G7 Makes Pronouncements To Do Something About ‘Climate Change’, Are Rather Short On Details

That all these world leaders took long fossil fueled trips to England, other than Boris Johnson, the head of the UK, is not mentioned. Why couldn’t China Joe have given Canada’s Justin Trudeau a ride? They had big fossil fueled retinues to get to the meeting. Why couldn’t they have done a Zoom or some other teleconference?

G7 leaders share a bold vision for a net zero future. But the devil is in the lack of detail

Climate change is rarely a main talking point at the G7 leaders’ summit, but as US President Joe Biden proclaimed that “America is back at the table” on the final day of this year’s meeting, by extension, so too was climate change.

Past summits with Donald Trump representing the United States struggled to culminate in cohesive group statements between its members — the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Canada, plus the European Union. But in the English county of Cornwall over the weekend, leaders appeared to agree that this is the crucial decade that will determine the world’s future, even its very existence.

There was concrete progress earlier in the summit from G7 ministers, and a vision laid out by leaders for a net zero world (where all greenhouse gases emitted are removed from the atmosphere) that would take a green approach to everything, from the economic recovery from the pandemic to the way new infrastructure is built in the developing world.

They can have all the vision they want: they need to approval of the Citizens. Or, are they good with authoritarianism? Will they take a “green approach” in their own lives? Considering Biden jumped back in his jumbo jet and flew to Brussels after the G7, that would be a big “no.”

What was lacking in the final communiqué, however, was the detail that climate change experts were hoping for.

G7 meetings are notorious for making bold promises only to break them. Often world leaders’ vision just isn’t backed by lawmakers at home.

This year, there were some ambitious collective targets, to halve emissions by 2030 from 2010 levels, for example, but no individual country increased its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and goals were set with no firm deadlines or measurables. In cases where they were, they were largely underwhelming.

Yeah, well, the People have the power to make the decision, and this stuff is popular in theory, not in practice

The leaders said, for example, that they would aim to reach net zero by 2050 at the latest. That’s about 20 years too late, according to Catherine Pettengell, interim head of the UK’s branch of Climate Action Network, which represents more than 1,500 civil society organizations in over 130 countries.

“We were really expecting to see the G7 step up and send a strong signal ahead of COP26 that they’ve really done their homework and were ready to act,” she told CNN, referring to international climate change talks planned in Glasgow later this year.

If this stuff is so important why do so few Warmists practice what they preach?