<\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The first chart is responsibility, i.e., contribution to global <\/p>\n These <\/p>\n The blame game<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Why To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, <\/p>\n China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all <\/p>\n With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with It <\/p>\n Caution <\/p>\n Still, <\/p>\n In <\/p>\n It is <\/p>\n What <\/p>\n The South <\/p>\n The <\/p>\n It’s <\/p>\n Moreover, <\/p>\n Return <\/p>\n The answer is not <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Note: For a much more detailed and quantitative discussion of the <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> This is the total fossil CO2 emitted by the United States and China, <\/p>\n [2]<\/a> The Energy Information Agency of the US Department of Energy forecasts <\/p>\n [3]<\/a> This estimated was calculated by the UNFCCC Secretariat and <\/p>\n William Chandler (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) is Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n Climate meeting in April will aim to revive U.N. process<\/a><\/p>\n Electric bikes on a roll in China<\/a><\/p>\n Two months after Copenhagen summit, U.N. climate pointman to quit<\/a><\/p>\n
warming, cumulated from 1900. (The total[1]<\/strong><\/a> or the United States is 338 GtCO2, and for China is 124 GtCO2.) The
second chart is a reflection of pledged reduction effort for the year 2020 in
GtCO2. It compares the U.S. goal of reducing emissions by 17 percent with China’s goal
of reducing emissions intensity by 40-45 percent. Both figures are defined
relative to 2005 levels, and are pledged for the year 2020. (The US pledge translates[2]<\/strong><\/a> to approximately 0.8 GtCO2 of effort in 2020, and the China pledge is
calculated[3]<\/strong><\/a> to amount to approximately 2.5 GtCO2 in 2020, or approximately 3 times the
United States effort) <\/strong><\/p>\n
charts are not, if I may put the matter gently, consistent with the common,
post-Copenhagen story of China’s climate policy, which has it that, in the
words of British climate secretary Ed Miliband, China “held the world to
ransom” in an attempt to prevent a climate treaty. Nor is this an incidental point.<\/p>\n
did was Copenhagen so disappointing? It’s
a tough question with lots of possible approaches. Alternatively, it may be that Copenhagen’s
failure was simply China’s fault. This explanation, alas, has grown legs. It demands discussion, beginning with Mark Lynas’ widely read, and rather
fantastically misleading How
do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room<\/a>. Here, as a reminder, are Lynas’ key
paragraphs:<\/p>\n
know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialized
country targets, previously agreed as an 80 percent cut by 2050, be taken out of the
deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious
Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough
to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the
illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce
even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched,
aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point.
Now we know why—because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame
for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.<\/p>\n
the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions,
essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly
language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The
long-term target, of global 50 percent cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps
with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen …<\/p>\n
a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so
beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose
from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown,
fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go
extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence—and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but
meaningless. The deed was done.<\/p>\n
sounds pretty bad, and no doubt it was. In any case, it’s easy to see why
Lynas’ fly-on-the-wall account was so compelling, particularly to desperate
northerners, environmentalists of course but also, and more generally, all
those who are already primed to see China as an implacable mercantilist threat
to their preferred style of capitalism. The real question, though, is if
his summary interpretation—“This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its
leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only
not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of
action”—is an accurate one.<\/p>\n
is in order, as always in the face of politically convenient arguments.
And certainly Lynas’ conclusions are much in line with the North’s strategy of
hiding behind the emerging economies. See for example Snubbed In
Copenhagen, E.U. Weighs Climate Options, a Reuters piece that told us that
“Officials acknowledge privately that the mandatory system for enforcing
emissions curbs created by the 1997 Kyoto protocol is doomed because China
won’t accept any constraints on its future economic growth, and the United
States won’t join any agreement that is not binding on Beijing.”<\/p>\n
it’s not enough to point out that Lynas’ argument is useful to the North.
Or even to remind ourselves that by many measures China is already making
greater efforts than the wealthy countries of the North. It’s also
necessary to go to the core of Lynas’ argument, which as he
recently put it<\/a>, is that “Copenhagen has opened up a chasm between
sustainability and equity.” Why? Because, though “NGOs that
ideologically support equity defend the right of developing countries to
increase their emissions for two to three more decades at least,” in fact,
“there is no room for expansion by anyone.”<\/p>\n
Lynas’ view, this “chasm between sustainability and equity” is a pitiless
divide, which no amount of pro-poor solidarity can bridge. In fact, it’s
an implacable truth of our carbon-constrained future that not only China, but
also India, and South Africa, and Brazil, and Mexico, and indeed the entire
“emerging” world is at the edge of an near-impossible future. If the
climate is to be saved, the South will have to put its developmental
aspirations onto the betting table, and it will have to do so soon.<\/p>\n
fact the case that “there is no room for expansion by anyone”? Then welcome to the future as a suicide
pact. For it is highly unlikely that the developing countries, and the
emerging economies in particular, will have their plans so rudely
checked. But what’s the alternative? This is a good question, much
discussed by those who’ve been following the burden-sharing debate that’s raged
through the climate community in the last few years. Unfortunately, this debate does not seem to
be familiar to Mark Lynas. Which, perhaps, is not entirely his
fault. In truth, the northern climate movement has quite failed to
explain the structure of the global climate justice problem to the broader
population. Or even to itself.<\/p>\n
exactly is this problem? Only that we’ve reached the limits to growth,
and done so in a world that’s bitterly divided between haves and
have-nots. That, despite decades of warnings, the wealthy nations have
neglected to demonstrate that low-carbon development paths are actually
possible. That they’ve instead pursued business-as-usual economics, and,
within the climate negotiations, have stonewalled on the oft-repeated demand,
made not just by the Chinese but by the entire developing world, to accept
meaningful reduction commitments. That, against this dark background, China—a proud country that has for all its many faults lifted hundreds of millions
of people out of poverty—has emerged as the chief voice of a southern bloc
that has consistently refused to accept the choice between developmental
justice and climate stabilization.<\/p>\n
dilemma is easy enough to visualize. Consider the “G8 style” emissions pathway
that provoked China’s backroom confrontation with the North. The details of this pathway are that: 1)
global emissions peak soon (about 2020) and decline by 2050 to 50 percent below
1990 levels; and 2) Northern emissions simultaneously decline to 80 percent
below 1990 levels. Now ask yourself—why might China’s rejection of such an offer be reasonable? The answer lies in
arithmetic: The remaining global emissions budget is so small that, despite a
relatively ambitious program of northern emission reductions, southern
emissions must still peak soon, and then drop almost as rapidly as global
emissions themselves. Further, they must
do so while the people of the South are still struggling to escape poverty, and
more generally to invent new, dignified, and sustainable models of life.<\/p>\n
climate crisis is, in other words, a crisis of development.<\/p>\n
necessary to be very clear here. The problem is not that poverty
alleviation, or even just forms of sustainable development, are now impossible.
The problem is rather that they have not been compellingly demonstrated. Indeed, the wealthy countries, through their reluctance to reduce their own
emissions, have quite convincingly demonstrated to the developing world how
undesirable—if not actually impossible—such paths must be. The simple
fact is that, today, the only proven routes up from poverty still
involve an expanded use of energy and, consequently, a seemingly inevitable
increase in fossil-fuel use and thus carbon emissions.<\/p>\n
the South’s reticence, understandable within a G8-style pathway, is all the
more compelling in the context of a global 350 target. Here, even if the
North’s emissions drop at a sustained rate of 10 percent a year, to approach zero in
2050 (an ambitious goal by any measure), the South would still be left with a
reduction pathway that is scarcely less stringent. How it can be
negotiated is one of the biggest and most pressing questions on the
geopolitical agenda, one that this note will not attempt to answer. But I
must at least stipulate that, unless the South comes to trust the North’s
willingness to accept its fair share of the necessary effort, whatever it turns
out to be, honest emergency pathways will remain forever out of reach.<\/p>\n
to China, which despite wealthy enclaves still has many, many people living in
poverty. Consider that the targets that the Chinese expunged from the
Copenhagen Accord would have important developmental implications. And
that the South has for years made it clear that it will simply not allow itself
to be trapped into sacrificing development for climate protection. Remember that, during the run up to Copenhagen, the South repeatedly insisted
that the North accept a science-based reduction target at the “upper end” of
the IPCC’s 25 percent by 40 percent range (from the 1990 baseline, by 2020). And that
the North, for its part, attempted instead to enshrine a global reduction
pathway that would have implicitly constrained southern development, and to do
so without itself adopting science-based targets of any kind. Then ask
yourself, again, exactly what (other than its failure to properly explain
itself, which was egregious indeed) was so unreasonable about the Chinese
position.<\/p>\n
obvious.<\/p>\n
trajectories here, and of the dilemma that climate destabilization poses for
the developing countries, see this<\/a>. <\/p>\n
respectively, since 1900, as reported by the Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center (CDIAC) of the United States Department of Energy. If one
were to look back only to 1950 (rather than 1900), then the tally would be 260
GtCO2 for the US, and 122 GtCO2 for China.<\/p>\n
in their Annual Energy Outlook 2010 that 2020 fossil CO2 emissions in
the US will be 3.2 percent lower than they were in 2005, this under a reference case
(i.e., a business-as-usual scenario) in which the United States does not enact
national climate policy. The International Energy Agency’s World
Energy Outlook 2009, projects an even greater decline of roughly 5 percent over
the same period. Emissions were already 8.9 percent lower in 2009 than in 2005
owing to the ongoing economic recession, but both EIA’s AEO2010 and the IEA’s
WEO2009 projects a modest rebound for the United States over the coming
decade. To meet the 17 percent pledge, therefore, the U.S. will need to reduce
emissions below the expected 3.2 percent “reference” reduction by a further 0.8
GtCO2. (If one instead goes with the IEA’s projection of a 5 percent reference
reduction, the additional required mitigation would be about 0.7 GtCO2.)<\/p>\n
documented in their Preliminary Assessment of pledges made by Annex 1
Parties and voluntary actions and policy goals by a number of non-Annex 1
Parties. (This leaked document was widely circulated, and made
available<\/a>).
The Secretariat’s 2.5 GtCO2 estimate of the abatement effort implied by the
Chinese pledge is calculated relative to a constructed reference case (not the
IEA WEO2009) that explicitly excludes the effort associated with China’s
existing energy intensity policy. As the Secretariat explained, “The
level of emissions in the [IEA WEO2009] reference scenario … is among the
lowest compared to the other studies available. … [It] already includes the
effects from some of the pledges and voluntary action in cases where the
relevant legislation and policies are put in place. This includes, among
others, a large part of the E.U. 20 percent reduction target, Norway 30 percent reduction
target, Australia’s 5 percent reduction target and China’s current policies, notably
the 20 percent energy efficiency improvement target.”<\/p>\n
more explicit: “The current energy intensity policy … can legitimately be
described as severe, even draconian. The policy imposes hundreds of
detailed industrial efficiency standards to a degree unparalleled in any other
country in the world. The policy has forced closure of tens of thousands
of factories, power plants, and production lines that failed to meet the
standards. It is unimaginable that such a policy could ever be enacted in
the United States, much less be continued for another decade. It’s a
non-trivial error to call it a “reference case,” as the IEA has done.” See Memo To Copenhagen: Commentary Is Misinformed-China’s Commitment Is
Significant<\/a>.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.ecoequity.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/02\/US-vs-China-v2.jpg\")
<\/a>