Bargaining on policy issues to be dealt with at the Group of Eight summit in the German resort of Heiligendamm built up this week, with global warming topping the list. This is as it should be, since this threat is the most urgent and difficult facing humanity over the next decade. It must be tackled effectively above all by these, the most developed and industrialised economies, if progress is to be made towards stopping and reversing the increase in carbon gas emissions responsible for climate change.
Whatever about the G8's shortcomings in terms of representation and political accountability, it brings together leaders of the United States, Germany, Japan, Russia, France, the UK, Italy and Canada, thereby packing a powerful economic and political punch. Also attending will be the president of the European Commission and a grouping of five influential states - China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa. So there is a presence here of political leaders capable of making a real difference to the shape of policy on global warming, world trade, aid for poor African states, as well as issues involving Iran and Kosovo, the main G8 agenda items.
Yesterday in Dublin the Indian scientist Dr Rajendra K. Pachauri, head of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), spelled out the challenges involved. He said President George Bush's announcement that the US is to take an international initiative on reducing carbon emissions was a "pleasant surprise" which recognises that these emissions must be cut. But the right policy framework has to be found for that task, Dr Pachauri insisted, referring to the hard G8 bargaining. This pitches Mr Bush together with India and China against those such as the summit host, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, and EU leaders who support explicit limits on gas emissions and a timetable to be agreed by 2009 for replacing the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
It is impossible to see how the increase in global carbon gas emissions can be stopped and reversed by 2017 - as the IPCC insists is necessary if grave risks of qualitative environmental change are to be avoided - unless such targets are agreed and a binding international methodology is found to implement them. Mr Bush wants to get the key players to agree a target over the next 18 months. But such a process already exists. It is opportunist and short-sighted to subvert it by making an alliance with states such as China and India which are responsible for far less of the emissions than the US but refuse to commit themselves until they see convincing evidence that the most developed states will make the first move.
Ms Merkel faces a tough fight next week to achieve a target date for these cuts, but she deserves support. Even if agreement is not reached at Heiligendamm, the bargaining will go on at another United Nations summit in Bali next December. The pressure must be kept up to ensure that an agreement is reached by then.