Pragmatic on the Climate
June 8, 2007
Advertisement
Italy's La Stampa called the compromise a "disappointing agreement," but was moderate in its assessment. "There are two central elements in the climate accord that will be officially presented this Friday: one, the necessity to 'decisively' reduce greenhouse gases. The other one -- which marks the real political success of the summit -- is that once the Kyoto Protocol (which the US has never ratified) expires in 2012, the framework for combating climate change will be under the auspices of the United Nations. It was difficult to achieve anything more at the summit with such deep divisions among leaders over the issue -- the Europeans, with the support of Japan and Canada, on the one hand, and the Americans and Russians on the other."
France's Libération took a much tougher approach. "Just like at the UN, at the G8 the devil is in the details. President George W. Bush, as head of the largest polluting country in the world, did not want binding commitments for reducing CO2 emissions. He did not give in. The climate accord does outline that which was so precious to the Europeans: a 50 percent reduction by 2050, but it merely says that should 'be considered.' The accord lacks any firm commitment whatsoever. It is a compromise that lets everyone at the summit save face. (…) No one admitted it, but some people surely thought quite clearly: this compromise is a bet on the near future, one in which people are placing a lot of hope -- a new era for the climate simply called "the period after Bush."
Switzerland's Tages-Anzeiger agreed. "What the powerful (…) are selling as a success is primarily a way for them to save face: thanks to non-binding agreements, host Chancellor Angela Merkel does not have to stand there empty-handed. Bush's willingness after all to work together on a treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, under the auspices of the UN, keeps him from looking like the bad guy. It is a weak signal, however, for the UNO environment conference at the end of the year in Bali. (…) Merkel overestimated her global-political influence in the climate protection arena."
Austria's Die Presse said that G8 success on the climate was limited. "It (the accord) could not exactly be called the breakthrough of the century. Greenpeace activists -- the self-proclaimed guardians of the environment -- reacted promptly when they called the outcome of the climate talks "far too little." At the Baltic sea resort Heiligendamm, the absolute claims of starry-eyed idealists once again clashed with the sober pragmatism of world leaders representing their own national interestss. Coming to an agreement is normally next to impossible in situations like that. That was also evident after Chancellor Merkel's talk with Bono and Bob Geldof. Bono apparently became depressed because Merkel did not agree to enough aid for Africa. As if G8 leaders should beckon to the calls of rock stars. Smart rock stars always say politics is not their business. But smart politicians should also avoid selling vague declarations of intent as major steps."
Germany's Financial Times Deutschland put it succintly: "In terms of Chancellor Merkel's own high expectations about climate talks at the summit, she has failed. But in terms of what was realistic, she has succeeded at the meeting of world leaders in Heiligendamm."
France's Libération took a much tougher approach. "Just like at the UN, at the G8 the devil is in the details. President George W. Bush, as head of the largest polluting country in the world, did not want binding commitments for reducing CO2 emissions. He did not give in. The climate accord does outline that which was so precious to the Europeans: a 50 percent reduction by 2050, but it merely says that should 'be considered.' The accord lacks any firm commitment whatsoever. It is a compromise that lets everyone at the summit save face. (…) No one admitted it, but some people surely thought quite clearly: this compromise is a bet on the near future, one in which people are placing a lot of hope -- a new era for the climate simply called "the period after Bush."
Switzerland's Tages-Anzeiger agreed. "What the powerful (…) are selling as a success is primarily a way for them to save face: thanks to non-binding agreements, host Chancellor Angela Merkel does not have to stand there empty-handed. Bush's willingness after all to work together on a treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, under the auspices of the UN, keeps him from looking like the bad guy. It is a weak signal, however, for the UNO environment conference at the end of the year in Bali. (…) Merkel overestimated her global-political influence in the climate protection arena."
Austria's Die Presse said that G8 success on the climate was limited. "It (the accord) could not exactly be called the breakthrough of the century. Greenpeace activists -- the self-proclaimed guardians of the environment -- reacted promptly when they called the outcome of the climate talks "far too little." At the Baltic sea resort Heiligendamm, the absolute claims of starry-eyed idealists once again clashed with the sober pragmatism of world leaders representing their own national interestss. Coming to an agreement is normally next to impossible in situations like that. That was also evident after Chancellor Merkel's talk with Bono and Bob Geldof. Bono apparently became depressed because Merkel did not agree to enough aid for Africa. As if G8 leaders should beckon to the calls of rock stars. Smart rock stars always say politics is not their business. But smart politicians should also avoid selling vague declarations of intent as major steps."
Germany's Financial Times Deutschland put it succintly: "In terms of Chancellor Merkel's own high expectations about climate talks at the summit, she has failed. But in terms of what was realistic, she has succeeded at the meeting of world leaders in Heiligendamm."
Advertisement