Other Perspective on Copenhagen Climate Change Talks (OP-ED)

[Guardsman Bass]

I thought I'd post this piece by Mark Lynas, since it's somewhat interesting and a bit different from many of the other opinion pieces out there (Lynas is the British author who wrote Six Degrees, a book about some of the expected effects of a global average temperature rise ranging from a rise of 1 degree Celsius to Six degrees Celsius). I don't necessarily agree with its interpretation, but it is an interesting read.

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

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.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

I'm skeptical of the under-lined part, since any climate change deal without the single largest emitter in absolute terms - China - is a joke, and the Chinese were only offering to cut their "carbon intensity" (basically, the amount of CO2 produced per unit of GDP). He also makes some speculations on the geopolitics that I don't entirely agree with (and he's not a wholly impartial party- I think he's an advisor to the Maldives government on climate change), but it's still an interesting read.

[MKSheppard]

And China saves the World!

Code: Select all

Arise! All who refuse to be slaves!
Let our flesh and blood become our new Great Wall!
As the Chinese nation faces its greatest peril,
All forcefully expend their last cries.
Arise! Arise! Arise!
Our million hearts beat as one,
Brave the enemy's fire, March on!
Brave the enemy's fire, March on!
March on! March on! On!

[Guardsman Bass]

Or they're holding out for a sufficiently large "bribe" in the form of technology transfer and direct aid. That's more or less the opinion of the G77 (the group led by the Sudanese dude mentioned above).

[MKSheppard]

Or they're holding out for a sufficiently large "bribe" in the form of technology transfer and direct aid.

Ha, no. China will not cripple their economic growth and doom millions of untold millions of Chinese to poverty just because of some hard core environmentalists who lie blatantly.

[Serafine666]

I've gotta make an admission... I had honestly not expected China to be this bold or this clever about nailing the Western nations to the wall with their own panic button. You've sort of got to admire the chutzpah required to walk into a big important meeting and begin to shake down the entire room at once.

[Stark]

Why? Once they decided they didn't care about the issue, it was easy for them to do anything necessary to put their (now vulnerable) enemies on the back foot. Why would it have been difficult for them, unless you think the Chinese government is full of people who care about developing nations? Having no interest in the subject of negotiation gives them serious advantage.

[Zac Naloen]

Can't the West just say to the developing nations, fine you don't want to help, we won't help when the climate is stretching your populations to the limits of survivability and then make their own accord?

It's not nice, but it may have been enough for some of the nations china was acting as proxy for?

[Lusankya]

Well to be fair to China, there is one developing nation that they care about.

I honestly don't know what people are expecting, though. There's enough issues with inequality in Chinese society that the CCP would have serious issues keeping control of the country if they weren't managing to ensure continual economic growth, which would be pretty much impossible for them to maintain without an increase in carbon emissions.

Does anyone actually think that an unstable China would be able to actually enforce any carbon reduction targets?

[Guardsman Bass]

Can't the West just say to the developing nations, fine you don't want to help, we won't help when the climate is stretching your populations to the limits of survivability and then make their own accord?

That tends to be problematic when the domestic constituencies actually do sort of care about stopping it (or at least think it's a major issue).

Of course, if the Developing Nations* go to hell over the next century due to climate change, it won't stay there - the Developed Nations would probably see the impact in the form of refugees, economic downturns, and more conflict.

I honestly don't know what people are expecting, though. There's enough issues with inequality in Chinese society that the CCP would have serious issues keeping control of the country if they weren't managing to ensure continual economic growth, which would be pretty much impossible for them to maintain without an increase in carbon emissions.

Me neither, to be honest. My guess is that the proponents of slowing emissions have convinced themselves that "if only" they could get the Developed Nations to agree to some pretty stringent cuts, and ply the Developing Nations with "bribes" in the form of tech transfer and direct funding, then they would eventually come around in time to prevent too severe of a rise in global temperature.

I think they're rather optimistic.

Does anyone actually think that an unstable China would be able to actually enforce any carbon reduction targets?

Considering that they're already having trouble enforcing environmental laws due to extensive local corruption, and possibly have issues with their economic statistics (the whole "are the local officials fudging the growth numbers" debate), I agree with you.

*I hate the terms "Developed" and "Developing" nations. They seem so loaded and teleological, as if where the Developed Nations are at is the goal, etc. I'd much prefer different terms, or even "Rich", "Middle", and "Poor" nations (or more technical terms like "high-income countries", "middle-income countries", etc), since that seems like a more precise distinction.

[Lusankya]

Can't the West just say to the developing nations, fine you don't want to help, we won't help when the climate is stretching your populations to the limits of survivability and then make their own accord?

It's not nice, but it may have been enough for some of the nations china was acting as proxy for?

Ooh. I missed this earlier.

Part of the problem is that any deal which results in the developing nations cutting their emissions will also result in said nations losing their status as developing nations and simply becoming "have-not" nations. What nations like China have done is probably look at the data and then decide that they're better off being a richer, more highly-developed country in a post-climate change world than a backwards shithole in a world where climate change had less of an effect. In the case of China, they're probably right, and other nations will also come to similar conclusions.

And they're also probably right in saying that some first world nations can cut down on their greenhouse emissions much more than they're proposing. Australia, for example, could reduce its greenhouse emissions by 5% simply by halving its livestock. But they're not going to do that because beef is tasty or something like that.

[cosmicalstorm]

Well I always figured this meeting would produce little of any real value.

What I'm really wondering is what kind of actions that the world will actually take as a reply to climate change?

Will everyone just cover their ears and try to do buisness as usual?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Quite frankly, given the nonchalance the Chinese show for their environment, why should we expect them to even commit to any carbon emissions cut? Beijing's air remains as smoggy as ever, and the waters get polluted routinely, who in China really cares?

Let's not even get into the issue that many African countries get routinely bribed by the Chinese so that they award contracts to Chinese companies.

[Lusankya]

In the last ten years, China's embarked on a massive tree-planting campaign, and they are reducing their reliance on coal. Nuclear power is expected to increase to 15% of energy consumption by 2020, as a result of an increase from 9.8GW to between 40 and 70GW. I know of at least 8 power plants that are either in planning stages or in the process of being built. And although China still pollutes heavily, great improvements have been made in environmental protection in the last few years.

Oh, and when China tries to use tariffs to encourage environmentally friendly business practices, the US and the EU get all in a tizz and complain to the WTO, although apparently China being seen as non-environmentally friendly is worth discussing, but the active blocking of environmental protection efforts by the west isn't.

And keep in mind that a large amount of the pollution "caused" by China is actually western countries exporting their pollution elsewhere, because nobody implements carbon/pollution taxes that tax all of the pollution caused by the making of the product - only those that are actually created within the country of the point of sale. If you cared about the Chinese environment, you wouldn't buy any cheap Chinese shit.

EDIT: 40 and 70, not 40 and 90

As for Beijing's air: that's not purely a result of the amount of pollutants being dumped in the atmosphere. Beijing suffers from a temperature inversion, which means that the temperature has to reach a certain amount before smog will clear.