The G8 plummets in our estimations - weaker on climate than even the G20

The G8 leaders gather for the traditional 'family photo'. But on climate, there's little movement from the major economies.

It's not good news from Italy, as the G8 manage to sneak under the already low bar for action on climate set by the G20 meeting in London in April. A lack of near-term targets, fiddling the figures to buy time, a lack of detail on committing funds... It’s no wonder the less wealthy members of the Major Economies Forum – whose meeting ended today – walked away unhappy.

Why is this summit so important? Well, if we're not seeing movement or ambition on climate from the G8 countries now, it doesn't bode well for the Copenhagen climate meeting in December - particularly as countries like India and China are unlikely to be impressed with a lack of action from the rich countries.

So what are the key points of the G8 climate communiqué?

1. The (bit of) good news - 2 degrees acknowledged

All of the major economies have agreed that we need to keep temperatures below 2 degrees, including the US, which had been making noises about higher targets or perhaps 3 degrees. (Depressingly, their wobble may actually have turned out to be political gamesmanship, designed to buy them some ground to give.)

Unfortunately the recognition of 2 degrees is framed as an acknowledgement of scientific consensus, rather than a binding political commitment to stay below it. It's like the difference between accepting that smoking gives you cancer, and actually promising to give up.

When it comes to this level of geopolitics, anything other than binding commitments doesn't count for much. So, a loose acknowledgement of something (more than 2 degrees = bad) we've known for maybe almost a decade. And that's about it for the good.

2. No near-term commitments on emissions

Expressed in percentage terms, the G8 have committed to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions 80 per cent by 2050. While this is a solid step forward, 2050 is a long way away. What force can 2050 targets have on the politics of today?

It's easy to get excited about targets, but a distant target doesn't tell you anything about how you're going to achieve it. By choosing to not endorse near-term targets - for emissions cuts by 2020, for example - you suspect that the G8 are buying themselves time for inaction. Meanwhile they'll go on building coal power stations and runways on the carbon never-never.

So we need targets measured sooner than 2050. Not just because 2050 targets on their own don't hold today's politicians to account, but also because it's very unlikely that China and India will agree to comparable long term targets unless G8 countries make commitments to cut emissions much sooner. China and India worry that rich countries want to carry on with business as usual for as long as possible. On the strength of today's draft communiqué, that doesn't seem unlikely. India and China don't see this as fair, and they probably have a point.

3. Baseline years

For a long time, there's been a general (if informal) agreement that any targets for cuts in emissions will be set relative to 1990 levels. (This was the baseline year set for the first round of climate talks in Kyoto.) In the draft G8 communiqué, any such agreement seems to have evaporated. Instead, cuts will be made against the slightly confusing "1990 or more recent years".

What does this mean? It allows some countries wriggle room to push their baseline year forward, to 2005 for example. If their emissions were higher in 2005 than 1990 - as they will have been for a number of the major economies - this ultimately means more carbon in the atmosphere.

The worst case scenario is that as agreement over baseline years dissipates, global emissions could continue to rise until 2020, or even 2030. The longer global emissions keep going up, the more likely that 80 per cent cuts from rich nations will end up being inadequate, whatever the baseline.

4. Financing

This policy stuff is all very well, but what about the money? Financing, in the lingo, refers to money paid by rich countries (ie us) to less-developed countries, to help them adapt to climate change, green their economies, stop deforestation and develop in a clean way.

On financing the G8 are pretty dodgy. They're very keen on private financing (*cough* carbon trading *cough*) but when it comes to public finance - ie actual commitments from G8 countries to help the rest of the world, there is noticeably no hard detail.

In the communiqué there's no mention of numbers, or even ballpark discussion of how much the G8 could provide. This is bad. The lack of talk about money on the table isn't going to endear the rich nations to the rest of the world, and unless the G8 actually get down to detailing how they're going to use their relative wealth to address climate change, countries like China and India are unlikely to play ball by setting emissions targets.

A few weeks ago, Gordon Brown was making noises about how rich nations should provide a hundred billion dollars a year for climate financing - but it seems like this relatively modest level of ambition has been too much for the G8.

5. Silver lining on forestry?

According to our team, the language coming out of the G8 around forests is better than expected - with reference to tackling the drivers of deforestation (like cattle ranching, soya production, etc), as well as respecting biodiversity and the rights of "many" peoples.

This is all encouraging, as there is a danger that forests become seen overwhelmingly in terms of their ability to store and sequester carbon, with concerns about biodiversity and indigenous peoples pushed aside. In this context, the more the G8 talks about biodiversity and the people for whom forests are homes, the better.

Overall: pretty bad

Despite the merest glimmer of semantic hope on forests, it's hard to feel too much gratitude towards the G8. This is a grossly underwhelming response to the challenge of climate change.

"Politicians talk, leaders act" read the banner we hung from a coal-fired power station over the Venice lagoon. It's now clear that the G8 has been a meeting of politicians, not leaders.

There are now less than six months for our politicians to turn themselves into leaders at Copenhagen. Better get on with, eh?