In retrospect, I think the "plan" for Copenhagen--hatched between the US and Europeans--was to downplay the demands being made on the emerging economies, especially China, so as not to scare them away before the conference. Copenhagen, was in essence, a trap into which China would be lured, and then, in the glare of world media coverage, be forced into submission, ie intrusive inspections, etc. President Obama, with his supposedly overwhelming influence among third-world countries was the ultimate hammer to achieve this. Hence, the aura of inevitability preceding and during the early part of the conference and the wildly exaggerated ideas of the outcome among the climate advocates, the media, et al.
But someone forgot to assess the Chinese position with cold, hard logic. The Chinese leadership is trying to move huge numbers of people out of poverty and transform China into a world power. As they gradually open up Chinese society and the economy, they live more and more on a political knife's edge. They know what political instability will do to China's development--what China was like under the late Ching and Republican rulers. ( They also know that the US wouldn't really be heart-broken if their ambitious plans are thwarted.) While the Chinese leadership may actually buy into the science of global warming--I'm not really sure--they are not going to sign on to an inspections regime that locks them in to levels of economic pain that conceivably bring about--or at least contribute to--domestic political cataclysm.
China's vested interest in weaning itself off hydrocarbons for strategic and economic reasons means that its policies will, in practice, probably be generally--very generally-- green-house-gas-reduction-friendly, but that's as much as we can expect. They're not going to risk political suicide and the collapse of all the work of the last three decades that have taken China so far. Clearly, others felt similarly to China based on the comment of the Brazilian negotiator in one of the article's links, but China was perhaps the only one that would simply say, "No."
So, the "trap" failed to catch the prey, and bagging the US Senate will now be nigh impossible. In the end, I suspect that rising energy prices and the consequent shift to increasingly viable energy technologies will be the motive force in combating green house emissions, but it certainly won't be on the timeline of the scientists, climate advocates, et al.
another two post i like from "fool's mountain":
hzzz Says:
I think a lot of this is bs. The real issue here is human population growth and their usage demand.
Since China is a manufacturing nation, of course it will create more CO emissions. But let’s say China improves all of its factories with the latest green technology, the extra cost to manufacture these products will simply be passed on to the consumers. Consumers tend to choose the items with the lowest price. Eventually manufacturers will figure out to move their factories elsewhere with less emission restrictions, that’s all. Of course, this is assuming that going green will always be more expensive. I am not sure if that will always be the case but that is certainly the case today.
But that still does not touch the issue of human population growth. As long as that continues there will be demand for manufacturing, and ultimately that is driven by capitalism which tend to focus on short term growth than long time gains. I think the real key to change is to change the way people use items so they would waste less. Of course that also goes against capitalism because if people waste less they would buy less and that’s bad for the economy.
And I have not even started on breeding practices yet. I for one think people should have less kids, but then that opens up another can of worms when it comes to supporting social policies in the form of taxes.
neutrino Says:
You are right on. The per capita emission is a better and fairer measurement than the total emission, but an even better barometer would be the per capita carbon consumption, including all the carbon emission associated with the good you consume. In forty years, China could easily move those high-carbon intensity factories to Africa, and lower its per capita carbon emission and total as well. But the relocation of carbon emission origin does not lower the total emission of the world, does it? The truth is that we all need to scale back our consumption habits, and stop producing more children than the resource of this planet warrants.
Let me ask all of you who have commented here: How many of you are driving compact cars (or not driving at all) instead of unnecessary SUVs, how many of you have changed all your indoor lighting to the energy efficient type, how many of you have considered or are considering adopting children instead of having your own? (My answer to all of this is yes!) These are simple things to do to contribute to the carbon reducttion, but I suspect not everyone is doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment