This piece by Mark Lynas is well worth reading.
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% 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.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all 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% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
…Except that China, the largest emitter, would not have been part of the deal. Lynas does not mention that China’s proposal to reduce its carbon intensity by 40-45 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level would have done nothing more than endorse its business-as-usual emissions. You might have noticed that other countries spoke in terms of cuts in carbon emissions, not in carbon intensity. What is the difference? Carbon intensity means carbon emissions per dollar of GDP, so a country with a fast-growing economy can cut intensity without cutting emissions. According to the International Energy Outlook for 2009, China’s projected carbon dioxide intensity for 2020 is 558 metric tons per million 2005 U.S. dollars of GDP. For 2005, the figure was somewhere around 1,001 (this is actually the 2006 figure, which I have before me). So, following its normal policies, China was already expecting to reduce carbon intensity by more than 60 percent—without taking any special mitigation measures, and while emissions per capita would climb another 10-20 percent. In this way, China promised to do what is what going to do anyway. Thanks China! In addition, China refused to agree to any international monitoring, so even if its economy stops growing, and it does not meet its easy emissions target, no one will know.
So China is now the major stumbling block to a climate treaty. Why? The answer is surely that the Chinese government gives precedence to economic growth. In other words–it’s acting in its self-interest … just like all the other nations. It’s dumb to complain that China is now the bad guy just because it doesn’t do what we want it to do. If western and poor nations want China to act in their interest, there is only one thing they can do: pay China to reduce its emissions.
Randy says:
China will continue to exasperate us for some time to come. We had better get used to it. They are much too big and important to the US and world economy to ignore anymore, and they are fully aware of that.
We get angry at them because they are communists. Then we get angry at them for being capitalists. And for stealing our jobs. And for polluting so much. And for consuming so many resources it raises the prices for the rest of us.
On the other hand, we are very happy that they continue to buy our debt. and we are happy to buy the goods that they produce (while being angry at them for taking the jobs and raising the price of raw materials to produce those goods.)
I guess we will have this weird relationship with them for a long time.
December 23, 2009, 12:45 pmConstantin says:
Yep, this is what it’s come to, Barack. China is the world’s prime defender of economic growth and human prosperity.
December 23, 2009, 12:46 pmKazinski says:
Thank you China for saving us from ourselves. But I think China may have been motivated more to keep our economies from contracting to the point where our bonds would be in jeopardy, and our appetite for Chinese goods would decline.
December 23, 2009, 12:47 pmSkeptical says:
“…saving us from ourselves.”
by destroying the world and undermining true economic advancement – thanks but no thanks
December 23, 2009, 1:05 pmBruce Hayden says:
I love how they say these things with absolute accuracy and certainty. The models have been run, and verified by those who wrote them, or their best friends, and they have assured us that if the peaking year for global emissions slips until 2021, temperatures will rise more than 2C.
The absurdity in my mind is that the scientists don’t typically talk with that much certainty. It is just when politicians take what the scientists have said, remove any inconvenient uncertainties, and give us back those predictions as set in concrete.
December 23, 2009, 1:08 pmguy in the veal calf office says:
China is smart. The best way to deal with climate change, natural or man made, is to be wealthy and adapt. The south & southwest of this country became much popular when air-conditioning became cheap to install and run.
December 23, 2009, 1:13 pmDesiderius says:
“It was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% 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?”
So we can pay back the money we owe them?
Is it really so much of a mystery?
December 23, 2009, 1:32 pmwws says:
The most important point to take home from all of this is that China (with India’s support) has just made this entire debate moot. China very convincingly demonstrated that they are more than willing to spike any international agreement that could limit their CO2 releases, ever. There is no more pressure that can be put on them than already has. (that has something to do with how they are providing the money required to keep the US treasury afloat right now) They spiked the Copenhagen conference because they knew they could and they knew no one could stop them.
So there are some obvious conclusions that can be drawn from this, and it surprises me that so many on all sides are avoiding thinking about them.
(in the honor of the scientific method, I would appreciate anyone who disagrees pointing out the flaw in this chain of logic)
1) China could not care less about climate change, but they DO care about ensuring their future economic growth. They see any international agreement as a threat to their future growth, therefore they will use their power to block one.
2) China has the full backing of India. (plenty of links available to show that) China also has the backing of the group of 77.
3) China is now too strong for any other nation to oppose. If the US couldn’t do it, no one can.
4) If China and India are out of an agreement, then the US is out. (at least 10 Democratic Senators are on record as to this)
5) Since the US, China, and India account for over half the worlds CO2 production and most of the future growth, the other nations of the world can do nothing to meaningfully change world CO2 levels even if they were all to agree. (and the group of 77 does NOT agree with any limitiations)
6) Thus there is now no hope for the international limiting of carbon emissions, now or at anytime in the near future. There will be no binding treaty, and any nation which places voluntarily limitations on itself will lose jobs and economic strength to those nations which refuse.
7) therefore it is pointless to talk about limiting emissions or other legal restrictions – I know it is hard for everyone to wrap their minds around the fact that a few days ago, that boat sailed away forever – but it has. Although limitations may be emotionally satisfying, the math says that there is no way any unilateral restrictions can change world CO2 levels.
8) Final Conclusion – Copenhagen ensured that all of this talk about reducing CO2 is pointless, because it is not now going to happen. Emissions are going to go on as usual, and there is no longer any realistic hope of any other outcome, because unilateral action is pointless. (Burdening US factories with high costs now will simply shift that production to China, resulting in the same or more CO2 production but far less American jobs)
Discussions on these matters had meaning when it looked like they would be the basis for serious policy changes. As that possibility has slipped away over the last 3 weeks, the relevance of any of these overwrought discussions has slipped away with it. Of course there are many people who are locked into their opinions and who will fight forever to uphold their “honor,” or whatever – but from now on, it’s just another internet topic to fight about, nothing more. Global warming, Brangelina, whatever – it’s all the same now. And no one reading this can do anything to change that.
December 23, 2009, 1:33 pmMonty says:
wws says: 3) China is now too strong for any other nation to oppose. If the US couldn’t do it, no one can.
I disagree there, a coalition of nations ‘could’ oppose china, and win. But the ramifications would be immense, there would be collateral damage throughout the world’s economies. It could destroy major international treaties and organizations, and who knows what the full measure of consequences would be. So while the West could stand up to China, we are unwilling to pay the price of doing so. Regardless, whether we are unable or unwilling, it doesn’t break your logical chain.
December 23, 2009, 1:50 pmLe Messurier says:
One point being missed here is that China doesn’t want “world government”. Only Europe and Obama want that. (Plus a few minor players like Chavez) I say “way to go China!”
December 23, 2009, 1:54 pmgeokstr says:
And this is worth how much, exactly?
As has been conclusively demonstrated, a few bucks to the state of each is all it would take to buy them some new core principles.
December 23, 2009, 2:04 pmPhilippe says:
So China uses its might for it’s own self interest at the detriment of others. It certainly not the first nation to do so, nor will it be the last. Unless there is some higher instance which could force (with laws and morals) nations to a course of action for the common good, I fear the rate of change will be extremely slow. Perhaps only a calamity on a worldwide scale may inflect the path of some.
December 23, 2009, 3:37 pmvic says:
Thank you china
December 23, 2009, 4:21 pmvic says:
Thank you china
I do not really think that the chinese today are anything other than capiatalists, and good for them. However, I would add that, if you assume that they are still communists in anything but name today, one should also realize that communists pretty much hold liberals and other varieties of utopian socialists in deep contempt (as in complete idiots- not even the useful kind).
Try reading some of Marx’s polemics re comte de Saint-Simon sometime. And if you think modern western liberalism is uch different from Saint- Simons incoherence, think again.
December 23, 2009, 4:27 pmDavid Schwartz says:
I join the chorus thanking the Chinese ‘communists’ for saving us from the American and European socialists.
December 23, 2009, 4:57 pmTRE says:
There are actually other options to lower China’s carbon output without paying them, like war.
December 23, 2009, 5:14 pmwws says:
“There are actually other options to lower China’s carbon output without paying them, like war.”
yes, but in a real war we wouldn’t be worrying about carbon in the atmosphere anymore; rather we’d be worrying about strontium-90 and all the other long term radioactive compounds that would result from any such conflict.
Now we could force an economic war, and hurt them a great deal when we quit buying their products; on the other hand they would quit financing American deficits and what’s left of our economy would collapse virtually overnight – and it be a collapse that made the 1930′s look like a sunday school picnic by comparison.
That’s why China knows they can do anything they want.
December 23, 2009, 5:24 pmThe Colonel says:
First of many coming Chinese victories Im afraid.
December 23, 2009, 5:36 pmDennis N says:
It’s a sad day when China must save the World from Europe and the US.
But thank you China. I’ll buy some more Chinese machine tools and firearms.
December 23, 2009, 6:08 pmbpbatista says:
I can’t believe I’m typing this, but thank god for the Chicoms. They are not about to torpedo world prosperity for the fraud of Global Warming.
December 23, 2009, 7:12 pmvic says:
“There are actually other options to lower China’s carbon output without paying them, like war.”
AND DONT BE SURE IT WILL BE A WAR THAT WE WILL WIN
December 23, 2009, 8:24 pmRenaldo Slatten says:
Kicking off 2010′s mma events is the amazing UFC 108. It’s definitely going to be a great event with the kickoff being Evans vs Silva going head to head. You can watch evans vs silva fight video for FREE in full HD without paying that grotty $55.95 PPV cost.
December 23, 2009, 9:33 pmCurious passerby says:
“There are actually other options to lower China’s carbon output without paying them, like war.”
Remember, due to their one-child policy China has about 35 million excess males to throw into a war. Whereas the US freaks out and becomes pacifistic if a couple thousand die.
December 23, 2009, 10:31 pmTuck says:
I never thought I’d write these words: Thank God for the Red Chinese; saving the world from Eco-communism.
Who is this Posner person?
December 23, 2009, 11:43 pmSancho Panza says:
This is brilliant.
This guy from the Guardian can’t hope to win this. He tells us to not blame the rich West.
Don’t blame America. Don’t blame the World Bank. Don’t do what you’ve done for the last two hundred years.
Hilarious. Because he’s herding cats. He says, “Turn! About face! Change direction! New aim!”
Romantics. Nationalists. Socialists. Reactionaries. Fundamentalists. The whole Red-Green-Brown coalition against progress and wealth and the Enlightenment. And he says, “Change aim!”
For two hundred years they blame the British, and the Americans, and the Jews, and cosmopolitans, and department stores, and SUVs, and TVs.
Now the enemy is the peasant who wants to get rich.
Not men in top hats. The poor peasant Chinese a long way from Beijing.
Of course the columnist’s rich Western friends keep blaming the West. They’re not going to admit their real enemy’s poor, and Asian, African, or South American too.
December 24, 2009, 1:03 amRich Rostrom says:
Eric Posner: China’s projected carbon dioxide intensity for 2020 is 558 metric tons per million 2005 U.S. dollars of GDP. For [2006], the figure was somewhere around 1,001… China was already expecting to reduce carbon intensity by more than 60 percent…
How is a reduction from 1,001 to 558 “more than 60 percent”?
It looks to me like 44.3%.
December 24, 2009, 2:24 amSteverino says:
Earlier Eric Posner wrote that one positive result of Copenhagen was that there was finally a “critical mass” of nations, including China, that agreed to we had to cut emissions. I posted that was ridiculous; China had long taken the position roughly outlined in this current post. China agrees that the first world needs to cut its emissions and pay it oodles of cash; as far is it’s own future is concerned it has long stated that development was it’s highest priority.
I see this post as a positive step in his understanding of the situation. But it is as yet incomplete. So pay attention.
Now, answer these questions (any of you global warming hysterics can play along as well):
1. We can pay China to cut emissions; is there any reason in the world to expect them (or any of the third world dictators who largely comprise the membership of the general assembly of the UN) to actually do it? Do you have some inside information that leads you to conclude that we wouldn’t be paying them to simply go along with the charade and that they’d simply use the cash however they damned well please (like they do with the rest of the foreign aid whenever they get the chance)?
2. If the AGW science is so settled, as the global warming hysterics hallucinate, why would we have to pay an industrializing nation with roughly 90% of it’s economic assets, as well as the vast majority of it’s population, along the coast to “save the world” from a threat that would drown those very things?
Wouldn’t China already see AGW and the threat of a catastrophic rise in the level of the ocean already view preventing that possibility in it’s own interest, without the bribe to at least go along with the charade?
I realize the vast majority of global warmists aren’t going to be able to understand where I’m going with this as apparently their longing for the nanny state eclipses reason, any excuse to bring it on will do, although I’m willing to concede that they undoubtedly do get a sincere case of the vapors when the authority figures they so long for use these tried-and-true scare tactics, but do try.
Bonus question: Barack Obama in his “powerful, game-changing” speech at the Copenhagen conference took a swipe at sceptics and said the science is real, then turned to the Chinese and said that they wouldn’t be at the conference if they too didn’t take the threat of AGW seriously.
Can any of you gaia worshippers think of any other reason they might have had to attend the conference other than a conviction that evidence for AGW is compelling? Because they’re sure acting like they find the AGW threat compelling, aren’t they?
December 24, 2009, 6:20 pmlark says:
You think China only cares about economic growth, and that means they will sabotage carbon emission reductions?
What China needs to grow is demand. They are an exporter. What the west needs to implement is carbon tariffs.
January 4, 2010, 11:36 pmLinks Roundup « Belligerati says:
[...] Learn how completely China sabotaged the climate treaty in Copenhagen in China’s Victory at Copenhagen [...]
January 7, 2010, 11:45 am