Perhaps what we are missing is Henry Kissinger?The writer is the shadow Environment Secretary. But what could still be achieved is the establishment of a critical path towards such an agreement. This would provide a new momentum and prevent the over-hyped Gleneagles meeting turning into a serious reverse.The right analogy for the climate change negotiations is not global poverty It is nuclear weapons and strategic arms reduction. This must mean using the framework provided by the convention - and the meeting of the convention countries in Montreal later this year - to coax the United States on one side and the emerging giants of India and China on the other into simultaneous movement. Simultaneity is the crux, because it is the fear of competitive disadvantage, rather than the fear of the absolute economic costs, that is really driving the reluctance of the three great, dynamic economies of the US, India and China to take serious action.What is needed is a system of mutually assured action, in which each party eventually agrees to a package of targets and delivery mechanisms, secure in the knowledge that all other parties are headed in the same direction.It would be wholly unrealistic to expect an agreement of mutually assured action at Gleneagles. The Prime Minister's task, as the master-negotiator, is to find a practical way of maintaining momentum.
It is not worth risking catastrophic climate change in the future for the sake of avoiding a mild reduction in the rate of global economic growth today - especially when many of the measures required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also have wider environmental benefits.The key to progress is the UN Convention on Climate Change which the last Conservative Government persuaded the US to sign. If they are wrong, and the mainstream scientists are right, the long-term price of saving some money now will be terrible.This is an unequal bet. They are betting that, by avoiding action now, we can save some eco- nomic costs in the short term, without facing an immense social and economic penalty in the long term. There are mischievous moments when one could wonder whether Mr Brown is covertly in this category.But the sceptics are taking a reckless gamble. They argue that we should not commit resources to the uncertain challenge of climate change when we could be addressing problems whose existence is certainly not in doubt - above all, global poverty. Poverty in Africa and climate change are two of the most important long-term issues facing the world But there is a danger.
By highlighting these two issues, the Prime Minister created a test for the UK Presidency. Late last year, Mr Blair set two priorities for Britain's Presidency of the G8: Africa and climate change As an analysis of priorities, this was admirable. If, despite frantic, last-minute negotiations, the G8 climate change discussion ends with a whimper rather than a bang, we won't merely have failed to move forward - we will have moved backwards. The risk is that, if the Prime Minister's hype isn't followed by visible advance, the world's media will conclude that it is all too difficult; the diplomats will become disenchanted; and the politicians will find it even more difficult to raise the necessary enthusiasm the next time round.Some sceptics will, of course, be delighted if Mr Blair's attempt to put climate change centre-stage fails. What if the G8 fails that test? On Africa, even if Gordon Brown's International Finance Facility proposal has been reduced in scale, there has been real progress But on climate change, the signs so far are not encouraging. G8 countries must work with the international financial institutions and national governments to ensure free health care and treatment for all.