Here’s a little game we can play while we wait for “sign up” day on January 31, 2010. What do you think China will submit for inclusion on Appendix II of the Copenhagen Accords?
The Accord provides 1 any Annex I party who so chooses can list on Appendix I its “Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020″ including the relevant “base year.” Non-Annex 1 Parties, which still includes China, who choose to participate may list on Appendix II their “nationally appropriate mitigation actions” (NAMAs). Earlier drafts of Appendix II included a column marked “Action/Target,” but “target” was dropped in the final version.
“Quantified economy-wide emissions targets” and NAMAs are, of course, well established concepts under the UNFCCC and perfectly illustrate the gaping divide between what is required of developed and what is required of developing countries. 2 China’s announced target of a 40-45% reduction in its carbon intensity per unit of GDP by 2020 (over the 2005 level) is more in the nature of a quantified economy-wide emissions targets than a NAMA. A Chinese NAMA would be something along the lines of “we will close X MW of small, inefficient coal-fired electric generation capacity by 2015.”
There is always the possibility that China won’t list anything, but I think that is highly unlikely. My own guess is that they will list their carbon intensity goal, but I wouldn’t place a lot of money on that bet. If they do, I think that will be a good sign that China is starting to acknowledge some erosion in the sharp developed/developing country divide of the existing international climate change framework. If China only lists a series of actions (without any quantified carbon reduction targets or impacts), then they are signaling that they are going to fight tooth and nail to persevere the existing binary distinction.
There is a BASIC meeting scheduled for the third week in January when I suspect this issue will be hashed out among this new climate bloc consisting of Brazil, South Africa, India and China. In the meantime, what do you think will happen?
I’m working on more thoughtful reactions to the Copenhagen Accord for both the China Economic Review and Harvard Asia Quarterly. When those are published I’ll let you know.
- “Demands,” requires,” mandates,” “invites” — who knows what the correct word is given the nature of a document that will “become operational immediately” and reads like a contract, yet remains “non-binding.” ↩
- How significantly this divide was bridged in the Copenhagen Accord is a matter of some contention. ↩
4 responses so far ↓
1 the1nigel // Jan 13, 2010 at 3:02 am
It looks as if we have entered a new era of international stand-off while the planet is left to sink under the threats from global warming. I am reminded of the term ‘mutually assured destruction’ (MAD) used during the nuclear weapons stand-off’s of the 20th century to indicate a willingness to instigate total annihilation if the other side doesn’t give way. It is a test of nerves we don’t have time for though, because it matters not to the planet’s biosphere who makes the first cuts, just that as long as no serious cuts are made, the climate will continue to be forced to change for the worst, assuring our destruction. This terrible pattern will continue in the miserable wake of Copenhagen as long as China and the USA, as well as the other big emitters, remain reticent about showing real commitment to GHG mitigation. It is clear that China stands for the moral right of developing nations around the world to assert that, those who should ‘pay’ are the rich nations who have created the build up of GHG’s in the first place. And so they are expecting developed nations to take the lead in emissions reductions. Ironically, the USA now stands, once again, in a position to lead the world to safety from global warming simply because out of the developed nations, it has the right combination of natural resources, technology base, infrastructure and President disposed to do so. A ‘Desertec-style’ approach to a renewable energy network could be easier to implement in the USA than elsewhere in the world due to the absence of international boundaries to negotiate. They have the solar radiation, the deserted space and two large oceans either side of the country to create a truly massive zero-carbon renewable energy base. If the US were to seize this opportunity, not only would it transform their economy in a sustainable way (which has to be good for ensuring jobs in the future) but it would also give the strongest signal to the rest of the world, and crucially the developing world, that they are taking their moral responsibility to reduce GHG emissions, seriously. Winning the moral stand-off is what will change the current deadlock left behind after Copenhagen and make the necessary pavement upon which other nations may roll-out their commitments to reducing emissions. It will also potentially offer a renaissance of economic development that, at the tail-end of the unsustainable fossil energy era, has shown evident decline in recent years.
2 casual oberserver // Jan 29, 2010 at 1:30 am
What a load of bull. The US is supposed to sacrifice itself for the world community. The same world community that stands idle while the US throws itself into saving Haiti?
The world kommunity’s idea of “leadership” is for the chosen entity (typically the US) to sacrifice its own well being and obey the world’s convoluted, stupid ideas in exchange for being coined “leader”.
3 david // Feb 3, 2010 at 9:56 pm
thank you, very interesting
4 casual observer // Feb 4, 2010 at 8:27 am
China will sacrifice everyone in the name of control.
Leave a Comment