Hot air

The Figaro website reported yesterday that the US was blocking a common declaration by the G8 countries about climate change, ahead of the G8 summit meeting next month. Not much doubt who the villains are: "La lutte contre l’effet de serre se heurte toujours à l’opposition frontale de l’administration Bush."

Greenpeace, who launched the story by leaking a US negotiators' document, are even more scathing: "The Bush administration once again proves with this intervention that they both ignore the global scientific consensus and the rapidly rising concern in the US on climate change."

However, the Financial Times explains: "Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, would like the summit to agree limits on carbon emissions but the US says climate change should be tackled with technology-based solutions rather than mandatory emissions targets and accuses Berlin of ignoring its stance."

That's better. It acknowledges that the US is not simply a climate change denier (surreal images of stockings spring to mind), but does have a different approach to tackling what it agrees is a serious issue.

Helpfully, Greenpeace have published the leaked document. It's quite illuminating. The US position on climate change displays more of a scientist's caution than a politician's certainty (para 41). All quantitative targets have been struck out. As well as technology, there's an emphasis on economic structures, indicating more faith in market-based solutions.

As a bonus, the US language is clearer. We will...

• "support a clear and predictable policy framework to stimulate global development, commercialization, deployment and access to technologies" [original]

• "support policies to stimulate development, commercialization, and diffusion of new technologies" [US redraft]

But I think I know what really upset Greenpeace. It's paragraph 63a, where the US has added "and nuclear" onto a worthy list of clean fuels (winds, solar etc).