The State Council Information Office issued a white paper today entitled China’s Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change. In the words of the press release the paper
describes that China actively participates in worldwide efforts to address climate change, earnestly observes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, and plays a constructive role in international cooperation in this regard.
This new White Paper should be read in conjunction with the China’s National Plan for Coping with Climate Change issued in June 2007 if you want to have the full picture of China’s public pronouncements on climate change.
Because of its importance, CELB has compiled the English translation of the White Paper into one document (”Climate Change White Paper”) which we have placed in the right sidebar under “Laws & Regulations” so that our valued readers won’t have to click through 11 pages on the China.org.cn site.
I’ve only had a chance to quickly scan it, but it seems to be about what you’d expect if you have been paying attention to these issues for awhile.
Lots of talk about adapting to climate change. This should not be surprising. China is fixated on self-sufficiency. If the solution to a problem lies beyond its exclusive power to control (such as climate change), then it will naturally begin to figure out how to cope with the problem.
Any signals it will change its stance in the next round of climate change negotiations? None. The White Paper notes the industrialized nations’ overwhelming contribution to present atmospheric carbon loadings, but does not acknowledge China’s new status at the world’s number 1 carbon emitter.
As a developing country, it must continue to pursue its “development objectives.” While it will “strive for rational growth of energy demand”
its coal-dominated energy mix cannot be substantially changed in the near future, thus making the control of greenhouse gas emissions rather difficult.
Thus it continues to push the “common but differentiated responsibilities” line. Under this approach
Developed countries should be responsible for their accumulative emissions and current high per-capita emissions, and take the lead in reducing emissions, in addition to providing financial support and transferring technologies to developing countries. The developing countries, while developing their economies and fighting poverty, should actively adopt adaptation measures, reduce their emissions to the lowest degree and fulfill their duties in addressing climate change.
Here’s China’s bottom line, as I’ve noted for some time: no GHG limits and free technology, lots of free technology:
China energetically impels and participates in technology transfer under the UNFCCC framework, works hard to build a favorable domestic environment for international technology transfer, and has submitted a technological demand list. China believes that technology transfer under the UNFCCC framework should not solely rely on the market. The key is for the governments of developed countries to make efforts to reduce and eliminate obstacles to technology transfer, and adopt pilot and incentive policies and measures, thus playing an effective role in the promotion of technology transfer. For key technologies under study concerning climate change, it is necessary to take advantage of the joint efforts of the international community and lose no time in making breakthroughs, and such technologies should be shared by all countries in the world.
We are heading for a train wreck folks. Does anyone think (regardless of who wins the election next Tuesday), that the US Senate will ratify a treaty that commits a recession-plagued US to a treaty where it must undertake real GHG reduction limits, while a growing economic power house like China (associated now in US public perception with a spectacular and lavish Olympics and a Shenzhou space program complete with vanity space walks) gets to continue to increase its GHG emissions and gets lots of money and free technology to boot?
I’m well aware of those arguments that the US is morally or “legally” obligated to reduce its GHG emissions, even if China does not. I agree with some of this analysis, but from a political perspective these arguments are DOA with a majority of Senators. This issue may come to ahead fairly quickly in the US depending on how fast efforts to establish a domestic GHG cap and trade system move in the new year. Current proposals would impose “import penalties” on products made in China if China does not adopt reduction efforts similar to the US. It’s going to get interesting.
7 responses so far ↓
1 casual obeserver // Oct 30, 2008 at 4:47 am
China’s image of itself is highly and dangerously dillusional. China deserves nor should receive any free technology or funding. If you have a manned spaceprogram and can deploy your troops in foreign countries for long periods of time (say, Africa) you are not a developing country, end of story.
2 Kohl Piersen // Oct 31, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“Lots of talk about adapting to climate change. This should not be surprising. China is fixated on self-sufficiency. If the solution to a problem lies beyond its exclusive power to control (such as climate change), then it will naturally begin to figure out how to cope with the problem.”
I think this is the most sensible official reaction to the “climate warming” controversy that I have seen. To figure out how to cope with problems outside your control! Now there is real public policy in action.
Now, if only we could get the IPCC to hop on this bandwagon, we’d have it made!
3 elwin9 // Nov 2, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Peter Huber, in FORBES, a few months ago (8/11, I think) made an excellent case for no significant CO2 reduction being possible, despite the furor among the IPCC/ Al Gore enthusiasts.
It fits in perfectly with this. There are 2.5 billion people in China & India who, I am sure, will not volunteer to stay poor to keep the planet a degree cooler in the year 2100. The Chinese coal mining firm, Shenhua, is the third largest in the world and does not export even a pound.
4 Jake Schmidt // Nov 4, 2008 at 1:43 am
I think you missed another statement from China in the paper (as I discussed in my post: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/changing_climate_in_china.html):
“The developing countries, while developing their economies and fighting poverty, should actively…reduce their emissions to the lowest degree…”
So, I don’t think they are saying we will only reduce emissions if the developed countries provide technology assistance. Rather, I think they are saying we will reduce our emissions to some extent and we need help (in the form of technology support) to go further. This is in essence the spirit of the Bali Agreement for the developing country mitigation piece of the post-2012 agreement.
Granted China could have been much more explicit about what level of reduction they would aim for…but I think they are probably holding that out for the final push into Copenhagen.
The negotiation between what actions China will take and how much assistance they get will be a key cornerstorne of the international agreement to be reached in Copenhagen (December 2009).
5 cmcelwee // Nov 4, 2008 at 11:45 am
@ Jake: I didn’t miss the statement, I chose to ignore it because of its banality. Let’s be clear, when China says “reduce their emissions” it is not talking about reducing emissions from current levels (much less from some historic level), it is talking about reducing the rate of growth of GHG emissions. No one who has followed the issue doubts that China has set goals and taken actions that will reduce the rate at which its GHG emissions would have otherwise grown. Good for China. The fact remains, however, that its emissions are still growing at a significant rate. As you suggest, if China had suggested a growth rate reduction percentage it would agree to commit to—that would be news.
My point was that China needs to stop trying to take cover in the middle of the “developing countries” pack on climate change. Even if China meets the economic definition of a “developing country,” in many other venues China has demanded to be accepted (and in my opinion has won the right to be accepted) as an international heavyweight. The face it presents to the world on many issues is one of confidence and power. When China spends billions on Olympic games and aggressive space programs, it is hard for it to play the poverty card. In other words, it can’t have it both ways.
With its new international respect comes new responsibilities. It must act as a “responsible international stakeholder,” particularly when it is such a large contributor (at least on a going forward basis) to the issue under discussion. China’s attempt to assume a “developing nation” mantle in the global warming sphere is like an elephant hoping to remain inconspicuous among a flock of sheep.
We are still some distance from the end game, so what we are seeing now may simply be pre-game posturing. I hope so. Personally, I would like to see a bold move from China, and I think an offer to begin bilateral negotiations with the US would be a stunning piece of statesmanship. There have been several constructive proposals about how these negotiations could proceed (see Mark Levine’s recent testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission).
I think we both want the same result, and with any luck all players will rise to the occasion. In my opinion, however, we still have a long way to go.
6 Robert G. // Nov 7, 2008 at 3:34 am
China appears to be the smart one. Why waste a penny of fighting global warming when mother nature has done it for free. Mother nature has been lowering the temperature sense 1998 is spite of the fact that CO2 levels have been raising. How could this be happening you ask. Well it’s clear when you realize the GW is a government back scam with the sole purpose of creating a reason to raise taxes and create more useless government regulation.
7 Greg // Nov 12, 2008 at 4:48 am
Does China export foil hats as well? Warm water evaporates and forms clouds, the more clouds the less sunlight reaches the earth. Add in other aerosols from sulfur fumes, nitrogen, organics, etc. and lots of interesting things happen up there.
Leave a Comment