This is an expanded discussion, with some revisiting, of something written a week ago trying to step back and consider the Chinese approach to climate negotiations in Copenhagen and elsewhere. I have, since reading it, been “assured” that Copenhagen failure was China’s fault. That “assurance” and assessing of “blame”, in my opinion, glosses over the very weak hand President Obama had going into Copenhagen due to Senate failure to act on even a weak climate bill and what that might imply for Chinese approaches to climate negotiations. On the other hand, this discussion is not meant as a white-washing of roadblocks that the PRC delegation/leadership placed on the route toward a stronger COP15 final resolution.
That is, the Chinese climate agenda …
Many are reporting that the Chinese represented the most serious stumbling block inhibiting meaningful progress at COP15.
- Should we conclude “China at fault” for the world’s failures to move forward?
- Are the “Chinese” against action on climate change?
- Is the Chinese leadership simply a roadblock to progress?
These are important questions to understand and consider as we strive to determine paths forward toward a prosperous, climate-friendly future.
“China is at fault …”
if there’s a party to blame, it’s China. It’s China that was off meeting with India and Brazil, trying to avoid getting ensnared in any commitments at all, forcing Obama to track them down. It was China that refused to sign off on the target of 50% global reductions by 2050. It was China that forced rich countries not to commit to 80% reductions by 2050, lest it some day have to live up to that target. (Yes, China forced rich countries to trim their ambitions. “Ridiculous,” said Merkel.) It was China who, up until the very last minute, refused to agree to any international verification at all …
It’s China, in short, that was unwilling to sign onto anything but the most bare-bones framework.
Watching ‘from a distance’, this is a summation of a growing impression re the PRC position in international climate negotiations.
‘Chinese are against action …’
The Independent reported China stands accused of wrecking global deal.
China “systematically wrecked” the Copenhagen climate summit because it feared being presented with a legally binding target to cut the country’s soaring carbon emissions [according to] a senior official from an EU country, present during the negotiations … accusation … of obstructive Chinese behaviour, reflected widespread anger among many delegations about the nation’s actions at the conference.
The very thoughtful Lou Grinzo concluded
Right before our eyes we have the development of the biggest example one could imagine of the free rider problem. If the other major emitters and potentially high emitters do the right thing and curb their CO2 pollution significantly, it will only make it easier for China to do whatever it wants. The rest of the world will leave more of our global remaining CO2 budget for China, and they will continue using vast amounts of cheap coal, burned in filthy, old-tech plants, to lower their costs so they can continue to be a low-cost producer of many products they export.
Chinese leadership a roadblock to progress
Mark Lynas’ title makes his perspective clear: How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
Copenhagen was a disaster. … The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication …
China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Even with roadblocks, progress seen …
Even amid all this, the weeks before COP15 and COP15 itself saw a meaningful shift in the international discussion. As Joe Romm noted
The Kyoto Protocol called on developed countries to reduce emissions but did not demand reductions from developing countries. Major polluting developing countries, including China, India, South Africa, and Brazil, are now poised to make transparent emissions reductions or reductions in pollution rates. This is the first time that developing countries have agreed to binding emission reductions in an international agreement. This represents a major shift from the schism between developed and developing countries that blocked progress in the past.
In his “Lessons Learned from Copenhagen” discussion, Romm also highlights Chinese agreement to international verification of emissions reduction efforts.
Stepping back to consider the issue …
Without a doubt, there is truth (and substance) to all of the above, but let’s take a step back to consider the PRC’s approach from a different angle.
The Chinese Leadership
- doesn’t suffer from rabid anti-science syndrome conditions, thus listens to their technical experts — including their climate scientists
- structure & Chinese cultural heritage able to plan for and structure itself for the very long term
- is growing increasingly convinced that climate change represents a serious threat to their nation
- is increasingly concerned over fossil-fuel (oil and higher-quality coal) import dependencies thus increasingly
- is focusing national investment re clean energy options
- wants to see serious global action re climate change mitigation
- seeking to maximize advantage to PRC through this whole process
Thus, the Chinese are acting to mitigate climate change (their clean energy investments, increasing focus on energy efficiency, etc …) but they are (in quite realist terms) seeking to get every possible penny (whether US pennies or the more valuable Euro version) it can get from other nations to gain advantage for the PRC over the long term.
Thus, the Chinese will play every single negotiation to the brink, giving away the absolute minimum they see as necessary, even as they are moving their own nation on a ‘clean energy technology’ path forward.
Thus, perhaps the reality is that the Chinese are negotiating, hard, for every advantage … even while turning their economy on a path toward dominance (victory?) in the clean energy revolution.
Two asides …
… The accusation that Chinese were purposely trying to subvert the talks, make Mr. Obama look bad or use him as a scapegoat is frankly rediculous. … To suggest that China was obstructionist is to suggest they were unwilling to make compromises. …
That they were unwilling to compromise on certian key points in the absence of substatial agreements including commitments from developed nations suggests something else: that China is not foolish to cave into demands by developed nations when recipricol compromises were not in the offer and obviously no firm agreements could be made.
As noted, I would strongly recommend reading the full comment which ended with this telling graphic:
China … Chinese … China Leadership … Chinese Interest Groups …
The simple collective singular is far easier when thinking about, discussing the “other”. “The United States believes …” … “The Jews think that …” “The Chinese feel …” While we can speak seriously of the nature and conduct of an official delegation (Lynas’ claims about Copenhagen, for example), we have a real peril in that collective term “The Chinese …” While they might not have their Jim Inhofe in a place of power, there are certainly a wide range of ‘interest groups’ within the Chinese government and society from factory owners, mining interests, coal-fired electricity interests, scientific institutions studying climate change, clean-energy entreprenours, with varying stakes in the game and efforts to drive direction. And, while far more autocratic than the United States, the reality is that a central government dictate is necessarily fully implemented across the nation without question and without undermining. There are regional vs central government issues as well. And, increasingly, there are civil society groups attempting to impact society and governance (such as Greenpeace China, et al …) And …
At the moment, I am reading Bryan Tilt’s just-published The Struggle for Sustainability in Rural China. Tilt is an ethnographer who spent a number of years in Futian, a rural community in Sichuan, doing “research on economic development and environmental degradation in the Chinese countryside”. Tilt provides a far more complex picture (a far more complex reality) than simply “The Chinese …”
In addition, fueling the confusion or difficulty for most “Westerners” looking toward China is a reality of a variety of cultural and other divides. Ask an average American (okay, “average” could be a problem, how about college educated?) to name 10 European cities and describe them in some manner and you could get discussions of Rome & the Coliseum, Paris & Notre Dame, London and Trafalgar Square, Greece & the Parthenon, Berlin & the Berlin Wall, etc … Try to elicit the same about the PRC and does anyone think that there would, writ large across American (or, well, European society of US vs China) society, be an equal level of detail and understanding?
What might this suggest for European and US policy?
If the above points are, at their core, correct, the best path for the United States (and others) might be to set out on a serious ‘arms race’: to arm ourselves (whether looking at this from EU or US or, well, Chinese perspective) to the greatest advantage with clean energy technology — which includes, of course, not just energy R&D funding, but serious commitments to the deployment of clean energy and energy efficiency throughout the economy. (Clean Energy Jobs anyone?)
If the United States, European Union (French carbon tax starts 1 January on top of Europe’s Cap & Trade), Japan, and others are prepared (a big question, at least when it comes to the US) to put a price on carbon while some economies aren’t, then perhaps it is time for a Global Warming Impact Fee which could help compel others to take that step while protecting national economies in a fair and justifiable way that would (according to several international lawyers) pass World Trade Organization (WTO) scrutiny. .
Right now, China is committing ever more resources to seeking advantage in solar, wind, and other clean energy arenas. They look to realize that the real path to future wealth is to leap frog past polluting energy into a clean energy future. If their investments continue without matching (or larger) investments in Europe and the United States, the “Old World” and the “New World” will be beholden to China for key elements of our economies. A question to ask: does that scenario bode well for the future prospects for Old World and/or New World prosperity?
This suggests that future climate change negotiations and the prospects for mitigation of climate change would be best served by serious (crash) programs (as Leif put it, a green shock doctrine) on both sides of the Atlantic to develop and deploy a broad range of clean energy systems.