3rd Major Economies Meeting, April 2008

General Information

• This Major Economies Meeting is taking place in Paris, France, April 17 and 18, and is the third official “Major Economies Meeting” (MEM)
• The first MEM was held in Washington, DC in September 2007.  Reactions by foreign officials to the September meeting expressed disappointment in the lack of new initiatives put forward by the Bush administration, and general ambivalence about continued participation in such meetings.  Participation in a second meeting was conditioned upon a successful conclusion of UNFCCC talks in Bali.  The second MEM was held in Honolulu, Hawaii in January 2008.  Reactions to this meeting were less negative than the first, indicating that there has been useful exchange of ideas,  but no tangible outcomes.  An informal MEM was also held in Chiba, Japan in March 2008, with a small subset of participant countries focused on drafting a leaders’ statement possibly to be released this summer.
• The Paris proceedings are largely closed to the press and completely closed to NGO participation.  Requests for NGO observer status were denied.
• 16 Participants have been invited—Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and the United Kingdom
• The countries most at risk from impacts of climate change – the least-developed and small island developing countries – are not even invited to be at the table for this conference.  In total, over 160 UN countries are excluded.
• A workshop will be held in conjunction with the Paris MEM to explore “sectoral” approaches to climate change.  The Bush Administration and Japan have been strong proponents of addressing climate change emissions from specific sectors.  This idea has not been widely accepted and there is no shared or established understanding about what is meant by a sectoral approach, how it would relate to a binding national target for developed countries, and how it would apply to developing country emissions. The 1-day workshop was organized by the French government and the French think tank IDDRI and will take place in the Centre de Conferences International on April 16th.

Addressing Global Warming

• In order to have the best chance at avoiding the most dangerous effects of climate change, the science says warming must be kept to well below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.  To stay below 2 degrees of warming, we must act quickly – emissions must peak within a decade and  developed countries must reduce emissions by at least 25-40% from 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050.
• Major emitters have the power to agree on a road forward that would keep us below 2 degrees of warming.  That road requires binding mandatory targets for developed countries. These are necessary to ensure that emissions remain within “safe” levels and that global carbon markets function successfully.
• Many of America’s top companies recognize the need for mandatory targets.  More than two dozen of the largest U.S. companies have banded together with leading environmental organizations in a U.S. Climate Action Partnership to press for domestic cap and trade legislation to start cutting American emissions now, and to ramp them down 60-80 percent by 2050.
• Any global plan to address climate change must address the needs of those countries most vulnerable to global warming impacts. This means that countries must accelerate action to provide funds for adaptation as some countries are facing debilitating impacts now.
•  In Bali, industrialized countries agreed to negotiate new commitments.  For their part, developing countries have agreed to consider appropriate measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation actions but these new actions will require agreement on technology and financing support from developed countries.

Bush’s Vision and Approach

• Despite a change in rhetoric, the Bush administration continues to push for approaches that have no hope of addressing global warming effectively – refusing to consider an economy-wide absolute emission reduction target for the U.S.  Additionally, in its communications around the MEM the administration takes credit for initiatives that were enacted by Congress either over its opposition or without active support, and which constitute only a modest down payment toward the necessary level of emissions reductions
• The Major Economies process looks like a run-out-the-clock tactic for the Bush Administration.  They realize that this may be their last chance to lock in their approach before a new US administration with a stronger position on global warming comes into office.
• All of the leading US Presidential candidates support binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions through a cap and trade system.  It is clear that the next administration will support a serious and binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Big Emitters (aka Major Economies) Meetings

• The countries most at risk from impacts of climate change are not even invited to be at the table for this conference.  Therefore the result is likely to be in the interest of the polluters, not the victims.
• The Big Emitters process is another attempt by the outgoing Administration to avoid taking on its fair share of the responsibility to avoid a climate catastrophe.  It must not distract from the crucial work over the next two years under the Bali Action Plan agreed to agree on a post-2012 global climate regime.
• The first Major Economies Meeting was by most accounts a failure.  Many country delegates left the meeting publicly voicing frustration that the Bush Administration had brought nothing new to the table and had continued push voluntary approaches that have no hope of succeeding to limit dangerous climate change.
• The second Major Economies Meeting did not produce the harsh criticisms of the first, but also did not produce any tangible outcomes.  Participants described useful discussions, yet no statement was released after the meeting and discussions in the meeting did not reach any concrete conclusions.
• An informal Major Economies Meeting held in March was a small meeting of a drafting subcommittee, tasked with producing a leaders’ statement to be released in the summer of 2008.  This meeting included testy closed-door exchanges between developed and developing countries, with little support for the draft text.

Recent Statements on the Major Economies Process

and the Bush Administration

“The balance has to come from everybody, all the representative groups, being around the table. Not specialised specific groups which have almost the same purpose -- that's a problem…The major economies process and the outcome of the G8 meeting last year very clearly recognises that there is only one place where the real negotiations happen and that's the (UN) Convention on Climate Chang…It is almost a defensive move by a club of people who have been the cause of the major problems…Naturally they are going to see how to create a so-called solution which will have least impact on themselves, where they have to make the least contribution,”
Byron Blake, representative of current Group of 77 Chair Antigua and Barbuda (source: AFP, March 31, 2008)


“We haven't been invited to either of those processes…We need to have a global consensus on climate change, so to have a separate process that is not completely inclusive is not that helpful.”
-Espen Ronneberg, advisor to the Alliance of Small Island States (source: AFP, March 31, 2008)


“The nature of the U.S.' commitment ... is unclear, and I suspect we're not going to get a clear signal from the U.S. until after the next election…The uncertainty is troubling, particularly for highly vulnerable countries, like small island states.”
-Ian Fry, representative for Tuvalu (source: AFP, March 31, 2008)

"Yes, the time has come for international commitments, and if the principle of the meeting of these great economies is possible, it has go hand in hand with quantified commitments from developed countries…Otherwise, a discussion of means without targets runs the risk of making things even more incomprehensible."
-French Environment Minister, in Bali, December 2007

"It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade…I have never heard a more humiliating speech by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total failure."
-Senior European diplomat on the September 2007 MEM (source:  The Guardian, Sept. 29, 2007)


"It's a cynical exercise in destabilising the UN process."
-European Participant in the September 2007 MEM (source:  The Independent, Sept. 27, 2007)