I posted
yesterday about the Pittsburgh G-20 summit—Friday's big meeting for 20 world leaders to wax economical. And although the G-20 did address some pressing concerns to the global economy, it's open to debate whether the G-20 didn't leave climate change issues out in the cold (or, um, the rising atmospheric heat).
To be fair, climate change was
mentioned at the summit, but the G-20 attendees failed to pass anything specific. They promised to eventually phase out fossil fuel subsidies, which represent $300 billion in global capital that could be better spent on environmental protection and green technology—or, at the very least, we could stop spending it on fossil fuel subsidies. Cutting these should give companies more of an incentive to put their money in environmentally-friendly methods and research, according to
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Still, all the G-20 leaders actually did was task their financial ministers to come up with phase-out timetables in time for the group's next meeting in November, which,
The Post-Gazette says, they had originally promised to do in Pittsburgh. Well, the G-20 also pledged to communicate green technology advances with each other to facilitate progress—but that's not exactly tangible either.
More important than the November deadline, it seems, is the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change forum slated for December in Copenhagen. This is where, hopefully, some planet-saving legislation will make it past the planning stages. But that argument works on both sides: Environmental activists say the G-20 should be thinking green
now to prepare for Copenhagen, while the opposition argues for global leaders to postpone their eco-planning
until Copenhagen, because that's what Copenhagen is for.
I realize I fell into a sort of tree-hugging tone for this post, but I'm actually sort of split. The literal definition of the G-20 limits its domain to "key issues related to global economic stability," and whether that includes climate change is open to debate. I don't want glaciers to melt and polar bears to die and sea the level to rise (I just moved to Manhattan,
an island, after all) but the economy is likewise in shambles—perhaps it is appropriate to discuss the matters separately.
Do you think the G-20 should give lip service to climate change? How important are green jobs and green technology to the economy?
Comments (1)
I think they should only discuss climate change in terms of economic affect at the G20, leave the environment as a whole to copenhagen. Green jobs/technology affect the economy in different ways, some good, some bad.