The language of global warming in G7/8 Communiqués, 1990-2005

By: K. Jan Oosthoek

While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gasses . . .

The Gleneagles Communiqué, G8 Meeting 2005, Scotland

When the G8 leaders met in Scotland in July 2005 one of the issues at the top of the agenda was global warming. The language used at the G8 in Scotland can be summarized as ‘business as usual’ and the urgency of the situation was watered down in the final communiqué of the meeting, although it recognized ‘that climate change is a long-term and serious challenge’ (G8, 2005). In addition it failed to stress that present climate change is very much the product of human activity. Instead, the G8 statement attributes a considerable part of global temperature increase to natural variations. In addition, economic development is seen as the recipe to deal with the environmental impacts caused by global warming. It looks like a license for unchecked global economic expansion. Although some of the statements sound very progressive, the language used during this summit have strong reflections of the statements made at G8 meetings over a decade ago.

Climate Change Language

In the period between 1990 and 2005 the climate change language in G8 communiqués has come full circle. In the early 1990s, the then G7 recognized human-related global warming and climate change as a serious problem. They also acknowledged that scientific uncertainty should be 'no excuse to postpone actions'. The prescription for combating global warming and environmental problems in general was economic growth, the free market, and democratic systems to ensure proper accountability. The exchange of scientific data and the development of alternative technologies were also seen as key factors in dealing with global warming (Sandalow, 2005). Statements to this extent continued until 1997 when the tone of the communiqué of the Denver G8 summit changed dramatically under the influence of the publication of the second assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1995). The summit also coincided with the fifth anniversary of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Although there were considerable differences between the United States and Europe, the G8 recognized that human- induced global warming is a reality: ‘overwhelming scientific evidence links the build-up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere to changes in the global climate system’. The communiqué further stressed that drastic action to reduce greenhouse emissions was needed in the decades to come. High hopes were pinned on the third Conference of the Parties later that year in Kyoto, to come up with a timetable and a plan for drastic action (Sandalow, 2005). The Denver meeting was a summit of promise rather than achievement, but it also obscured the deep divisions that existed.

During the 1998 G8 meeting in Birmingham the British Government had allowed plenty of time for climate change, expecting a difficult exchange but no one was in the mood for this and agreement was easily reached. The group repeated that it recognized global climate change as ‘the greatest threat to future prosperity’ and it continued that they ‘welcomed the recent signature of the [Kyoto] protocol by some of us and confirm the intention of the rest of us to sign it in the next year’ (Sandalow, 2005; Bayne, 1998). Although the US initially signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, it indicated in 2001 that it would not ratify the agreement. This means that the US is not bound to meet its agreed target to reduce greenhouse emissions by seven per cent by 2012 (see for discussion: Armitage, 2005).

In the years following the Birmingham G8 meeting the language with regard to global warming remained neutral and repeated the group’s commitment to deal with global warming. It was clear to commentators that not all was well and that agreement on how to tackle global warming was a long way off, though some progress has been made. In 2003 the protection of biodiversity was added to the environmental agenda and linked to global warming. In 2004 an action plan for encouraging science and technology for sustainable development was accepted by the G8 (Sandalow, 2005). This almost squeezed out the real issue of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions and by doing so it became an issue of technical fixes, economic development and abstract science. The G8 came full circle when economic development was reinforced during 2005 meeting in Scotland, and signaled a return to the emphasis on economic and technological development of the early 1990s. This means that economic development is put above protection of the planet. In order to break out of this circle, the G8 leaders have to set international standards and legally enforceable limits on greenhouse-gas emissions and encourage life-style changes in the affluent world. However, this is a matter for future historians to consider.


References

Armitage, Kevin C. (2005) “State of Denial: The United States and the Politics of Global Warming”, Globalizations, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 417-427.

Bayne, Nicholas (1998) Impressions of the Birmingham Summit (G8 Information Centre, University of Toronto), http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/evaluations/1998birmingham/impression/index.html (Accessed, 9 February 2007).

G8 (2005) The Gleneagles Communiqué, http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1119518704554 (Accessed, 9 February 2007)

IPCC (1995) Second Assessment Climate Change (Geneva: IPCC).

Sandalow, D. (2005) G8 Summit Leaders’ Statements Climate Change Language, 1990 – 2004 (Washington: The Brookings Institution).

This is a shortened and edited version of an article that appeared in Globalizations in December 2005: Jan Oosthoek, ‘The Gleneagles G8 summit and climate change: a lack of leadership’, Globalizations, vol. 2 (2005) 3, 443-446.