The fact that it was in this one was somewhat rare, but that is due to the evolving nature of businesses' need to adapt to a more environmental friendly stance.

BS.

Another prime example of illuminatism, 8 world leaders deciding what is best for the enviornment, what a joke!!! it is unbearable what these ppl are trying to do and are doing to the "anime mundi" it makes me sick to even think of what lies ahead of us....including the "codex alimentarius"........[[[over and out]]]

Yes, just like they are waiting for the Arctic to thaw to suck its resources dry, even though doing so would be catastophic for the climate balance of this planet. This is what greed and power does.

Yes temp can change the world but we can do nothing about it. Its a cyclical event that the Earth goes through, are we helping? No I'm sure we're adding a little bit, but we can't change the patterns of the Sun. Sorry...

But on a lighter note, you are right in the greed aspect. Think of it this way, they let things slide another 3.5 degress- imagine what all the clean water resources will be worth? And of course guess whos investing in those?

JaneforGore - it is centigrade degrees that we are are at (1 degree, heading for 2). So, your 3,6 degrees fahrenheit is equal to 2 degrees centigrade (celcius) - one degree centigrade is to be multiplied by 1,8 to obtain the fahrenheit degree. Still, it is far too much, as they are agreeing to allow the earth to reach the point of 2 degrees centigrade (and not 4,6 degrees).

Actually, I always thought that the celsius was multiplied by 9, then divided by 5, and then added to 32 to get the fahrenheit.

Celsius to Fahrenheit (°C × 9/5) + 32 = °F
Fahrenheit to Celsius (°F - 32) x 5/9 = °C

2 degrees celsius converted to fahrenheit by this method is approximately 35 degrees, not 3.6 degrees.

G8 leaders were due to agree a goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels at a summit in Italy on Wednesday.

Here are some facts about the target, previously adopted by European Union nations and due to be widened to the United States, Russia, Japan and Canada.

2 DEGREES DOESN'T SOUND MUCH?

The temperature difference between the last Ice Age and now is only about 5 Celsius. Average world temperatures rose by 0.7 Celsius in the 20th century, according to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It estimates that temperatures will rise further, by between 1.1 and 6.4 Celsius during the 21st century, depending on policies chosen by governments. It says it is at least 90 percent likely that greenhouse gases from human activities, led by burning of fossil fuels, are to blame for most of the recent warming.

WHAT HAPPENS IF TEMPERATURES RISE BY 2 CELSIUS?

Hundreds of millions of people would be exposed to increased stress on water supplies, according to the IPCC in its last major report in 2007, based on research by 2,500 experts. It says more people would suffer from malnutrition, some infectious diseases and there would be more deaths from heatwaves, floods and droughts. Up to 30 percent of species of animals and plants would be at increasing risk of extinction. Coral reefs would be damaged. Cereals production would decline in tropical areas but, in one benefit, would improve nearer the poles. Coasts would suffer increased damage from floods and storms.

WHY 2 CELSIUS?

The European Union settled upon 2 Celsius in 1996 as a yardstick for measuring success in fighting climate change. It says that anything more would be "dangerous" for life on the planet. Many environmental groups also have the same target. Small island states, which fear being wiped off the map by rising sea levels, say that dangerous impacts will start at a rise of only 1.5 Celsius.

WHAT WOULD IT COST TO LIMIT WARMING TO 2 CELSIUS?

The EU says that meeting the 2 Celsius target could be achieved with world gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at most 2.5 percent by 2050, reducing annual growth by at most 0.05 percent a year.

"When taking into account co-benefits in terms of air pollution reduction, net costs could be significantly lower. The costs of actions to mitigate climate change are small when compared to the relative costs of impacts due to inaction," according to an EU brochure about the goal.

WHAT GREENHOUSE GAS CUTS WOULD BE NEEDED?

"To avoid a warming in excess of 2 Celsius, global greenhouse gas emissions should peak by 2020 at the latest and then be more than halved by 2050 relative to 1990," the EU says, based on IPCC findings.

"In order to have a 50 percent chance of keeping the global mean temperature rise below 2 Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must stabilize below the equivalent of 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," it says.

"Stabilization below 400 ppm will increase the probability to roughly 66 percent to 90 percent," it says. Greenhouse gas concentrations are now around 380 ppm and rising.

(click on the link for more)

Global warming is all BULLSHIT!!!!!! read a book instead of buying everything your told Sheeeeeep

To reiterate: The planet has already warned by 1 degree fahrenheit. Allowing it to go to 3.6 degrees fahrenheit without any major reductions in CO2/ GHG emissions would be tantamount to drastically and irrevocably changing the relationship we now have with the Earth. I think that should be the overriding factor in this. I don't believe I misunderstood anything where that is concerned.

What the G8 meeting has stated is that they want to limit the increase in temperature to UNDER 2 degrees Celcius, i.e. under 3,6 Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels - which is a great improvement in policy. It is not a question of allowing it but of limiting it.

Not according to what I'm reading, and not according to this article. Because if that is true, they will never accomplish it since we are already on the collision course. Without pledging (instead of using weak flimsy language) the cuts in emissions scientists claim we must have, these words are empty. And they will continue to use China and India and vice versa to continue their stalemate. This is what you get when politicians are entrusted with a moral issue. They now also use the economy as an excuse to continue to pussyfoot around this, while having no trouble finding billions for bailouts and wars. My original comment stands.

Hidden tax hell! It's a hidden agenda to destroy America and usher in the alternate out come of WWII. Think about it...hmmm.

the prediction of weather is based on non liner equations because of all the friction involved, in english this means it's based on chaos theory. predictions can't be accurate, weather is far to complicated. there's going to be radical changes but wheither its deserts or ice age can't be established.

plant a tree and hold on.

i think its wrong but do you really trust a story coming from yahoo! i don't

One of the problems is people spend years debating if Global Warming is real or not. Scientists and governments, citizens and lobbyists, are all in debate. For years.

It shouldn't be a debate. And people shouldn't be right and wrong and fighting the issue. The issue isn't if Global Warming is real and all the numbers and evidence.

The issue is we are not living smart as a human species. We are polluting the single place we can call home - and that is Earth. If you pollute your house with chemicals, fires, oil spills, coal, etc. every day then you, your pets, your family will all die just from living in that house. Right? So if you are all dead... does it really matter how much money you made that year? Does the name brand clothes and electronics and fancy cars and big dinners and parties you went to matter?

No - because you are dead. Your family is dead. Your friends are dead. Or maybe you just are homeless. Or maybe all your food is containmented.

Global warming isn't the issue. Making money isn't the issue. Science and data and economics and politics and world power and EGO isn't the issue.

The issue is taking care of our Home - Planet Earth. Use renewable resources, recycle, use hemp paper instead of trees, eat more healthful fruits and vegetables, help others build green houses, go out and create an electric car or convert your diesel engine to run on vegetable oil - which is FREE FUEL!

Stop "talking" about the issues and "trying" to "make" everyone agree. It will never happen. Let go of EGO and just go after the solution. What will make our Home a cleaner, happier Home for everyone who lives there...

This summit in my opinion is nothing more than a pointless meeting. Let's try and get gov'ts to add more regulation to our lives. :( What about the theory that the globe is in a natural warming cycle, there is nothing we can do to change it. I don't know why people set these parameters when nothing will be done to change it, and if something is done it could seriously damage the economy. (Like the climate bill Obama is proposing.)