+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dot Earth: China Sustains Blunt 'You First' Message on CO2
2010-09-03 11:34:32.633 GMT
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Sept. 2 (New York Times) -- Yu Qingtai, China's lead
negotiator in climate talks from 2007 through the tumultuous
conference in Copenhagen last December, recently gave a blunt
speech at the Bejing University School of International Studies
on climate, diplomacy and the balance of national and global
interests in limiting global warming.
Yu, who is now China's ambassador to the Czech Republic,
presented a tough -- and appropriate -- challenge to the world's
industrialized nations, which have largely built their wealth on
a couple of centuries of burning fossil fuels.
In sum, he said that China's national interests will always
come first and, in any move toward binding steps for reducing
global emissions of greenhouse gases, rich countries must go
first.
Below, you can read an excerpt from a summary of the speech
posted on Chinadialogue, a bi-lingual Web site that provides a
valuable cross-cultural nexus for ideas and information on
environmental problems. After the excerpt, I've added reactions
from Deborah Seligsohn, a consultant on China for the World
Resources Institute, and Derek Scissors, a China analyst at the
Heritage Foundation. I've sent a query to other people working on
questions related to Sino-American relations and climate policy
and will add their responses as they come in.
The entire speech is well worth reading, but here's a short,
important excerpt and link to the rest (followed by the
reactions):
During my three years working on climate change, I have
reached some personal conclusions. Concern about climate change
and China's role must be seen against the background of China's
economic and social development. China's national circumstances
cannot be ignored. China is bound to be dependent on coal for
energy - we cannot afford oil as an alternative when it costs
more than US$100 dollars (680 yuan) a barrel. We have factors
limiting our development, and the price and opportunity costs of
energy saving and emissions reduction must be taken into account
and stable development continued. Many problems can only be
solved through development.
We cannot blindly accept that protecting the climate is
humanity's common interest - national interests should come
first. Individual enthusiasm and willingness to make sacrifice
for the sake of the climate is worthy of respect and praise. I
myself usually walk or take the bus to work. The individual can
choose not to drive, but China cannot choose not to have an
automobile industry. The individual can save power, but there are
600 million people in India without electricity - the country has
to develop and meet that need. And if that increases emissions, I
say, "So what?" The people have a right to a better life.
I once pointed out to an academic from a developed nation
that the emissions resulting from their country's two-car
households had been accumulating in the atmosphere for decades.
Many Chinese households have only just purchased their first car
and they tell us we should ride bikes? It doesn't make sense. We
want to develop the economy until everyone has the option of
buying a vehicle, but at the same time use taxation and subsidies
to encourage the purchase of low-emission vehicles and the use of
public transport.
When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, we cannot only
look at the current situation and ignore history, nor look at
overall emissions and ignore per capita figures. China's
accumulated emissions account for only 7% of the global total.
Emissions are caused by consumption of energy, and this is the
foundation of social development. As a Chinese person, I cannot
accept someone from a developed nation having more right than me
to consume energy. We are all created equal - this is no empty
slogan. The Americans have no right to tell the Chinese that they
can only consume 20% as much energy. We do not want to pollute as
they did, but we have the right to pursue a better life.
The public relations efforts of developed nations on climate
change are always more effective than ours, but it is more
important to look at their actual actions. Overall, when you look
at the facts, there is a huge difference between what is said and
what is done.
Some EU nations have done well on emissions reductions, but
the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Spain and Italy
have not just failed to make cuts - they have significantly
increased their emissions. And they do not seem to feel they have
done anything wrong.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) has been in place for almost two decades, and it has
achieved next to nothing. Traditional development aid has been
repackaged as aid for climate change. Transfers of technology
have not been effectively carried out, with some developed
nations even hoping to use the technology they control to turn a
profit.
Some ask why China cannot do more public relations work. I
think there is a cultural difference here, a characteristic of
the nation: we would rather get actual work done than make
boastful statements.
Deborah Seligsohn, principal adviser, China Climate Energy
and Pollution Program, World Resources Institute:
This strikes me a clear statement of the Chinese position
and a positive view of the negotiations. Yu cites achievements
out of Copenhagen and an interest and a willingness to move
forward. Yes, it is blunt about the Chinese point of view, and
there are indeed areas of real disagreement, but overall he is
looking forward.
At the same time it is important to differentiate
negotiating positions from domestic policy. Yu speaks as one of
the negotiators, and thus his focus is strongly on the
international arena. If you look at someone like Vice Chairman
Xie Zhenhua of the National Development and Reform Commission
(NDRC), you see a more two-pronged approach. For example, we put
up on ChinaFAQs a speech Xie gave in January in which he clearly
differentiated between the difficult international environment
and the need for rapid domestic action
(http://www.chinafaqs.org/library/xie-zhenhuas-speech-peking-university-guanghua-college-management-january-2010).
We have continued to see additional steps domestically since
Copenhagen - including new implementation efforts on energy
efficiency and new spending plans for renewables and nuclear.
We've also continued to see efforts to improve China's domestic
measurement and monitoring programs in advance of the next five
year plan. They know they need better measurement to track
provinces' compliance with new targets. They just want control
over their own policy choices and commitments. In this they are
really no different than the United States.
There is also an incredibly rich conversation going on right
now in China on what market-based measures they might want to use
- carbon tax, cap and trade, sectoral crediting. A lot of
articles in the press both in China and internationally have in
my opinion jumped the gun a little by reporting one or another as
the likely direction forward. This appears to be an ongoing
policy debate - there are lots of options under consideration -
but they are being discussed quite seriously.
What we've also seen in China, and my guess is elsewhere as
well, though I don't have firsthand knowledge, is growing concern
about the U.S.'s ability to meet its commitments. In the wake of
the failure to see a bill in the Senate, there is a lot of
concern in China that the U.S. can't meet its 17% target or its
financial commitments. That is why there is a lot of concern
about the push to see more commitments from developing countries
on MRV in the absence of moves on targets and financing. They
are worried they are being pushed to do more, when they haven't
yet seen how all their key partners are going to move. This
question of how to meet the commitment is one of the reasons why
WRI put out our analysis of how the US can move forward under
existing legislation
(http://www.wri.org/publication/reducing-ghg-emissions-using-existing-federal-authorities-and-state-action)
and why we've been briefing those in the international community
as well as folks in the U.S. We found a lot of interest here in
Beijing among both government officials and academic advisors to
the government when we conducted a series of briefings on this
paper in Beijing in July.
So the bottom line from these two points is that there is a
lot China is doing domestically, but how these get translated
into international commitments still to a significant extent will
rest on whether China perceives other countries as living up to
not just to earlier rounds of commitments (such as the
commitments for developed countries to act first in the original
Framework Convention) but to the commitments in the Copenhagen
Accord itself.
It is also important to remember that the equity concerns
are quite real. China's per capita emissions are still well
below those of the United States. They are concerned about these
questions of "development space" and who pays. In that sense you
are right that it is more complicated than just does the US move
forward - there is a question of whether the U.S. moves
convincingly forward, since the Chinese themselves are not
staying still: they are acting on many fronts. But the Chinese
continue to progress in a way that leads me to believe that many
of the players believe they need to be prepared for global carbon
restrictions. This is certainly true in the domestic CCS
discussion, where there is huge interest in mastering the
technology, both so they can use it at home if they have sharp
restrictions and so they can compete in a global suppliers market
for these systems. These are actually two sets of players within
China, and both are very active.
Derek Scissors, research fellow, The Heritage Foundation:
As Deborah has weighed in, I will argue differently.
Notwithstanding that everyone in D.C. (including me) thinks the
world revolves around this city, in this case American behavior
matters very little to relevant Chinese policies.
Eighteen months ago, I wrote
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/03/China-Will-Follow-the-US-A-Climate-Change-Fable
(a short attack on CAP's pre-Copenhagen blindness). If anything,
the situation is clearer now. Yes, the Chinese will take various
steps aimed at reducing pollution, reducing energy dependence,
and capturing the commercial market for green energy. Yes, these
will be impressive in terms of money allocated and gross
generating capacity.
No, they will not do anything to alter the trajectory of
substantially increasing coal use and domination of global
emissions growth. Nor will any feasible American action, much
less any likely American action, bear on Chinese decisions
concerning what would have to be a fundamental restructuring of
their economy.
A comparatively weaker China effectively ignored the outcry
over Sudanese genocide to protect the 2002 peak level of 9% of
their oil imports, or barely 1% of their total energy use at the
peak and far less two years before/after. In that light, what
outside actions would be necessary for them to push coal reliance
back down to the levels of, say, 1998?
Forms of international cooperation and harmony in fairness
issues and other matters only tangentially related to actual
climate change are certainly possible. But end-2013, it is
entirely possible that Chinese emissions will be twice that of
the U.S. and still pulling away, though of course there will be
the usual battle over what to count and growing battles over
who's counting.
If emissions are taken seriously, China therefore must be
the focus, not the U.S. Chinese emissions are woven inseparably
into a development model that has rebuffed American pressure and
internal reform of all kinds at every turn for the past seven
years. The change necessary would be drastic and dislocating and
American behavior is a trivial factor.
My sense of this, as a longtime observer, is that Scissors
is right in concluding there will remain very little linkage
between American choices on climate policy and Chinese actions.
I'll be posting more reactions, of course, and your constructive
thoughts are always welcome.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
-0- Sep/03/2010 11:34 GMT
