The New Republic

So, the G-8 is having its annual hog roast in Japan this
week. It seems to be an event almost duty-bound to foster prickly confrontations.
Will freshmen Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy try to impress the
machismo-inducing Angela Merkel? Will the resurrected Silvio Berlusconi be re-initiated
with a sound paddling? How will Dmitri Medvedev's soul fare under W's steely
gaze? Etc.

A more important concern for those watching the strange
social experiment is climate
change. Not that we should be holding our breath for the G-8. It's been a subject of peripatetic
interest to the major industrial nations for years. In 2001, Bush arrived in Genoa for his first summit determined to jettison Kyoto, and has since blustered annually on binding agreements to
cut greenhouse gases. When Americans hosted the summit in 2004, we didn't even
put climate change on the agenda. (Unsurprising for a president who's claimed
"there's no such thing as being too closely aligned with the oil business.")
Tony Blair and Angela Merkel got the energy crisis back on the table in 2005
and 2007, and, for their part, the Japanese have placed it front and center
once more in 2008.

Discussions are reportedly treating environmental concerns
in interdisciplinary fashion--appropriately enough, given this shocking new Guardian scoop on the role of biofuel
advocacy in the food crisis. The first goal, of course, is resolving the game
of chicken between developing nations and the equally stubborn United States
on emissions. YaleEnviro360 rounds it up:

The EU and environmental groups pressed the U.S. to commit to a 50 percent reduction
in CO2 emissions by 2050. Arguing that the “50 by 50” goal and a midterm
target for 2020 are essential for global cooperation, advocates pointed out
that China and India have refused to set emission-reduction
goals until developed countries, especially the U.S., do so first. However,
President Bush has refused to set explicit numeric goals unless developing
nations make binding commitments of their own…. European Commission President
Jose Manuel Barroso said if G8 nations agree on a 50 percent reduction target,
“then we are in a much better position for discussions with our Chinese partners
and others.”

And round and round. Apparently, no one wants to hokey pokey at the G-8--even
when it's for face-saving baby cuts that have ecologically negligible impact.

But the quest
for catholic action may find another
outlet: Last week, the World Bank decided to establish "two investment
funds to help developing economies switch to clean-energy technologies to curb
carbon emissions and help poor countries adapt to climate change. The so-called
"Clean Technology Fund" and "Strategic Climate Fund" are pretty darn good news for those who'd prefer to take on the demand side of our energy crisis via investment, and despite the big problems with the cash-only approach, the funds are likely to get across-the-board
backing from the G-8. Already, Britain, Japan and--oho!--the US are in for the $4 to $5 billion required to get the gears turning.

So maybe good old crony capitalism is the optimal means of collective energy action. It seems that even the Mean Girls of the G-8 can agree that clean tech is worth having--perhaps because it's so
profitable when taken to scale. (Watch
Russia
though--petrostates tend not to care who your momma is; and the World Bank has its own well-documented inefficiencies.) It’s at least the
smartest way to break a procedural stalemate, and to share best practices on energy efficiency and clean
technology across the public and private sector. With
our dollars/yen/euros combined…

--Dayo Olopade

(cross-posted on the Vine, which has green like you've never seen.) 

share this article on facebook or twitter print this article