China Environmental Law

The climate portion of Obama’s China visit has come and gone.  In its wake it left several separate MOUs which are, quite frankly, a little flimsier than I had hoped, but represent progress nonetheless.  I’ll address them later.  For those who bothered to read to the end of the US-China Joint Statement, there was also section addressing “climate change, energy and environment.”  It is, for the most part, filled with the “time-honored talking points,” Todd Stern warned us about in headier days.  Only a pathological optimist would find much solace in the language of this joint statement since most of it could have come directly from a formal Chinese submission to the UNFCCC.

The points attracting the most attention are:

1. China agrees to take “significant mitigation action.”  China has always agreed to take “significant mitigation action.”  China’s point, which I do not see has changed, was that the actions it undertook would be characterized as Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), that are not measurable, reportable, and verifiable unless supported by financial or technological support from developed countries.  The big question is how “significant” will China’s actions be, and we still don’t have an answer to that one.

2. The two sides “resolve to stand behind these commitments.”  Come on folks, these are weasel words.  I’m sure Bernie Madoff told investors he stood behind every investment he made.  Does this mean full third-party measuring and verification?  No, at best it means you get your money back if you aren’t satisfied with the product.  Next. . . .

3. The outcome at Copenhagen should “provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures.”  I won’t even touch China’s history of living up to “transparency” commitments, but will simply note that given the comma placement this clause is combined with this one: “and provision of financial, technology and capacity building support.”  In other words, you give us money and technology and we will be transparent as to how we deploy it.  Again, this is entirely consistent with China’s previous submissions to the UNFCCC.

After reading the statement I came away with the sense that US negotiators had simply been worn down by Chinese intransigence.  I can sympathize completely, but it’s not a reason to celebrate.  We still have a long, long way to go, and the pace of progress remains (pre-climate change) glacial.