With the G-8 (plus one) ramping up, countries have been falling all over themselves to present plans to reduce global warming by cutting carbon emissions. A funny thing happened on the way to Germany — the rug has been pulled out from under the Kyoto protocol (hopefully, finally for once and for all) and the European-led push to foist economically harmful carbon emission cuts on the world. It seems that the many of the world ‘s fast developing countries — and several of the already industrialized ones — have ceased leaning Europe’s way and are now swinging towards the U.S. position. (In reality, with relation to concrete actions to absolutely reduce emissions, as opposed to in rhetoric, they were already in the U.S. camp.)

While much was made of the Bush administration’s push for an international agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, in outline, at least, the agreement looks a great deal like what the administration was already doing — calling for increased efficiency and the development and deployment of new technologies to reduce the future growth of greenhouse gas emissions relative to energy use or economic growth (the carbon intensity)– but not, and this is key, relative to some historic level of carbon emissions.

China, Canada, and even Japan (where Kyoto was stillborn in 1997) have all evidently come to the conclusion that this is the only realistic way to respond to climate change if they wish to ensure continued economic growth and sustain prosperity. Each of these countries now has joined the U.S. in presenting “visions” of reduced emissions without binding targets. This was clearly shaped by the recognition on the part of Canada, Japan, and other countries that agreed, under Kyoto, to binding reductions within a short-time span, that they will not meet their mandated goals.

While new technology is (or can be) a good thing vis-a-vis sustaining growth while improving efficiency, there is nothing in these “visions” that will reduce carbon emissions by some absolute amount; they will only moderate the growth of emissions. Accordingly, if human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for most of the current warming trend (which, don’t get me wrong, I’m not conceding), then warming will continue.

If warming continues, and will result in some bad things happening to some people in some regions — it will exacerbate problems that populations already face — is there a response available that will reduce the harm. Happily, yes: Adaptation. Even the IPCC recognizes adapation is a necessary component of a planed response to climate change; they just don’t think adaptation will do enough. I would argue that adaptation is the only appropriate response. (My reasons are detailed in this study.)