"We, the leaders of the G7, met in Elmau for our annual Summit on 7 and 8 June 2015."
This is the opening line of the G7 summit leader's declaration. Germany, Italy, France, United States, Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom have common economic interests and met to discuss the "complex international and economic challenges of our time."
The official communique outlines the common approach this group of countries will follow. It is a statement of principles. This one spoke directly to the issue of climate change and environmental sustainability:
"The G7 feels a special responsibility for shaping our planet's future. 2015 is a milestone year for international cooperation and sustainable development issues. The UN Climate Conference in Paris COP 21 is crucial for the protection of the global climate, the UN summit in New York will set the universal global sustainable development agenda for the years to come and the Third International Conference on Financing for Development in Addis Ababa will support the implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
"We want to provide key impetus for ambitious results. 'Think ahead. Act together' - that is our guiding principle."
Great ideas. Good sentiment. Strong commitment. But the whole document is only words and statements of intent. What exactly do the countries plan to do?
"Mindful of this goal [a low-carbon economy] and considering the latest IPCC results, we emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century. Accordingly, as a common vision for a global goal of greenhouse gas emissions reductions we support sharing with all parties to the UNFCCC the upper end of the latest IPCC recommendation of 40 to 70 per cent reductions by 2050 compared to 2010 recognizing that this challenge can only be met by a global response."
Other than the fact that this has included the idea of the "decarbonisation" of the economy by 2100, I would suggest the countries plan to continue with business as usual.
Their efforts seem to be concentrated more on dealing with the results of climate change rather than trying to stop it in the first place. And they may well be right.
By the middle of this century, the world's population will reach 11 billion people. Many expect to lead a lifestyle equivalent to that enjoyed by the citizens of the G7 countries. The demand on resources will grow exponentially.
Countries measure wealth in terms of productivity, whether through the extraction of natural resources or the production of manufactured goods. Both are heavily linked to the carbonized economy through capital investment. With 11 billion people, productivity will demand more and more energy.
The global effects on climate so far have been significant but there are still too many people who shrug their shoulders and say "What can we do about it?" With 11 billion people, that number will likely grow as education falls further behind.
Simply put, we have economic and demographic forces working against us.
The leaders at the G7 conference all know this. They also likely know there is little they can do to stop the tidal wave without drastically changing our collective mindset about wealth. Hence, their strategies appear to be more focused on mitigating the damage than averting it.
They have committed to an elimination of fossil fuels from the economy by the end of this century but that is going to happen regardless as oil and natural gas reserves are depleted. Coal will be the only fossil fuel left.
So, is it all hopeless? Is there nothing left to do but wait for the inevitable?
I don't believe so. I think hiding our heads in the sand and pretending the issue doesn't exist is entirely the wrong strategy. It does seem to be the Conservatives' approach, though. It is also appears to be the conservative approach.
Instead of denying, let's embrace climate change. Let's recognize it is an opportunity. Let's prepare ourselves to be leaders in the new economy. Let's move towards developing the technology and knowledge to have a decarbonized economy.
In some ways, British Columbia is a leader. We already have an incredibly green electrical supply system - although it could be greener. Yes, hydro dams produce electricity at a carbon dioxide emission cost that is a fraction of other sources but why use dams in the first place?
I have expressed my dislike for the carbon tax many times. It is not the tax, per se, that I have an issue with but how the money is used. Instead of giving it back to industry, why not use it to fund programs that would see the greening of the province? How about requiring every government building to be carbon neutral?
We have the money to do it. Do we have the will?
