Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.
First of all, what was explicit from the leaders was the acceptance of targets themselves.
For the first time--and this is notable in the G8--you had the Americans speaking about the importance of setting and committing to a target. What they said--and this is a rational consideration from their perspective--is that they first want to have the process, the dialogue with the major emitters. They are not prepared to set their target until they've had that discussion. We, the EU, and Japan have already set targets, but we accept the willingness of the Americans to engage in a process that will lead them to establish a target in very short order.
The convening of the major emitters that would happen this year is a significant step forward. They're not at all vague about where they think the targets should end up. What you see in the text is explicit reference to the plans established by the EU, Canada, and Japan, all of which have the goal of halving emissions by 2050. I think there's a clear way forward and real progress in terms of where the Americans have been up until now.
The two-degree issue was not on the table when the leaders met. It was not discussed.
Previously two degrees had been raised under a number of headings. Two degrees was a kind of place holder for a reference to what the global science was telling us. Two degrees was also held out--although this was recognized as unsatisfactory--as some kind of target by some in the G8. It was realized, though, that it's fundamentally a target that is unmeasurable. What happened was, one, in the final statement there was more explicit reference to the global science itself without selecting one element from that, and two, the target reference was made more explicit and measurable by referring to the halving of global emissions by 2050. That is present and explicit in the plans of the three: the EU, Canada, and Japan.