The G77: “A deal that cannot save god, humanity and nature is a deal that we should not entertain in the first place.”

By Annie Shattuck

I am coming out of a briefing at the climate summit in Copenhagen by the G77, the coalition of developing countries that includes India and China. The coalition is supporting a lower overall limit on temperature increases, demanding radical, rapid reductions in emissions, and technology and financial arrangements to support adaptation, saying “A deal that cannot save god, humanity and nature is a deal that we should not entertain in the first place.”

The G77 also specifically called out large environmental groups in the U.S. for supporting lower overall reduction targets, saying “Whether you think it is tactically shrewd or not it is an error you should not continue to make.” The delegate continued to say that groups who continue to support lower target numbers have effectively “sided with a small group of industrialists and their representatives” at the expense of the poor.

There are three key issues at play – the first is limiting global temperature rises. The U.S has indicated it would support limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, a level that the top UN scientific body, the IPCC, says would effectively warm Africa 3.5 degrees on average – a level of warming the G77 is now calling a “death sentence.”

The second issue at hand is limiting emissions to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Developing nations are asking for cuts that go deeper, faster. Saying, “the idea that you start from 4% today and you achieve 80% or 50% in 2050” as some proposals from the developed world have offered, “simply means that you don’t care about the lives of the people who would be devastated in this period until you pick up the pace.”

The third issue, and one that is being significantly misconstrued in the media is the issue of climate debt. The G77’s position articulated this afternoon asks for between $400 and $500 billion dollars to help poor countries adapt to and mitigate climate change. The delegate also cited the importance of technology sharing, to help developing countries rapidly convert to renewable energy.

The G77’s demand of 1.5 degrees maximum echoes the demands of the Alliance of Small Island States, without a doubt the clear moral voice in negotiations, whose mantra “1.5 to Stay Alive!” has until recently only barely made it into the U.S. climate debate.

The demand – “1.5 to Stay Alive” – is especially salient in the context of the food crisis. Without significant, genuine, immediate action, the world’s food systems, and especially those of Africa, will suffer significant water shortages and crop failure. With over 1 billion hungry people in the world, “1.5 to Stay Alive” is an imperative we cannot afford to underestimate.

Getting the right targets into the agreement is only the first challenge. The real test of global commitment will come in the implementation. As is, many of the proposed mechanisms for achieving this (or any other target) are deeply flawed, and open to corporate manipulation.