[If you wondered how Blair might get away with doing what Bush demanded]

by John Vidal

 http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/07/07/after_kyoto.html

By Editor / G8 11:00am

Less than four months ago the world’s richest countries - America famously
excepted - signed up to the Kyoto protocol, writes John Vidal. It was a
painstakingly negotiated international treaty that laid out minimal targets
and timetables that rich countries should meet until 2012 to combat climate
change. This morning Kyoto looks seriously wounded as the Bush administration
and Tony Blair not only played it down, but talked openly at Gleneagles of
moving ahead after 2012 only with agreements on technology with no mention of
targets or timetables.

Even its best friends concede that Kyoto is flawed and incomplete, but its
merit is that it was seen as a a firest step towards a global consensus on
how to tackle global warming - a legally binding treaty that forced countries
to act, measured their progress and could be easily ratcheted up. The fact
that it did not include developing countries such as China and India, whose
emissions are rising rapidly, ostensibly upset the Americans, who refused to
sign up because of the costs that they believed it involved. Although Kyoto
only obliged a few rich countries to reduce their emissions by 5% on 1990
levels by 2012, it is already proving difficult for countries to meet. Only
three European countries are likely to meet their targets by 2012.

In its place, the Americans, and now apparently Mr Blair, seem to want to
abandon Kyoto and ask all countries to commit only to investing in technology
to save emissions. This might include hydrogen, fusion, clan coal and nuclear
power, as well as marine and other renewables. Mr Bush claimed this morning -
and in Copenhagen yesterday - that the US is already spending $10bn a year on
greenhouse gas-reducing technologies. But this was fiercely disputed by
Friends of the Earth and others yesterday, who say the figure is far lower.

But the serious criticism of the plan emerging at Gleneagles is that it lets
governments off the hook, while suggesting to business and consumers that
life can continue as normal and no one need turn the lights out, fly or drive
less, or switch their account to renewables.

No one disputes that technology has a major role to play in reducing further
emissions, but relying on a series of mega techno fixes to get the world out
of a jam seems peculiar, say the environmental groups. The history of
technological advances suggests that there are many expensive blind alleys
and that they take generations to roll out. Rather than only invest hundreds
of billions of dollars in technologies that may or may not come to fruition
in 20 to 50 years, say the sceptics, why not concentrate on installing
energy-saving technologies that are known to work well already but are barely
employed. Besides, the most cost-effective technology of all, say many, is
saving energy by using less.

But this morning's press conference has increased criticism of Mr Blair, who
before the meeting made it known that he was prepared to stand up with other
world leaders against Mr Bush, if necessary provoking a major split in the G8
for the first time in a generation of these meetings. It now appears that
Britain and the Americans are moving closer together. What will be
interesting to see now will be how other countries such as France - nursing a
sore head having not got the 2012 Olympics and quite liable to lash out at Mr
Blair for other reasons, too - respond.

John Vidal is the Guardian's environment editor