The West tried to lure China into Copenhagen "trap"

Interesting Comment made by Xenophon in TNR blogpost. The dramas between the US and China during Copenhagen summit appear to validate the analysis.

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.

Copenhegan：the US and China finally agree on rights issue

China is often under the criticism from the US and other Western countries over its human rights records, China's standard answer since 2005 has always been: the formost human rights are the right to live and to develop. Chinese government regards the right to live and develop is the basis of all other human rights.

Chinese position and the West's differ on rights conception, the fomer is group right, the latter is individual right which is more or less reflected in the Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights(“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”)

Human rights are "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Apart from civil and political rights, human rights also mean the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to be treated with respect and dignity, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education in some countries.

Obviously it is against the spirit of human rights if certain peoples’ chance of economic development is restricted and discriminated because of their citizenship and which country they live. Copenhagen Accord is supposed to be a compromise of the two principles, i.e. individual and group, but the accusations made by the like of Edward Miliband against China is more based on the principle of group rights, it is discrimination against individual rights and against the liberal principles by which China is often scolded by the West.

China is often criticized by the west by evoking individualist principle on Chinese state infringement of Chinese citizens’ individual rights. But this time on climate negotiation, the west suddenly found individual right something to be avoided. They do not like to compare the carbon emission per capita between the developed countries and the developing countries.

The fact is, the US’s per capita output, in 2007 19.5 ton. The biggest carbon emission per capita are those from gulf oil rich little states, about 30-50 tons per person. China’s CO2-equivalent output per person was 5.5 tonnes of CO2 per year. By responsibility, if individual bear equal responsibility disregarding his/her country, it is mainly rich countries' responsibility to cut emissions and stop global warming. Developed countries account for 80 percent of the total global carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution over 200 years ago.

Of course, both China's per capita and total emission is catch up quickly. In 2000 it was the equivalent of 3.9 tonnes of CO2 per person per year. In total carbon emission, China has surpassed the US already. That is why the west led by the US won't allow China 's per capita emission approach near to the US level, which would be a global disaster. But it can also argued in reverse. Since it is so dangerous to allow Chinese to increase their emission to the US's level, why not the US and other rich country cut their emission substantially to the level of Chinese, instead of preaching over cut emission hypocritically as what Miliband does.

The West should make up their mind on a consistent standing when dealing with China, i.e., to adopt a group principle or an individual principle. While dealing with Chinese people and other peoples in developing countries, should their individual rights, e.g.,civil, political, economic rights(restricted by emission quota), be respected? or should their group right be respected, as the governments of china and other developing nations always insisted?

Seems the US and Europe pick and choose different principle to suit their need here. when they make human right accusations against china, they insist each Chinese should enjoy the same individual rights and freedom as everyone else in the world. But when coming to the emission and right to develop, they are against Chinese individual rights to reach the same level of development and living comforts as the west.

P.S. Chinese per capita output is higher than that of many countries significantly richer in per capita terms. Current nominal Chinese GDP per capita is around $3,250, but countries such as Turkey ($10,479), Brazil ($8,295), Macedonia ($4,656), Jordan ($5,600), and Algeria ($4,588) all have significantly lower per capita CO2 equivalent outputs. Hence China has its own reason to improve energy efficiency and make their industries greener. It would be Chinese domestic need more than the pressure from the west which push China to go greener.