Today, the G8 confirmed what many people were afraid off: the summit looked pointless. Ambiguously enough, this was also its biggest added value: the public got the occasion to express its concerns, politicians their opinion, and diverging positions are finally clear, and expressed. But what are we going to do with it?

2010 - 2020 – 2050

As far as trade is concerned, the G8+10 agreed that Doha talks must resume urgently, with a deadline set for completion in 2010. A goal which is regarded as unrealistic by most people, but doable by Obama and Barroso.

As far as energy/climate change is concerned, the countries get stuck in the 2050 horizon [cutting world emissions by 50-80%] instead of starting with settings indications for 2020, which was a necessary condition imposed by Brazil, China and India to join the discussions.

In short, neither trade talks nor energy debates have resulted in concrete results. It only ended in unrealistic goals and creative closing phrasings. This said, even if one would stay factually objective, one almost ends up in a surrealistic world: American and Russian collaborators claimed themselves that agreed upon objectives are unattainable.

Real problem

The level of (un)realism hasn’t been the only issue. During the past week, many concerns have been expressed about the added value of the actual format of G-meetings. Reflections building upon existing proposals will surely continue to bloom the coming days and weeks.

A less talked about aspect, however, is the level of preparation. Every specialist could have attained the results of the summit in Italy without it. The intermediary question, therefore, becomes: what was the real goal of the past days?

Nuclear warm-up

Let’s start with the warm-up of the G8: the talks between Obama and Mdvedev. They were clearly not aimed at ending the cold war. Even if lowering the nuclear threat is positive, this news means as such only a shift in threat. Radiation of Russian nuclear military material stored away during the previous disarmament rounds is leaking into Norway since the 90′s. Piling up more in Ozersk or Chelyabinsk simply displaces the risks to another sector.

But even this and the diplomatic habits set aside, the goal of their discussions was double. Firstly to facilitate the protection against other countries and lowering the military transport expenses. Secondly, and most importantly, to solidify their mutual positions in a macro-economic environment in which the position of the US and Russia is still oscillating.

Shaky Italian ground

In l’Aquila, the picture was less obvious.

Tradewise, the world economy is still in a slump, so do the necessary consumption drivers. The elections in India are indeed over, but many other stumbling blocks are still ahead. Most commonly, it is assumed that the goal was mainly at the US side in reviving the Doha process by showing their conviction. Or as the FT puts it: the l’Aquila agreement paves the way for a reassessment of progress at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, to be chaired by Mr Obama, who will come under international pressure if the US is seen to be intransigent.

Energywise, all the related countries started from a challenging position.

Let’s keep in mind that climate change issues are indeed in an intermediate position. In the US, the climate change bill still has to be approved which will be far from easy. In Europe, governments are still desperately trying to strengthen their position and consultation rounds are still ongoing [public consultation on future ETS auctioning rules, for example, are open until Aug 3^rd and decisions about the delimitation of carbon leakage risks are only expected in Sept].

Consequently, their goal most probably was to keep discussions alive by checking each other’s opinions in the actual mitigated period.

Movement

In short, the economic situation isn’t easy, and getting to an agreement on climate change directions is challenging. Does this justify a farce like the past G8 summit? No. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t the first of this caliber; neither will it be the last with such an outcome.

Summits with a restricted number of participants can have a tremendous added value and can create clear momentum. But to limit the risk of below zero outcome, future summits might need - on top of G changes- to work better on preparation. As far as energy is concerned, the road to the Denmark Summit in December has just been proven to be still very long. In October, the FT will already address major issues during its FT WEC Energy Leaders Summit. It surely will to be a fruitful preparation. Maybe Doha might need one too, before it gets submerged by some more unexpected tectonic movements or the lack of it.

.