President Barack Obama unveils major economies climate forum

[cal04]

Source: Agence France-Presse

US President Barack Obama has stepped into the battle to combat global warming unveiling an international forum of 17 major economies to speed up work towards a key UN accord.

Dubbed the Major Economics Forum on Energy and Climate, Obama invited 16 other nations to join the United States at talks to be hosted in Washington at the end of April.

The April 27-28 preparatory talks will be followed by a summit of the 17 leaders to be held in Italy in July, aiming to help hammer out a new agreement to curb greenhouse gases to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

"The Major Economies Forum will facilitate a candid dialogue among key developed and developing countries, help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the UN climate change negotiations,'' the White House said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25258757-601,00.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. That's my community organizer!

[Ghost Dog]

2. Explanations will have to be demanded and given as to why Spain is excluded -

because of its center-left government and in spite of its renewable energy developmental commitment and expertise, perhaps? The Spanish-speaking world represented only by 'rightist', US-beholden Mexico is a poor show.

The 17 major economies are Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25258757-601,00.html

List of countries by GDP (nominal) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

2007 List by the International Monetary Fund<1>

Rank ↓ Country ↓ GDP (millions of USD) ↓
— Flag of World World 54,584,918<4>
— European Union 16,905,620<4>
1 United States 13,840,000
2 Japan 4,381,576
3 Germany 3,320,913
4 China (PRC) 3,280,224h
5 United Kingdom 2,804,437
6 France 2,593,779
7 Italy 2,104,666
8 Spain 1,439,983
9 Canada 1,436,086
10 Brazil 1,313,590
11 Russia 1,289,535
12 India 1,150,695
13 Mexico 1,022,816
14 South Korea 969,871
15 Australia 908,990
16 Netherlands 777,241
17 Turkey 659,276
18 Sweden 454,839
19 Belgium 453,283
20 Indonesia 432,944

2008 List by the CIA World Factbook<3>
Rank ↓ Country ↓ GDP (millions of USD) ↓
— Flag of World World 78,360,000
— European Union 18,930,000
1 United States 14,330,000
2 Japan 4,844,000
3 China (PRC) 4,222,000
4 Germany 3,818,000
5 France 2,987,000
6 United Kingdom 2,787,000
7 Italy 2,399,000
8 Russia 1,757,000
9 Spain 1,683,000
10 Brazil 1,665,000
11 Canada 1,564,000
12 India 1,237,000
13 Mexico 1,143,000
14 Australia 1,069,000
15 Netherlands 909,500
16 South Korea 857,500
17 Turkey 798,900
18 Poland 567,400
19 Belgium 530,600
20 Saudi Arabia 528,300

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. 2 explanations: there's an EU representative, as well as 4 other EU countries

and Spain is actually the 18th largest carbon dioxide emitter, so might not be expected to be separately represented. From the list of biggest emitters, they have left out Iran and Saudi Arabia, and put in an EU representative, and Indonesia (22nd in the emitter list, but they are likely to go up, as a developing country, and they represent a part of the world a bit different from the others there)

The CO2 rankings, via The Guardian: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=phNtm3LmDZEP4Ou7jpeRQbA&gid=1

Sorry, but 'language spoken' isn't really relevant. Spain is an EU country, and that characterises its environmental position much better.

[Ghost Dog]

4. Thanks, I was looking for a carbon dioxide emissions ranking list

(although CO2 is not the only factor in climate change and other environmental challenges, of course).

Yes, I'd considered the factors you point out as regards who's in this group (as well as the formal G20 group, etc.), and mostly I'd agree. But I'd suggest that both the EU and the 'anglo-saxon' countries are over-represented, here and elsewhere, and so are 'laissez-faire free-marketeers' in general. France may be a partial exception to this last, and where are Scandinavian countries that may have relevant and instructive points of view?

Language spoken may not be so relevant, but culture is. For reasons of relevance, and if numbers must be limited, EU over-representation (and over-fragmentation) aside, I'd recommend leaving Italy out and inviting Spain in, here and elsewhere.

Anyway, no one here really expects the way 'top tables' are organised to change greatly overnight; but everyone expects Spain to truly 'arrive' one day very soon. The forthcoming April 6–7 meeting in Istanbul, with Pres. Obama present, of the 'Alliance of Civilisations' (Mr. Zapatero's initiative) will be interesting, I predict, if permitted MSM coverage in the English-speaking world...

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Size (of population, or emissions, or perhaps GDP) matters

The Scandinavian countries are all small in those regards, and Spain is smaller than Italy in them too. Culturally, Spain is quite similar to Italy and France, and not far off Germany and the UK (to which the Scandinavian countries are somewhat similar).

I'd think that, for 'worldwide' representation, there's more of a case for adding an Arab country (or Iran, or Turkey), and increasing the sub-Saharan representation beyond South Africa (Nigeria, perhaps?).

[Ghost Dog]

6. All true. But also, surely, at this stage,

there is not only the urgent matter of 'doing something', but also the vital questions, Do exactly what? How?

Representatives from many countries that do not usually sit in on imperial councils may have many relevant ideas in both these areas, particularly in terms of feasible implementations in local/regional cultures. Biochar applications would be only one example here.

We shall see. This Obama initiative (from a still non-Kioto signatory, I believe) may yet turn out to have more to do with economics-as-usual than with environmental concerns, I fear.

Hmmm. EU may be over-represented, and all the NAFTA countries are represented. Why an EU rep. at all, in fact, when there's nothing from, eg. Mercasur or, eg. the African Union, or eg. ASEAN?

I think there's an urgent need to revisit the way these councils of the powerful and/or supposedly wise are constituted. And the UN itself, of course, is long overdue for a fundamental Reformation.

Edit: BTW, what the hell is Australia doing emitting all that CO2? Or is methane being included in the Guardian's figures?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. I agree there's a case for not having an EU rep there

While the rest of the EU is an important area for the environment, I'd think the member countries already in the meeting could represent it adequately.

Australia has a lot of coal, and they use it for electricity production - 8th most in the world (South Africa consumes even more coal): http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_con-energy-coal-consumption

And, being a big country, it's transport emissions are considerable (one reason it's unlikely the US will ever get their per capita emissions as low as most European countries).

[Ghost Dog]

12. Ah, I see now that Pres. Obama, although he will be in Istanbul

coinciding with the Alliance of Civilisations meeting, will not make an appearance.

So, this is a snub. Very sad.

[cal04]

8. U.S. to push for U.N. climate deal but no "magic wand"

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/3/29/worldupdates/2009-03-29T203722Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-387667-2&sec=Worldupdates

U.S. President Barack Obama's administration promised to push for a new global treaty to fight global warming at United Nations climate talks on Sunday but cautioned it had no magic wand.

"The United States is going to be powerfully and fully engaged," U.S. special envoy for climate change Todd Stern said at the opening of 175-nation U.N. talks in Bonn.

"But we are all going to have to do this together, we don't have a magic wand," he told a news conference at the March 29-April 8 meeting in Bonn, the first since Obama took office. The U.S. delegation was greeted by applause at the opening.

Stern said the United States wanted to work for a treaty that was economically "doable" and that countries could not expect Washington to "ride in on a white horse" to solve the problem. "We can't," he said.


President Obama takes climate change lead
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25260905-601,00.html

[Ghost Dog]

9. But, economically "doable" in the judgement of which economists?

And which financial interests?

[stillcool]

10. I would say global financial interests..

the ones that own the fed, maybe?

[Ghost Dog]

13. That appears to be what we can expect

from this White House Administration, as always since Kennedy.

It intends to establish the "political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the UN climate change negotiations." Where a "successful outcome" in fact should involve striking a quite radically new balance between economic activity and both long-term environmental sustainability AND an urgent need to rectify seriously damaging environmental disruption caused by fossil-fuel consumption and associated energy and chemical industries.

Up until now, the "economic activity" side of the equation has dominated.

Can Obama deliver real change here?

[FreakinDJ]

11. Lets not talk about all the goods manufactured in China

with NO ecological standards in place

[Ghost Dog]

14. Oh, but we certainly should.

But I do get the impression that the Chines government knows that it must impose ecological as well as health and safety and other economic regulation.

But it won't be something that can easily be achieved just by order, overnight, the Chinese being such a huge and complex, and possibly generically corrupt society as it is.

[Ghost Dog]

15. White House Press Release and NYT comment here:

The White House just announced plans for a series of meetings on energy and climate change among “key” developed and developing countries. The forum appears to be President Obama’s effort to build on exchanges and partnerships that began under the Bush administration as the Major Economies Meetings on Energy Security and Climate Change.

Mr. Bush’s initiative was criticized by some countries and environmental groups as kind of an end run around international climate-treaty negotiations that involved all countries, small and large. (Those talks have lately focused on providing aid and technology to poor countries.) But some environmentalists credited the effort for engaging China and India, countries emerging as the dominant emitters of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.

/... http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/obama-creates-forum-on-energy-climate/

If this series of meetings succeeds in its aim to "advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions", then we are at least moving in the right direction. The most significant decisions will be agreed, hopefully, at the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen.