SENIOR political figures were lowering expectations dramatically yesterday over a G8 plan to tackle global warming. They said that not a single target would appear in the summit’s climate change communiqué.

It also emerged that British officials were still battling with the White House over the inclusion of the word “urgent” in the statement.

Even long-term goals, such as the call to stop the planet’s temperature increasing by 2C since the industrial age began, are being sacrificed to ensure that President Bush signs the Gleneagles declaration.

The lowering of some of the more ambitious aims of the summit will be viewed with dismay by green campaigners, but officials remain adamant that even getting the Americans to talk about emissions with China and India is a major achievement.

According to one senior official, Tony Blair’s aim was simply to set out an action plan on greenhouse gases that would include meetings for a post- Kyoto “dialogue”.

Nevertheless, the ground is clearly being prepared for a communiqué that does not even state that mankind is responsible for global warming, which could seriously hamper agreement on how to combat the phenomenon.

Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: “The UK is in no doubt about the strength of scientific evidence on climate change. But the theology is less important than action. It would be really worthwhile if we could get an action plan that moves us all towards a shared goal of a low carbon economy.”

Although the White House is still refusing to accept scientific proof of fossil fuels causing global warming, there was an encouraging Senate vote this month recognising that global warming was occurring, that human activity was to blame and that “mandatory steps” would be needed to tackle it.

The Government has also been heartened by President Bush’s acceptance, in his interview with The Times this week, that “greenhouse gases are creating a problem, a long-term problem that we have got to deal with”.

Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, said, however, that he was less impressed by the President’s insistence that “step one of dealing with it is to fully understand the nature of the problem so that the solutions that follow make sense”.

Professor King said that the science of global warming was now so solid that there was no justification for delaying action. “The current status of the science is that we do now understand the nature of the problem in quite remarkable detail,” he said. “We need still to understand more about the impact, but there are clear indications that we have to respond without waiting for further research.”

The President also told The Times that the US was concentrating on efforts to promote alternatives to fossil fuels and cleaner ways of burning them, such as hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear power and clean coal.

An official close to negotiations over the draft communiqué said: “There is a lot of sensitivity about the words and phrases . . . Can you use the word ‘urgent’? If you can, can you use it in the first half of the sentence or the second? . . . In the end, if it means we will see re-engagement of people who are more willing to explore ideas of moving towards a low-carbon economy, that is what matters most.”

Despite the difficulties, the official said Britain hoped to establish an “ambitious” action plan and to give that plan momentum, “not just nice words”.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Family cuts its waste to one binful a year
• Cameron can learn from Thatcher in 1979
• VAT is back ... and it's confusing