Lost Opportunity: Global Warming Getting Sidelined at G-20

When leaders of the world's largest economies meet tomorrow at the G-20 summit in London, they will have an opportunity to turn some $2 trillion of stimulus funding into the foundations of a global clean energy economy.

Unfortunately, there is very little chance of that actually happening.

"I haven't heard anything that suggests the green recovery and climate change are a major part of the [G20] agenda," said Professor Robert Watson, chief scientific adviser for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

According to a draft G-20 statement reported in the Guardian, low-carbon growth receives only a brief and bland mention in resolutions 22 and 23. That's out of a list of 24. It reads:

"We will work together to explore further measures to promote low carbon growth and build sustainable economies. We reaffirm our commitment to ... reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December." 

James Hansen, climate scientist and director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, isn't impressed:

"If this is the best they can do, then their 'planet in peril' rhetoric is probably just that – empty rhetoric."

What a wasted opportunity. And a brand-new report by Lord Nicholas Stern, Toward a Global Green Recovery: Recommendations for Immediate G-20 Action, provides more proof of that.

In it, Stern, author of the influential 2006 Stern Review, makes the case that G-20 nations should commit roughly 20 percent of their stimulus dollars to low-carbon investments. Why? One reason is for short-term crisis relief.

Green recovery programs, the report explains, would "stimulate immediate private investment in low-carbon technologies, thereby developing new opportunities for employment, innovation, and wealth creation." All at a time when inputs are relatively cheap and resources and workers are available.

The other is longer term. Green investments would ensure fiscal sustainability after the economy recovers. From the report:

"Ensuring that national recovery programs are 'green' makes sense not only because climate change pose a far more serious threat to the global economy in the long term than do temporary economic downturns.

"It makes sense because otherwise, once the world economy recovers, sharply increasing energy prices are likely at some stag to trigger subsequent slowdowns. Without the transition towards a low-carbo global energy system, the next economic crisis is pre-programmed. ‘Green recovery programs are not only an option for sound and effective crisis relief; they are a precondition."

So far, G-20 nations have announced fiscal packages worth $1.6 trillion. According to Stern's estimates, at least $300 billion of that should be green. (Incidentally, that's roughly the same $200 billion to $350 billion per year that McKinsey & Company has said is required to put the whole world on a low-carbon growth path.)

To date, G-8 states have dedicated 15 percent of their stimulus packages on average to low-carbon measures, with great differences across countries. Most are far below the 20 percent goal, while a few, such as South Korea and China, are well above it. They'll be spending as much as 80.5 percent and 34.3 percent of their stimulus packages, respectively, on green initiatives.

The G-20 nations represent two-thirds of the world's population, and three quarters of global GDP, energy consumption and carbon emissions. They should do better. And they have the means.

Stern's approach is seven fold: