G8

Scanning the news for stories on climate change can be depressing. For example, I read this week about a report put out by the Green New Deal Group that says that humanity has only 100 months or less to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere before we hit a potential point of no return. According to a BBC report the group says that rising greenhouse gas emissions, combined with escalating food and energy costs, mean the globe is facing one of its biggest crises since the 1930s.  When I saw the headline it made me pause. 100 months - that's a little over eight years.  Not much time in my opinion.

Then I read another article (actually several) - that the G8 leaders had agreed to back a 50% cut in GHG emissions by 2050 without identifying any specific or binding medium-term targets. Yikes.  After all, it is widely agreed that we must reduce GHG emissions by at least 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 if we are to have any chance of beating back the worst of climate change. Based on the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this consensus holds that preventing global mean temperature from rising above the critical threshold of 2 degrees centigrade in the 21st century will require radical cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 80-90% by 2050. The 25-40% below 1990 levels reductions is an intermediate target on the path to achieving this goal. The G8 "commitment" of about half of this 2050 target is, quite frankly, a joke.  

Daily News (07/06) features Michael Cohen discussing Obama's parallels with FDR.
The National (07/05) posts Peter Bergen's analysis of continuing instability in Pakistan.
The Australian (07/05) quotes Flynt Leverett on the United State's loss of influence in the global economy.
The National Interest (07/03) cites Flynt Leverett on the increasing irrelevance of the G8.
Time (07/02) features Peter Bergen debating if Osama Bin Laden still matters in today's political climate.