China shows no interest in contributing to climate deal
http://static.guim.co.uk/
Once again China is content to snipe away at ‘rich’ countries (and the US in particular) while abdicating her own responsibilities as she hides behind the convenient – and somewhat spurious – cloak of a ‘developing’ country. I’m prepared to bet that the Chinese delegation was behind Sudan’s criticism of developed nations a couple of days ago. Enlisting a dictatorial puppet in their machinations, or coercing minnows to throw a spanner in the works are well-worn China strategies.
Let’s be clear about what China has put on the table in Copenhagen. Beijing proposes not to cut emissions, but to continue increasing them at a slower rate, to 40 to 45 per cent (per unit of GDP) below 2005 levels by 2020. In other words China is proud to be both the biggest polluter and largest holder of foreign reserves on the planet, but would rather not share the tab for this particular – or any – undertaking that does not explicitly benefit China above all others. For the second time this year, China has dissed the Earth.
It’s all one big game of hardball scheming to China, where the object isn’t to come away with a climate deal, but rather to position itself as the champion of the poor (restrain your laughter, please) and tag the ill-defined ‘west’ as the bad guys who can’t be trusted to stick to their pledges.
For once in their shabby, narrow-minded, selfish, dictatorial lives why can’t the Chinese government treat a global conference as something other than a winner-takes-all game of risk?
Answers on a postcard to P.O. Box 666, Zhongnanhai.
Update
The Australian spells out the problem:
RICH nations, including the US and Australia, are demanding that China and other major developing-nation greenhouse gas emitters pledge clear reduction targets in an internationally binding agreement that allows the promises to be checked.
The US special envoy on climate change, Todd Stern, arrived in the Danish capital with a clear message: China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, had to take on a binding and verifiable commitment.
Mr Stern said the US accepted its responsibilities, but added “the country whose emissions is going up really rapidly is China”.
“You can’t even think about solving this problem without China,” he said. “You just have to do the math. There is no way to solve this problem by giving developing countries a pass.
“Virtually all of the growth in emissions going forward . . . will be coming from developing countries, of which about 50 per cent will come from China alone.”
And there you have it.
December 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Someone thinks this story is fantastic…
This story was submitted to Hao Hao Report – a collection of China’s best stories and blog posts. If you like this story, be sure to go vote for it….
December 11th, 2009 at 1:31 am
China thinks it is big enough, rich enough, and powerful enough to do everything alone.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:21 am
stuart,
I KNEW that of all people, YOU are going to bitch about THIS. How right I was!
The reason why I found you particularly pathetic is that you cherry-pick stuff to make your never-ending and everlasting argument (that China is evil, China is bad, China is this and that) appear more valid while ignoring the whole picture, bigger point and other perspectives. While we can argue about what the 40 to 45% cut proposal really means for days, the fact of the matter is that China has put forth something on the table as a developing country of 1.3 billion people, the US and the rest of the developed world, you know those rich fat guys should take on more responsibilities to combat climate change. I am in complete agreement with those who are saying China, as the biggest emitter should commit. Yes, absolutely. However for the developed world (especially the US) to look to China for the answer is really silly and pathetic. Developing countries like China and India should be part of the global effort and they should all do their fair shares, however the US and the rich countries in the EU should do more and lead by example, after all they have spent the past decades, if not centuries emitting carbon and polluting the world; after all the price they pay to cut emission (in terms of effecting the economy and people’s livelihood) is much moderate compared to what the developing countries will have to endure.
China is selfish? Sure, China is just as selfish as the next guy (you Britons too). Of course China (and India) would be concerned about the impact this would have on their still developing national economy and the rising standard of living for their people (keep in mind a lot of people are still in abject poverty). You are the rich guy who owns 4 houses and 10 cars and 12 family members who are relatively well-off, it is easier for you to say that you will get rid of one house and 3 cars to help save the environment. I only have 1 house, 2 cars and some 40 family members many of who are quite poor, I can make the same level of commitment you make. It is easier for you to demand that we play on the same level.
Instead of blaming China for the lack of progress you guys should take the lead and lead by example. Don’t you pride yourself as the leader of the “free world”, champion and beacon of everything the human kind ever wanted?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:00 am
“Instead of blaming China for the lack of progress you guys should take the lead and lead by example.”
My whole point is that CHINA refuses to step up to the plate if setting an example means giving a little of her wealth (she really isn’t a poor country) back to the planet.
Were the Chinese government really hoping that people would be so fixated on the 40-45% that they would fail to notice China’s proposal involves increased emissions over the next decade.
Not agreeing to a transparent, measurable emissions timetable is China’s feeble way of pretending to be proactive on climate change while making sure they can’t be held accountable for it.
Transparency, accountability, honesty – anathema to the boys from Beijing.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:03 am
“China thinks it is big enough, rich enough, and powerful enough to do everything alone.”
Or in this case, Bill, to pretend to do something while in reality doing nothing at all.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Stuart reverts to type, calls the kettle black.
December 13th, 2009 at 8:40 am
“My whole point is that CHINA refuses to step up to the plate if setting an example means giving a little of her wealth (she really isn’t a poor country) back to the planet”
Giving a little of her wealth? Once again stuart, it is easy for you, the rich fat guy who has everything already to demand me, the poor guy who worked my ass off, who has just started seeing light at the end of the tunnel to just piss off. Forget about the dream of ever owning a decent house and a car. No, you Chinese bastards should just live like your ancestors did!
Must read for you stuart (ask one of your students to translate it for you):
http://house.focus.cn/news/2009-12-12/815678.html
China is not a poor country? stuart, I thought you’d been to China and had seen everything. Come on you are better than this. Much of China is dirt poor and you know that. Despite the hype about China’s growing econony, China’s GDP per capita still ranks about what 100 something in the world, slightly better than Tonga.
“Were the Chinese government really hoping that people would be so fixated on the 40-45% that they would fail to notice China’s proposal involves increased emissions over the next decade. ”
Even if your interpretation is true, it is still a viable plan, much better than nothing. Keep in mind that it is a lot harder to demand developing countries with a lot of poor people to be as rigorous as the west, the price is a much higher. You should be happy that China is not a democracy today, if it were people would be up in arms, after all any electorate in any country would vote the party/government who tells its people “sorry folks, I know your life sucks but sorry you must not improve because doing so will emit more carbon and everyone will be mad at us” out of power.
“Transparency, accountability, honesty – anathema to the boys from Beijing.”
The west is only marginally better than China with regard to these. You are right to demand China of these things. However you too should keep working on them too. Wu shi bu xiao bai bu is getting too old.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:14 am
@ justrecently
“Stuart reverts to type, calls the kettle black.”
Yeah, I know. It’s the other guys too. But China are clearly trying to scupper any deal that sees ‘developing’ countries held accountable, so long as they can retain that (in their case) questionable status.
The Chinese government really take self-interest to a whole new level.
@ Juche
This was a lovely piece of stereotype/chip-on-shoulder pie:
“it is easy for you, the rich fat guy who has everything already to demand me, the poor guy who worked my ass off…”
You’ve been working your ass off? Join the club. For the record, I’m neither rich nor fat, and have never owned land, building, or vehicle of any description.
I’m just your humble student of life doing his best to spread a little light and happiness. The Chinese government appear to have different plans for the planet.
“Much of China is dirt poor and you know that.”
China’s per capita GDP is a misleading guide. The government could ease that gap at a stroke if they played fair on currency and began getting serious about a rule of law that would protect individuals from exploitation by employers. It’s the Chinese government who are keeping the majority of their population in poverty, not the ‘west’ you love to hate (where, as it happens, there is a good deal of poverty too).
They hold an ever increasing mountain of foreign reserves which have been greedily gathered by the toil of underpaid, overworked citizens who never get to see a penny of it. That wealth has been accumulated at massive environmental cost, yet the boys at Zhongnanhai still expect to carry on accumulating lucre and spewing emissions while someone else picks up the tab. And they’re the only ones who can properly afford it in the present economic climate.
I’ve got to hand it to the CCP brigade for sheer nerve – they want to have their cake, eat it, and have everyone else bake more for the emperor while performing kowtow.
“Keep in mind that it is a lot harder to demand developing countries with a lot of poor people to be as rigorous as the west, the price is a much higher.”
That’s nonsense. The poor in China are predominantly farmers and peasants. They’re not going to get tagged with anything. Nor does any individual or industry in China need to fork out the cost of reducing emissions because the Chinese government has a finger in all their pies and has more than enough money to meet real reductions; they just don’t want to spend any money on an endeavour that is for the benefit of others as well as their own.
And – returning to the transparency issue – Beijing always baulks at any hint of real openness about what actions they’re taking because that means being held accountable. They’d much prefer to make a verbal commitment and then go away and do nothing – as has too often been the case with trade deals agreed with the Chinese government. If they want to be regarded as responsible stakeholders they have to start acting like it.
December 13th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
@3,
seriously don’t know why you bother trying … I’ve given up on stuart ages ago.
A bit of advice: never try to debate an English teacher turned social commentator. Two reasons:
1) they lack logic
2) they always sound like a broken record
December 13th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
But China are clearly trying to scupper any deal that sees ‘developing’ countries held accountable, so long as they can retain that (in their case) questionable status.
I’d say it’s simply too early to tell if a country’s or block’s position will make the summit fail, and if so, whose it will be.
As for Kopenhagen, Brazil, China, India and South Africa have agreed to a common screenplay. I’m sure there are many such alliances at the summit, some more, some less visible. In the end, I believe it will be in the interest of all to come to a conclusion which will save at least most of the planet.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:23 am
@ justrecently
Agreed. I think the biggest problems are going to be getting the Chinese delegation to relinquish their grasp on poor/developing status, and getting them to agree – quite reasonably – to having any agreement independently verified on an ongoing basis.
@ st
I don’t remember you being so under the influence of stereotyping before, even in the moments of your highest frustration.
You should convert some of that misplaced energy into lobbying Zhongnanhai to behave like adults on climate change.
December 14th, 2009 at 2:32 am
What people don’t understand is that China doesn’t see this as a science issue, it’s all politics. For them climate change is just another thing to leverage to China’s advantage, ie. ask competitors to cut down while keeping their own production up. For Chinese, the problem is not so much the environment but the possible economic slowdown and failure to “catch up to the West”.
But, assuming there is an earnest effort to work together, one could argue that yes, it is unfair that developed countries already created the pollution and therefore China should be given the same chance regardless of cost or climate change. On the other hand, this is the kind of shifting blame that could go on forever. In the future, what would the policies be should other labor-reliant economies such as Vietnam, Indonesia or Mexico start to emit more gases in relation to economic growth? To put simply, one has to draw the line somewhere, China just doesn’t want it to be them.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Thanks for commenting, Daesong.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with that reply. This bit is worth repeating for the benefit of some visitors:
“What people don’t understand is that China doesn’t see this as a science issue, it’s all politics. For them climate change is just another thing to leverage to China’s advantage…”
And part of that strategy is to maintain an unfair advantage by masquerading as a ‘developing’ nation.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I don’t have much confidence in any English teacher understand numbers and facts but I will try once again for your benefit ( ..Ikow, I know, I have not given up on you… it is easier to preach others… ).
Listed below is the metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita per 1000 perople for the following countries:
US: 19.48
AUS: 16.54
UK: 9.24
China: 2.66
The US special envoy on climate change, Todd Stern said. “…You just have to do the maths…”
Righto, stuart, the maths surely is simple enough for you. Whose life style is causing more damage the planet? A yank , aussie, pom or a chinese ?
Go and work it out and tell us the answer before you start your chest pumping performance again.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:52 am
@ st
First, let me question your assumption that I’m an English teacher struggling to do the math. Einstein would have made a great English teacher, but it wasn’t what he was first and foremost. logic.
Now then:
US: 19.48
AUS: 16.54
UK: 9.24
China: 2.66
Assuming these figures are accurate, they are only half of the equation (a very convenient half for China). Unfortunately, the global environment only responds to bottom line emission figures – and that puts China way out front.
Besides, your per capita numbers are misleading, because, at some level, they assume that the entire Chinese population share equal responsibility (and benefit) for carbon emissions. We both know China is not that equitable. Adjust your figures to exclude the vast majority of Chinese who are in no way conributing to – or benefitting from – emissions and the picture becomes clearer.
Of course you need to be Einstein to arrive at that figure.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am
@12
“What people don’t understand is that China doesn’t see this as a science issue, it’s all politics …”
Yeh ..right… more than half of the population of US and AUS ( as represented by their senates) are climate skeptics.
If the Lowy institute’s poll is to be believed, most Chinese sees it as a life and death issue.
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1193
http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/politics/man-of-coal-20091212-kpma.html
I think I should put you in the same basket as stuart.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
@ st
I don’t question China’s understanding of the importance of acting on climate change – the ‘2012 hypothesis’ scares the hell out of Zhongnanhai because environmental issues may claim the planet before world domination comes to a cinema near you.
But they definitely don’t want to be held accountable or pay for it. That’s the stumbling block.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:30 am
stuart,
As usual you are so full of it. China is not a developing country by your standard? Too bad stuart, the world doesn’t evolve around you and neither does it run on your twisted logic. Just because China has got a couple hundred billion dollars in the bank it doesn’t make China a developed country. I wished it could.
Come on stuart, get with the program! By “you” I was referring to the rich and developed countries like the west and Japan etc., not you, stuart the poor English teacher (who can you blame when you have no skills other than being able to speak the international lingua franca? You should feel fortunate.).
And how does the the Chinese government keep ” the majority of their population in poverty”? By telling everyone that we can’t build that factory/facility/whatever because we have been pressured by the rich countries not to emit any more? Exactly.
“”That’s nonsense. The poor in China are predominantly farmers and peasants. They’re not going to get tagged with anything. Nor does any individual or industry in China need to fork out the cost of reducing emissions because the Chinese government has a finger in all their pies and has more than enough money to meet real reductions”
Nonsense is yours, stuart. The majority of those farmers and peasants supposedly want a nice house and car, right? What do you tell them? No? And how is that that in China no individual or industry will be impacted by the reduction of carbon emission while those in the west are? Do miracles happen in China but not elsewhere? China has enough money to meet real reductions? How did you, the poor English teacher who can’t even add 2 and 2 together, figure that out? In your opinion does the UK have enough money to do that? How about the US?
“And – returning to the transparency issue – Beijing always baulks at any hint of real openness about what actions they’re taking because that means being held accountable. They’d much prefer to make a verbal commitment and then go away and do nothing – as has too often been the case with trade deals agreed with the Chinese government. If they want to be regarded as responsible stakeholders they have to start acting like it.”
Verifiable? OK, who is going to verify China’s, or anybody’s effort? The IEA? The UN? The friggin US or the UK government?
December 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
“And part of that strategy is to maintain an unfair advantage by masquerading as a ‘developing’ nation.”
What “unfair advantage”? Is it not true that all of those countries that Daesong mentioned, enjoy the same advantage?
“Assuming these figures are accurate, they are only half of the equation (a very convenient half for China). Unfortunately, the global environment only responds to bottom line emission figures – and that puts China way out front. ”
So you are basically telling the Chinese, “because you have the most people of everyone, 1.3 billion, you are screwed and I domn’t give a damn about the majority of your people who are relatively quite poor”? So you guys, the rich nations with fewer people can just emit all you want and still be OK? Gotta ya?
“Besides, your per capita numbers are misleading, because, at some level, they assume that the entire Chinese population share equal responsibility (and benefit) for carbon emissions. We both know China is not that equitable. Adjust your figures to exclude the vast majority of Chinese who are in no way conributing to – or benefitting from – emissions and the picture becomes clearer.”
Exactly, most Chinese are not contributing to or benefiting from the emissions so far. That’s because most Chinese are dirt poor. That’s why we need to make sure there is a future for these dirt poor Chinese. That’s why it is much harder for China to commit to huge cuts. Do you not get it??
December 15th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Juche -
I can only assume that that (slightly personal) rant followed a bad night’s sleep.
“OK, who is going to verify China’s…”
Somebody is going to have to do it to the world’s satisfaction, because the Chinese government have a penchant for imaginative statistics. That’s what happens when there’s no independent judiciary and no checks and balances.
The bottom line is China can afford to get serious on cleaning up its act without trying to strategise the downfall of the US and EU as a precondition.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Somebody is going to have to do it to the world’s satisfaction, because the Chinese government have a penchant for imaginative statistics.
I’m not sure if China’s desire for the downfall of the US and EU or your desire for the downfall of China is stronger, stuart.
It will either be sovereign countries that agree to a common approach to climate change, or there will be no effective approach at all. Nobody will make either the West, nor China, submit to organizations, standards, or verifications they – or their governments, or their lobbies – don’t want to accept. Nobody of us is in charge of educating people who don’t want that education.
That’s the bottomline, Stuart – and I’m getting the impression that you are blissfully unaware of it.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
P.S.: I believe that some of juche’s attacks are personal and beside the point. I don’t think he is in a position to judge peoples’ professional skills just by knowing them online.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“Assuming these figures are accurate, they are only half of the equation (a very convenient half for China). ”
These figure tells part of the truth which you conveniently try to ignore to justify your twisted mind.
Climate change is all science and not politics ?
may be you can preach that to the US and AUS senates.
Wake up stuart, what planet are you on ?
December 15th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Justrecently -
“I’m not sure if China’s desire for the downfall of the US and EU or your desire for the downfall of China is stronger, stuart.”
It’s a common misperception, believe me. I do feel, however, that the planet is not best served by a powerful, unaccountable Chinese government.
“Nobody will make either the West, nor China, submit to organizations, standards, or verifications they – or their governments, or their lobbies – don’t want to accept.”
Which isn’t so much of a problem in the US, where independent bodies will take the government to task if they fall short. You can’t honestly be of the opinion that the Chinese government are going to call foul on themselves. There MUST be verification that proposed targets are being met and promises kept.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
st -
“Climate change is all science and not politics?”
Of course it’s politics as well. Nowhere above will you find I’ve contradicted that.
“may be you can preach that to the US and AUS senates.”
Significantly, I have the right to do that in both countries.
Who in China is going to challenge their government’s policy on climate change?
Exactly.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
you are still dodging a very simple question:
Whose life style is causing more damage the planet? An average yank , aussie, pom or a chinese ?
December 15th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“Whose life style is causing more damage the planet? An average yank , aussie, pom or a chinese ?”
This is no time for thinking small. It’s one of those moments where the absolute number is key, especially when allied to the Chinese proposal to increase the level of emissions for the forseeable future – and this idea from the world’s premier polluter and most advantageously placed economy.
Ergo …
1. PRC
2. USA
3. UK
4. AUS
December 15th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Stuart:
re your comment #24
A government that doesn’t account to its own people will usually underperform – that’s both your and my observation. It is true when it comes to respect for basic human rights, to the question as to how national wealth or income is distributed within society, and to the mere quality of civil service.
But the question of climate change is no less urgent for China, than for OECD countries. If climate change remains untackled and leads to the expected effects, the CCP will be history much earlier than if it helps averting climate change. It may even be in a position to play a more constructive role than the U.S. Senate, for example, which (I understand) has “promised” that not a single cent will go from America to China in a climate deal.
Not that it should – but the bluster is at least as much a populist window-speech to the American public, as it is a message to Beijing. And it shows that democracy doesn’t necessarily make better stakeholders in global climate control than totalitarianism.
Democracy is an essential right – but I believe that you have turned democracy into an ersatz religion. That’s actually not fair to the concept. Democracy is about the right of the individual to have a share in his or her country’s future. A panacea it is not.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
This is no time for thinking small (#27).
That’s correct. And it would be thinking small if we demand democracy in China before taking its suggestions at their actual value, rather than speculating about the motives. If all countries involved agree to a common strategy, we should welcome that. If not, we can still start spinning our respective narratives. It’s never too late for that, but it is sometimes too early.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Justrecently,
“A panacea it is not.”
And I’ve never believed that it is, in any of its forms – and especially not for China, for whom there will be no quick ‘n easy path away from a punitive, paranoid one-party state.
“…the U.S. Senate, for example, which (I understand) has “promised” that not a single cent will go from America to China in a climate deal.”
Without a guaranteed holding to account of China’s own pledges, I really can’t blame them. America trusting China to do as it says and ‘verify’ meeting targets with its own figures is Beijing’s wet dream.
“If climate change remains untackled and leads to the expected effects, the CCP will be history much earlier than if it helps averting climate change.”
Yes. And the efforts and proposals of all other nations combined are not going to make any impact without a serious and real commitment from China.
Both the US and China can and must do better than the proposals they’ve come up with so far. But neither should be expecting financial aid from the other to do what is necessary.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
[...] Climate Change Control: Who should Foot the Bill? By justrecently The worst thing that can happen to the Copenhagen summit would be a blame game, based on different ideological concepts. I thought I wouldn’t start a discussion about it yet, but I joined one on another blog. So if you want to know JR’s temporary unconsolidated findings and those of others on who should or might foot which share of the bill for climate change control, you might take a look at the commenter thread there. [...]
December 15th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Let me throw in something more tangible: who has to take which share in doing what is necessary? If each side only needed to do the right things, we wouldn’t need an international summit. The idea that the past shouldn’t count is certainly charming – but we and our ancestors in Europe and other developed regions built our wealth on past CO2 emissions. That’s no matter of “guilt” – nobody knew a thing about climate change until rather recently. But to think that we can make everyone in the world pay the same amount for every remaining ton of emissions (after the reductions we’ll hopefully agree to would be a concept none of the less developed countries will agree to. As far as I can see, the West will have to do more than China, and China will have to do more than most Asian and African countries.
It’s a classical outset for negotiations: responsiblities aren’t already here. The need to be defined.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
stuart does not understand which is fair may not always be what is right.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
“As far as I can see, the West will have to do more than China, and China will have to do more than most Asian and African countries.”
Not do more than China so much as pay more than China, including a financial contribution to help cut Chinese emissions. But that’s not going to happen if the Chinese insist on tracking their own efforts. If they want the ‘west’ to stump up they’re going to have to accept independent monitors.
And yes, China is most certainly going to have to do more than developing countries. That is both right and fair.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
All of this talk of China as a developing country is avoiding the point.
1) A country can be developing and still be rich. Meanwhile, nobody said that all Chinese are rich. The fact remains that China is sitting on over $2 trillion in treasuries in the US alone. China is constantly building its treasury hoard because the government is keeping its currency stable. That money is going to no productive use. Therefore, while the average Chinese does not have a lot of money, the government has piles to invest. Even if it did not have those treasuries, let’s think about this carefully. China can afford to fund a space program. China can afford to foot much of the bill of a bridge to connect HK, Zhuhai and Macao. China can afford to offer billions of dollars in easy loans to African countries. Is this mom and pop in China contributing the money? Certainly not. But the money is there because the government is saving. China needs no contributions to stop global warming. They have the money already.
2) The question about China’s 40-45 percent carbon efficiency goal is this: Would the goal have been attained anyways? The answer is yes. China has long been in the process of phasing out more polluting industries. It has an economic incentive to do so as most of those polluting industries are also more wasteful. The Chinese have offered nothing that they would not have attained anyways.
Therefore, the message out of China is this: We will develop as we want to develop. That is total BS.
China’s emissions could rise by 75 percent over the period that they are claiming that carbon efficiency would fall. This is enough to cancel out gains in the rest of the world. Unless the Chinese become more ambitious, cuts elsewhere won’t matter.
To my knowledge, nobody is saying that richer nations shouldn’t help poorer nations meet carbon targets in certain cases. What the US side is saying is that certain developing nations shouldn’t hide behind the word “developing” when they are perfectly capable of controlling emissions already.
What do I mean by hide? For a large country such as China, one with very uneven development, the poor parts of the country contribute a very small portion to the coffers of the country, and the rich parts of the nation are already nearing a certain degree of prosperity and contribute a great deal. It is unfair for the Chinese to point to sparesly populated Gansu and overlook cram-packed and relatively well off Jiangxi, Guangdong, Fujian, Shanghai, Chongqing, Tianjin, Beijing, Shandong, etc.
Want a more extreme example? Hong Kong is actually not considered to be “developed” simply because it is now a part of the PRC. Therefore, the Hong Kong government will not adopt more stringent CO2 cuts. They don’t have to.
So please halt this crappy talk about “developing” China. The hard fact about China’s “developing” classification is that it can be rolled into and out of the garage at will. China touts its developed coastal areas when it wants to impress the point on foreign governments of the economic strength of the country in the political game of carrots and sticks. China does the same when it wants to attract foreign enterprises to open factories: “See what a great infrastructure we have? We are the ideal place to build your export enterprises (I work an infrastructure-related industry in China by the way, so I hear it all the time.)
Oh, but when China must make a selfless contribution, what do we hear? “Oh, but we are a developing country. We couldn’t possibly….” Meanwhile another Shenzhou rocket heads to the moon…….
December 15th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
God, this is all so unbelievable. I mean, I’ve seen teenage girls bitch less than you f’ers on the other side of the pond. The fact is, ANYONE who is or has benefitted from modern manufacturing and its side effects (yes, China HAS benefitted from the business of manufacturing and the products created in manufacturing) has a responsibility to take action. Every known product that was conceived or produced in the west is either utilized or now produced in China. That makes them an equal stakeholder. How many people a country has and/or how rich it is can no longer be used as a scapegoat. You have the perception that you are Chinese, but in essence, you are just another human making a mess of your home. I may not know everything, but I know that Mother Earth didn’t create borders and countries–it is IRRELEVANT.
Right now, to much shame, America is the fat kid that keeps eating cake and doesn’t know when to stop. But, if it weren’t for mama cooking that cake (and heating the kitchen up in the process), the fat kid would not longer have those thousands of excess calories to scarf down. So, why does mama keep cooking the cake? Therein lies your answer to this whole bitter argument.
Oh, and not every smart person on this planet makes it his/her purpose to get rich , famous or powerful (which usually requires the unscrupulous raping of another on some level). Teaching is still a profession taught by people who care. The teacher’s motivation for educating is not worth discussing so long as the teacher teaches or starts the thinking process. Teachers, more often than not, are successful in merely getting students to stop, listen and use their critical thinking skills as an exercise for problems they will encounter later in life. So, please, don’t curse English teachers abroad and claim they don’t know anything or have any other skills. They absolutely do. Many of them are trying to enrich their lives and those they meet while bringing a different product (western thought, ideas, ideals, logic) for the BENEFIT of the Chinese students in the classroom. If you doubt the strength of character, hard work and creativity involved in teaching, particularly in another country, I suggest you put on that hat and try it for yourself.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:17 am
” …don’t curse English teachers abroad and claim they don’t know anything or have any other skills”
I can only tell from personal experience, I’ve encountered English teachers in primary and high school who need to count their toes to do additions – literally. ..
I’m not sure how good English teachers aboard are but they are usually backpackers who were check-out chicks/boys at home so surely they can count past 10, no sweat.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:20 am
Thanks for that dose of sanity, Mike.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:28 am
“I’ve encountered English teachers in primary and high school who need to count their toes to do additions – literally. .. ”
Then the schools you were associated with were ripping off students and their teachers. All the universities I worked at in China demanded – as they should – accredited qualifications and experience. Thus, I never encountered any numerically challenged backpacker amateurs.
There’s a thought: perhaps China would like to hire some of them to make their emissions calculations. Either China looks good or ‘foreign experts’ get the blame. Win-win.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:38 am
@ Taihanasie
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. You were temporarily caught in my spam filter – sorted now.
I agree with just about everything you’ve said. If I could pick one thing out it would be this:
“The Chinese have offered nothing that they would not have attained anyways.”
Absolutely. I’d go as far as to say that China’s proposal even provides cover for a little more coal consumption than anticipated. It’s all dressed up as a noble sacrifice, of course. But as you say, they’re not really proposing any additional effort whatsoever.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:48 am
fortunately the English teachers I referred to wasn’t teaching in China at the time … may be they are now
December 16th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Nothing wrong with analyzing a country’s negotiation strategy – but to criticize it for not being selfless looks unreasonable to me.
China certainly needs to be looked at in a differentiated way – developed and less developed provinces. At the same time, China wants to be looked at as one united country. Income disparities within China, regionally and in terms of social classes, have to be Beijing’s headache – not the headache of the rest of the world.
The fact remains that China is sitting on over $2 trillion in treasuries in the US alone. (#35)
This should be looked at in a differentiated way, too. The fact also remains that these foreign currency reserves weren’t accumulated as an and in itself, but are a side effect of a process in which both America and China willingly participated, and the effect of an undervalued Yuan is often overestimated. Rising productivity without strong economic growth cuts jobs (this includes not only OECD countries, but also China’s more developed areas). It is perfectly alright to point out that Beijing is affording itself superpower projects, and that there is a discrepancy between that and its claim that it is a developing country. That said, what should count in the end is how much average income – and energy consumption per capita – there is in China.
What surprises me is the angry reaction on the mere possibility that China might get a “free ride” where others may not. The point of negotiations is that an approach will be found that all parties can agree to. Noone of us has produced number yet that would explain why only one outcome could be considered fair. And to make sure that there will be reasonable outcomes is the job of our negotiators. We can hold them accountable, and we can remind them that they, the representatives of the most developed world, can walk out just as well as China or India can.
We would actually be less affected by the resulting natural disasters, than these two countries. We’ll only reach consensus on something useful if the interests of all sides are taken into account.
But China has a right to try to pick the cherries, just as the U.S. had a right to stay away from the whole process until recently. That wouldn’t be in its own long-term interest either, but noone of us can tell any party involved what to do. We can only make a case. But that again (I believe) needs a more positive approach. I see too much bitching (#36) in the process, and not only from the Chinese side of the Pacific.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I don’t disagree with the notion that China should get some sort of break in its quest for sustainable development, but free rides can only be for poor, underdeveloped nations. After all, it will ultimately be Chinese emissions that make or break the planet.
My sense is that China is still far too concerned that America and Europe are as inconvenienced and economically compromised as possible when a final deal is struck. And – I’ll say it again – any agreement that sees China regulate its own efforts won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:19 am
And – I’ll say it again – any agreement that sees China regulate its own efforts won’t be worth the paper it’s written on.
I’m pretty sure that any agreement will actually be one where every country regulates its own efforts. That shouldn’t hurt so long as every country pledges to certain goals in a comprehensive agreement.
What kind of organization should regulate the signatory countrys’ efforts instead? An International Climate Control Agency with the capacity to call for sanctions at the UN SC?
December 17th, 2009 at 9:29 am
“What kind of organization should regulate the signatory countrys’ efforts instead?”
It’s a good question. But without one, China – and other signatories to any agreement – will simply offer glowing reports of targets being met whatever the reality.
China needs to get over its dislike of being observed, assessed, and held accountable. That said, I think the Chinese would choke on their own emissions before they let go of such institutionalised phobias.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:44 am
This op-ed just in from the Christian Science Monitor:
Couldn’t have spelled it out any better. I suggest reading the rest of this op-ed:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091217/cm_csm/269508_1
December 18th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
This thread caught my attention early on, but before I could add my proverbial 2 cents, crappy comments begun to pile up which, frankly, turned me off. And I am not referring to anything you wrote, or contributors like Mike, or Taihanasie.
Still, this topic is a serious thing, so I would like to, at least, bring to everyone’s attention yet another piece: In Copenhagen, U.S. vs. China (The Atlantic):
“The Chinese, though, have not seemed to be in a yielding mood. At a press conference on Wednesday, I asked China’s chief climate negotiator Su Wei if it were possible for China and the United States to reach an accommodation on the verification issue. He responded with a long—a very long—answer. He started by accusing developed nations of trying to “evade their historic responsibilities with various excuses [and] the fundamental excuse is that [China and other emerging developing countries] have not taken steps to address climate change.” Su, however, contended that China’s energy efficiency efforts “have broken their lies.” He declared that China “always followed a principle of openness and transparency.” And then he asserted: “I don’t see the necessity of others to worry about the sincerity of China’s efforts to address climate change.” In other words, get lost.”
“Then came Hillary. On Thursday morning, moments after the African nations complained that the negotiations were going nowhere, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared in a crowded press briefing room at the summit and announced that the United States would contribute to a $100 billion international fund starting in 2020—as long as “all major nations” commit their emissions reductions to a binding agreement and submit those reductions to transparent verification. And by “all major nations,” she meant China.”
But, never mind my quotes; it takes reading the whole of this article about “the Copenhagen circus” to see what is so upsetting about this business.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912u/copenhagen-us-china
December 19th, 2009 at 4:26 am
[...] Denmark, that Beijing must be transparent about any claims of success in reducing greenhouse gases. Without outside verification of carbon cuts in big polluting nations such as China and India, the US Senate is unlikely to pass a tough bill that would force Americans [...]
December 19th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Thanks for that, Neddy.
Actually, I think nearly all comments have contributed something to the discussion here, although I’m still at a loss to explain how my exemplary teaching record has dealt a blow to making a deal on climate change.
December 19th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Well, looks like they hammered out some sort of deal:
Take a look
Seems that there is to be some sort of non-binding independent review thing. No doubt the dust will settle in the next day or two. Then we can argue about how China’s media is spinning Copenhagen after the event.
Edited to ask: where the hell was Hu Jintao? Anyone see him?
December 19th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Well, yes, I do agree that a number of comments have contributed to the discussion, though perhaps not as many as one would wish. But that’s how it goes.
In particular, I’d like to commend contributions by Justrecently: Good argument, number of points, lot to think about. Except that I still disagree overall. To me, this is not about bad vs evil, where we bitch about bad, bad China. It is simply China (read: Chinese government) we discuss here. Period. Others, be it USA, Australia, whoever, have all been lambasted before, and will be again I am sure. Since there is enough blame to go around, it serves them well, too.
In the meantime I feel no remorse criticising CCP (that’s who we are really talking about), their negotiating strategy, their spin and lies both at home and abroad… Our own sins are many, but I see that as no resason to give a free pass, and to say we need to be fair to a government whose people are already dying, in direct consequence of pollution, while the said government dickers primarily to maintain its own grip on said people.
And no, I do not know *all* of that in every detail, but there is also this little something known as ‘track record’ – decades of it, in fact!
On and on it goes… Is this just bitching? Frankly, I don’t care what anybody calls it.
Yes, they’ll probably cook up something in Copenhagen, at the last minute. Even if it was just to say ‘we have agreed to meet again for further talks’.
December 19th, 2009 at 11:32 am
“…but I see that as no resason to give a free pass”
No chance of that here, Neddy.
December 19th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Let me put it this way: anything that we feel needs to be said should be said – no matter if the Chinese public likes it or not. But when it can be said in a way that might sway some of their ideas rather than confirming their CCP-made concepts, it is useful to say it in such a way.
That’s not about censorship, and the above said, there is of course no to make oneself useful in that way.
But fenqing readers will keep coming anyway, so long as they can learn something new and so long as they can keep yelling at you. It’s double-use for them, really.
December 19th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
missing word: obligation. (I had tried to write it inverse.)
December 19th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“It’s double-use for them, really.”
Indeed. They’ll thank me one day.
December 21st, 2009 at 9:57 am
The negative fallout from Copenhagen revolves around the fact that the agreement reached was not legally binding. While developing countries and protesters have been fooled – with a little coercion from the Chinese delegation – into blaming the developed world for this state of affairs, let’s set the record straight:
Which is more or less what I said they’d do in the original post.
December 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am
[...] It’s almost as if this outcome was predictable. [...]
December 26th, 2009 at 1:21 am
As far as I know, China is committed to cut a great deal of emission on a voluntary basis but not agreeing to automatic monitoring of all its process for sovereignty reason. What is it that the EU are not able to give the same level of commitment as China to cut whatever the EU are willing to cut? I am sure EU know cutting emission is a good thing and should not hide behind the non agreement on monitoring not to voluntarily and honestly do the right thing to just cut emission the level the EU claim they are going to do to show the leadership.
December 26th, 2009 at 1:46 am
“all major nations” commit their emissions reductions to a binding agreement and submit those reductions to transparent verification. And by “all major nations,” she meant China.”
As far as I know, no developed nations have ever been subjected “to a binding agreement and submit those reductions to transparent verification.“
This is like saying “we have crossed the bridge and pulled down the bridge. The fact that you have not, that is your problem”. Indeed, the developing world will have to deal with it their own way.
December 26th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
As far as I know, Kyoto, which was signed by developed nations, involved binding cuts. And I also believe that developed nations, including the EU and US, are willing to have cuts verified independently. If not that would be, as you suggest, rather hypocritical. And the EU is, I believe, committed to some cuts regardless of other countries’ cuts, just not as extensive cuts (as they would commit to given greater commitments from others).
December 27th, 2009 at 8:57 am
@Stuart
“Assuming these figures are accurate, they are only half of the equation (a very convenient half for China). Unfortunately, the global environment only responds to bottom line emission figures – and that puts China way out front. ”
What are you implying? A person in China has less right to consume then an American to polute? Do not forget that 60% of Chinese manufactured goods were exported, mainly to US and Europe
December 27th, 2009 at 9:15 am
@Matthew
Sorry I meant to say “As far as I know, no developed nations have ever been subjected in the last few centuries when they were industrilizing “to a binding agreement and submit those reductions to transparent verification.“
This implies that the developed countries almost solely caused the global warming and its impact on the climate that we are seeing today. To show you why it is not fair what you are arguing for China to do, let’s do some simple maths:
Assuming the devloped countries caused 2 deg c warming due to them industrialising over the last few centuries. Now the devloped countries want to limit themselves to 1 deg c and want the developing world to limit themselve to 1 deg c so that globally warming could be capped at 2 deg c. In total the developed countries would have cause 3 deg c and developing countries 1 deg c. I know you would point out that the developing world also contribute warming in the last few centuries…but the point is they contributed much less. So I hope you see the unfairness and not try to perpetuate it .
December 27th, 2009 at 10:56 am
“Do not forget that 60% of Chinese manufactured goods were exported, mainly to US and Europe”
Don’t forget that this is the cornerstone of China’s economic growth and global influence. Would Beijing like to turn back the clock and keep those goods at home?
I didn’t think so.
The bottom line is that China refuses to sit on idle stockpiles of cheap coal and is going to use them up no matter what. And there’s no collective counter-effort by the rest of the world that can offset those emissions. None.
In effect China is using the differentiated responsibility arguments of today to ensure that she can be global overlord of tomorrow, at which point the rest of the world will realise too late that it has been placed in a climate change straitjacket.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:57 am
@ stuart
The following is actually meant for your comment.
Assuming the devloped countries caused 2 deg c warming due to them industrialising over the last few centuries. Now the devloped countries want to limit themselves to 1 deg c and want the developing world to limit themselve to 1 deg c so that globally warming could be capped at 2 deg c. In total the developed countries would have cause 3 deg c and developing countries 1 deg c. I know you would point out that the developing world also contribute warming in the last few centuries…but the point is they contributed much less. So I hope you see the unfairness and not try to perpetuate it .
December 28th, 2009 at 6:10 am
China shows no interest in contributing to climate deal?
China announced it would reduce its carbon intensity by 40% to 45% by 2020, based on 2005 levels.
Common, stuart, pls do not contribute by adding more problems to this world by misinformation and bashing just china.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:50 am
“So I hope you see the unfairness and not try to perpetuate it .”
More importantly, Obama and co saw that very clearly in Copenhagen, and put forward a proposal that would have helped developing countries to a far greater degree than the final ‘accord’. China torpedoed that deal.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:02 am
“China announced it would reduce its carbon intensity by 40% to 45% by 2020, based on 2005 levels. ”
In other words, at projected levels of gdp growth, China’s proposal is to emit twice as much in a decade’s time than she is now.
I was going to add that it will be interesting to see what that looks like, but I’m not sure we’ll be able to see much of anything.
December 29th, 2009 at 1:34 am
@stuart
“In other words, at projected levels of gdp growth, China’s proposal is to emit twice as much in a decade’s time than she is now.”
Definitely not more than what the developed world have collectively polluted the world over the last few hundred years of unrestrained and unaccountable indutrialisation.
“I was going to add that it will be interesting to see what that looks like, but I’m not sure we’ll be able to see much of anything.”
Please also work out what the share of the developed world is. I am sure you are right, it is going to be interesting
December 29th, 2009 at 1:40 am
@stuart
“China torpedoed that deal.”
You could not so blind as not to see that many developing countries are on the same page on this one. Just google “climate change”…I am sure you would find lot of views and opinions expressed by various countries’ repsnetatives. And btw, you would notice, how incapable of objective analysis and naive you are, just blaming China.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:43 am
“You could not [be] so blind as not to see that many developing countries are on the same page on this one.”
The developing world was split by Chinese design. They enlisted the lackies over whom they hold sway (e.g. Sudan) to do their bidding, then shafted the good guys (the ones who were there to get something done) by blocking a deal that would have seen them receive substantially more assistance from the developed world.
Copenhagen ended the developing world’s delusion of China as the Robin Hood of geopolitics.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:16 am
@stuart
“The developing world was split by Chinese design.”
Do you have proof or just your imaginations?
December 30th, 2009 at 10:40 am
@ Mac
Read The Australian and Guardian accounts (for example) linked to on the ‘final word’ thread. It’s quite clear that China adopted a strategy of derailment.
December 30th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
@stuart
“Read The Australian and Guardian accounts (for example) linked to on the ‘final word’ thread. It’s quite clear that China adopted a strategy of derailment.”
No more journalists please!