I suspect not, it’s probably just a case of great minds. . .OK maybe its not that complicated an issue, but still we think its pretty cool. . .
Here’s CELB March 18th, 2009 Climate Change: China’s Argument Du Jour:
Li Gao, China’s chief climate negotiator, . . . [i]n widely reported remarks, argued that the carbon produced by China as a result of making products for export, should be credited to the importing nation and not carried on China’s books. . . .If China were serious about its argument-that importers should bear the cost of emissions generated abroad- it should support an import tax (or impose an export tax) to place the cost of carbon emissions on importers and the ultimate consumers of the product. But, here’s where China’s use of this “defense” becomes suspect. Reportedly, Li also criticized proposals by the U.S. to place carbon tariffs on goods imported from countries that do not limit the gases blamed for global warming.
Now here’s Paul Krugman, May 14, 2009 Empire of Carbon:
[T]he Chinese also insisted that they should not be held responsible for the greenhouse gases they emit when producing goods for foreign consumers. But they refused to accept the logical implication of this view - that the burden should fall on those foreign consumers instead, that shoppers who buy Chinese products should pay a “carbon tariff” that reflects the emissions associated with those goods’ production. That, said the Chinese, would violate the principles of free trade.
Krugman ends his article with the following paragraph which pretty much sums up the CELB position:
As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.
It’s time to save the planet. And like it or not, China will have to do its part.
Please read the whole article; it’s well worth it.
(h/t @darnoc)
8 responses so far ↓
1 Tom Spencer // May 15, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Dear Mr McElwee
Hi. I came across this site through Googling Professor Krugman.
Thanks for providing a link on such an important topic - China and the environment.
Tom Spencer
Australia
2 cmcelwee // May 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Hi Tom, Thanks for your comment. I’m glad you found what you were looking for.
3 Pierre // May 19, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Hi
I think the position then expressed by Mr Li Gao is so fundamentally flawed - economically wise - that it is not surprising that different people - lawyers, economists or others - happen to point out at the same time the contradiction.
It’s been a little while already that some officials use the ‘export to the West’ argument to reduce China’s responsibility in global emissions. Implying that China is doing developed countries a favor by producing goods for their markets, i.e. forgetting how much China’s recent development owes to the export sector.
I don’t think that any Chinese official sincerely believes in those arguments, but even if it’s just part of a strategy, they should be careful and focus on more grounded arguments (it’s definitely possible!) to preserve their credibility.
Best, thanks for your interesting blog and the frequent posts.
4 cmcelwee // May 19, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Thanks for the comment Pierre. I agree that the rebuttal to Mr. Li’s argument is self-evident, which makes it even more surprising that China would have raised the argument in the first place. I also agree with you they should stick with the per capita argument and other safe ones.
5 Sam // May 20, 2009 at 11:49 am
Classic.
Creating something out of nothing - Stratagem #7
I can see why Li Gao is China’s chief climate negotiator. (the force is strong in that one)
Any time spent trying to take that stance off the table will probably require some sort of compensation from the other side.
I truly hope that no one spends any time on it and pretends it was never said.
sort of an “OK. That’s nice, moving right along…”
Otherwise, there will be more.
6 Sam // May 20, 2009 at 11:55 am
Just to add…
This takes the focus off ‘making things better’ and has everyone wallowing in the mire of ‘who’s to blame”.
7 Pierre // May 20, 2009 at 5:16 pm
To Sam,
I think the Blame Game is not a stupid strategy (if supported by other strategies), but I also think China doesn’t want to end up looking like a fool at the talks. Too foolish arguments may not be able to bring compensations. If Chinese negotiators really want to blame the West, they can mention historic responsibility, development level, and so on.
I agree with you that it’s best to ignore such arguments to keep good quality discussions about the core issues (that are many, and tricky).
About Li Gao being “China’s chief climate negotiator”, I wouldnt be so affirmative. They’re many, from everywhere it seems sometimes.
8 China Comment // May 31, 2009 at 11:39 am
RE: “As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. ”
Well… While Krugman is not wrong here, I am a bit more skeptical about the US being able to ever speak with “authority” on climate change or energy usage. Other countries could always point to the US’ history and use it as evidence that modernization requires energy vamprism and extensive use, and thereby justify their own excesses.
And it will be difficult for a country the size of the United States to ever become completely “green” or energy efficient the way that a tightly packed country which has concentrated populations and where it is easy to deliver power would be- so other countries could always point to some sort of pollution that the US leads the world in producing.
I agree that it is a good thing if the United States and other countries can craft an economically viable “green” solution, but I am a bit concerned that it is highly unlikely that other not-as-economically successful or developed countries will fall in lock-step when there may be easy money to be had by ignoring the externalities.
Leave a Comment