Hot air, cool minds

The G88217;s twin communiqueacute;s on climate change and the crisis in commodity prices are deeply disappointing. On climate change, an admission that it is now a pressing enough problem, that interim targets are needed, is a useful, if sadly content-free, step 8212; though it is not an advance over what was decided at a ministerial meeting in May. The remaining aspects of the G88217;s statements are unacceptable. The G8, a group of economies which have benefited from decades of unconcern about the environment and which are still responsible for the vast majority of the earth8217;s total emissions, simply cannot shirk the responsibility of actually taking the lead in reducing those emissions. Countries such as India are struggling to break out of low-income traps; to hold the global environment hostage to their ability to meet goals similar to those the richest countries set for themselves is an argument that is, at best, bizarre 8212; even if made in good faith. A global response is called for, but one led by those most accountable, and in which all respond according to their capacity.

On international prices of food and fuel, the G8 has at least noticed that the world8217;s poor have been disproportionately affected. However, it is unfortunate that the strong data now available demonstrating that blind faith in bio-fuels could be the link between those two soaring numbers has essentially been ignored. Oddly, Europe8217;s parliament is expected to revise the EU8217;s goals for bio-fuels; Britain8217;s government has already done so following an internal report. In fact, most member-governments of the G8 have taken such steps recently. The sole exception here, as in the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, is the Bush administration, even as its appointee to the World Bank urged the summit to address the distortion in food prices created by ethanol subsidies. The United States must find the political will to rationalise its policies on these issues. Simply waiting for a change in dispensation is not enough: Senator Obama has consistently voted for and supported counter-productive legislation based on the convenient myth of environment-friendly bio-fuels; Senator McCain has indicated he would penalise industries in developing countries to create an artificially level playing field.

The prime minister has faulted the international structure of governance for not reacting to and dealing with these problems 8212; which are, in addition, partially caused by subsidies and cartels. The G88217;s communiqueacute;s have only reinforced this impression. The developing countries must make it clear, when they are invited to express their concerns today, that inaction is not an option.