G8 agree to emission cuts

...but only to 50% (of 1990 levels) by 2050.

This isn't enough.

We know from the Stern report that the world is going to warm up - the atmosphere has already reached carbon dioxide levels of 400 parts per million, 2DegC is going to happen.

So is 50% enough?
Well, according to the IEA greenhouse gas emission program, and if applied to the world rather than just to G8, it might be (see slide 8).

Of course it's unlikely to be applied to the world, G8 needs to reduce its emissions far futher than the rest of the world to try and persuade them to follow suit.

It is also a shame that the first target is not until 2050. Whilst having a target is important the way in which the target is reached is also important - if no interim targets are set it is likely that the emissions reductions would be put off until the last minute.
This is bad news - we will have emitted too much carbon by the time we have got to 2050.

It is, however, a start. A step in the right direction. Long may it continue.

The world in 2050

...will be a very different place.

However different people are constantly working out what it will look like. A projection (updated last week) from PWC suggests that it won't be that bad a place, which is nice.

They conclude that the emission reductions (both for G7 and E7 nations, Russia is part of E7 for this analysis) can be met by a 2% global reduction in GDP - i.e. the global GDP would be the same in 2051 as it would otherwise had been (with no emissions reductions) in 2050.

PWC say that this can be done with "increased energy efficiency, greater use of renewables and nuclear power, carbon capture and storage and other low carbon technologies and techniques, as well as reducing deforestation".
Makes sense.

What is interesting (apart from the confirmation of CCS) is that Greenpeace UK link to this report saying that stopping climate change is affordable.

Yet they stand against nuclear and CCS.

I don't understand.