News analysis
Climate change
A gust of Chinese hot air
Dec 7th 2011, 17:03 by J.A. | DURBAN
ARE the men who run China brilliant strategists or accident-prone apparatchiks, who can appear strikingly naïve about the wider world? For proponents of the second of these popular caricatures, China’s behaviour thus far at the UN’s climate change summit in Durban might look like evidence.
On December 6th Xie Zhenhua, the head of the Chinese delegation, told journalists that China was willing to be part of a new, legally binding global agreement to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions, which could come into force by 2020. This sounded like an unexpected breakthrough in the talks.
China, the world’s biggest polluter, had previously been reluctant to discuss any replacement of the existing agreement, the Kyoto protocol, which only binds developed countries to cut their emissions. The treaty, the main provisions of which expire at the end of next year, has therefore failed to curb global emissions. Since it was negotiated, in 1997, emissions have risen by over a quarter, mainly in developing countries, which are now responsible for 58% of the total.
To address this, the European Union is trying to replace Kyoto with another agreement, soon after 2015. This would bind rich countries to more stringent emissions cuts and developing ones to slow the growth in their emissions. In return for all countries accepting such an arrangement, the Europeans are willing to honour developing countries’ main demand in Durban, by agreeing to a second round of emissions-cutting commitment under Kyoto. And Mr Xie, it seemed, was giving China’s blessing to the main tenets of this plan.
His words therefore sent a shiver of excitement through the sprawling compendium of conferences centres, hotels and revamped car parks where the UN summit is taking place. They also put the wind up America, the second biggest polluter, and India, the third biggest, though for different reasons.
America, whose annual emissions per head are 19.3 tonnes, more than those of almost any other country, is also not bound by Kyoto, having failed to ratify it. It nonetheless claims to be willing to enter into an alternative emissions-cutting agreement, such as the one outlined by the Europeans, so long as it is equally binding on all countries. In practice, however, many suspect this is a smokescreen: that, given what political poison climate change is in America, its negotiators may be unable to commit to participating in any new regime that the US Congress would have to ratify.
India, whose annual emissions per citizen are a mere 1.2 tonnes, has a more righteous concern. With still 400m Indians mired in poverty, and liable to suffer the effects of climate change grievously, India’s need for economic growth is even more pressing than China’s. And, not unreasonably, India fears that even modest mitigation measures, such as those the Europeans envisage for it, would constrain its ability to grow. To resist western pressure, India along with China, Brazil and South Africa have formed a negotiating block whose single main demand is for the Kyoto protocol to be extended. Yet Mr Xie’s words suggested China was about to break rank. That would probably leave India and America as the two main barriers to the Europeans’ proposal.
But it now seems more likely that Mr Xie didn’t quite mean what he said. In subsequent negotiations he refused to confirm that China would, as he had suggested, accept a binding international obligation to slow the growth in its emissions. He suggested that though China would be part of a new agreement, only rich countries would actually be bound by it.
China’s allies in Durban appear to be as perplexed as anyone by this. European and American negotiators were more damning. Many dismissed Mr Xie’s initial comments as a rather lame attempt to avoid a repeat of the opprobrium heaped on China after a previous failed rendition of the UN summit, in Copenhagen two years ago. “Minister Xie spoke warmly about the need for a legally binding deal. Does that then mean that China will also be legally bound?” asked Connie Hedegaard, the EU’s climate commissioner, on Twitter. “Sometimes messages are more progressive at public press conferences than in negotiation rooms.”
China may yet play the constructive role Mr Xie had seemed to promise. If previous versions of the climate summit are any guide, most countries will resist showing their hand until an arduous final negotiating session. There are also more modest signs that China is taking the UN process—or at least its reputation in it—more seriously than it has before. It has, for the first time, pitched an official China pavilion in the grounds of the main conference centre; there are also many representatives of China’s fast-growing renewable energy firms patrolling its corridors.
But for now it looks likelier that Mr Xie misspoke and the summit will drift towards the underwhelming conclusion that many had predicted for it. That might well involve an agreement of some sort. A popular possibility might be, on one hand, a half-hearted statement of openness towards future negotiations from the developing countries; and on the other a blurry or partial extension of the Kyoto protocol by the Europeans.
There is also likely to be modest progress on a clutch of lesser issues, including the launch of a Green Climate Fund, to help poor countries cope with global warming. Such inching progress would almost certainly be enough to ensure the UN process continues. It would of course be very much less than the urgent action required.
In this blog, our correspondents respond to breaking news stories and provide comment and analysis. The blog takes its name from newsbooks, the 16th- and 17th-century precursors to newspapers, which covered battles, disasters, debates and sensational trials
Advertisement
- Analects | China
- Americas view | The Americas
- Babbage | Science and technology
- Bagehot's notebook | British politics
- Banyan | Asia
- Baobab | Africa
- Blighty | Britain
- Buttonwood's notebook | Financial markets
- Charlemagne's notebook | European politics
- Clausewitz | Defence, security and diplomacy
- Democracy in America | American politics
- Eastern approaches | Ex-communist Europe
- Elysée | France’s presidential election
- Free exchange | Economics
- Game theory | Sports
- Graphic detail | Charts, maps and infographics
- Gulliver | Business travel
- Johnson | Language
- Leviathan | Public policy
- Lexington's notebook | American politics
- Newsbook | News analysis
- Prospero | Books, arts and culture
- Schumpeter | Business and management
Most commented
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Russia and NATO: Rethink the reset
- Gay marriage: North Carolina begs the question too
- Politics and private equity: Bringing the Bain
- Nationalism online: Backfired
- India-China relations and the media: Blame the messenger
- Turkey’s cultural ambitions: Of marbles and men
- Greece and the euro: Exodus, chapter 1
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- The euro crisis: The Greek run
- Foreigners in China: Barbarians at the gate, again
- Brazil’s economy: A bull diminished
- Greek politics: Slouching towards the drachma
- Rival versions of capitalism: The endangered public company
- Jacob Zuma: Portrait of a president
- Bo Xilai v Chen Guangcheng: Who is the mightier?
- Facebook goes public: Not top of the pops
- Remembering Peter David: What he wrote
- The euro crisis: Going, going, gone?
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
It’s about make your treasured moments live long, even after time has passed on. It’s the digital quality manner of picture captivating that brings the event even livelier. Certainly Olympus did a great deal in this regard. The link at www.rightshopping.in/g/itb.asp?C=Canon-Camera&b=Canon&cid=2 is what one has to link.
If USA buys lots of Chinese products, thus not having to pollute, why are they still polluting that much per person?
All the people on earth should take responsibility of the change of climate,people all around the world buy the products made in China.Not having those manufacturing plants doesn't mean that a nation did't pollute the earth,cuz people in the developed country still need those stuff,they just let some developing country to deal with it.
To the economist writer,
"China, the world’s biggest polluter,"
Your incessant repetition of this phrase is both deceitful and racist! It's like saying "China has the biggest population" and this is a crime!
The fact that it's GDP per capita is way below a western one and the fact that on a capita basis, China's pollution is among the lowest in the world is never mentioned.
I think you believe that people in the western world are as stupid as the times when the Jews were portrayed as a virus on this earth and needed eradication, resulting in ......!
We all know there is evil in this world but it's hard to believe you represent it! You are trying to destroy 1.3 billion people who are only doing their best not to be poor! You are not even competent to destroy a much smaller population! This attempt is the reason why they think you need some control! How did you think your great recession is coming about! Real fools you!
do you know what xiezhenhua really said? he said:we Chinese keep our words,but some other countries eat their words,the technology and fund support for developing countries was a big lie,even more,the promise they made in Tokyo to limit the gas is just break wind!
so,please respect the fact!
China has the largest population in the world and many countries use the daily essentials which are made in China. In this case, China is always considered as the biggest population country. It may be the truth. Therefore, China should pay much attention to their emissions. It is the responsibility for every country. However, some countries always hold this issue on China's position but not see their own problems. Every country has their own interest, of course. Isn't there any responsibility for them?
And who thought it would be different - not a clean water way in an entire country of 1 billion plus - they won't even catch the rain because it would upset the water bottle mafia - The Chinese have no stomach for doing anything that does not involve profits - Their little girls are taught to aspire to the man who can supply the gold card - The men insecure and emotionless their only mission in life to buy the world's respect - I do not speak of the cuff - The Chinese mouth piece of the govt. was asked why China does not put more of an effort into solving the worlds issues - the reply - We have no interest in anything other than making money (paraphrasing)
When a people are willing to eat anything, that did not get away - throw girl babies in landfills, decimate an entire species of animal (Sharks & Rhino) in order to drive up the price on the black market - then there is something very wrong with this type of human being - take over the world - surly you jest - You have to be able to feel something first - can't steal a babies candy if you are not able to entertain them - Europeans were very good at that - ask the Indians
What a pitiful, vicious and baseless attack on Chinese!
And you have to attack them europens too, by saying something like 'You have to be able to feel something first - can't steal a babies candy if you are not able to entertain them - Europeans were very good at that - ask the Indians’.
Well, ask the indians, them brits at least gave indians education, law and integrating hundreds of small raj into one india. and how do you feel about stealing Kashmir, Sikim, and Bhutan away from their people ruthlessly. do you want me to count other sins?
Kommonsenses -First - I was not attacking - merely stating the facts - perhaps not as eloquently as you would like
look Rhino's Tigers, girl babies , its pretty much common knowledge - no clean waterway's - fact check-it, COP 15 Copenhagen - I was there - The Chinese - refused to sign on - to any binding framework - Now - I should have thought better about the word Indian- I was not referring to India's Indians, I was actually remarking on the American Indians - My people. my bad.. Otherwise - I think occupation or colonisation of any kind - is horrible part of the human psyche and for you to attempt to justify the Brits brutal colonisation of the Indians's in India - shows huge lack of Kommonsenses & ignorance on your part - Further more if you want to make an intelligent rebuttal to a comment in the future - I would suggest the Rosetta Stone - English - second - try and live up to your nickname
If one substrate the amount of CO2 emission that are used to produce Goods for exports, China per capital CO2 emission could be roughly that of India given that the latter is still employing the outdated the inefficient old generation coal burning technology rather the clean coal technology now widely used to generate electricity.
China stated willingness to sign a legal binding agreement for all countries is a step forward in the right direction. Their new attitude should be taken in contrast to some wealthy developed countries who are always in a state of Climate Change denial like the Anglo countries. They had refused to take up responsibilities to own up their massive emission by not signing up to the Kyoto Protocol years back.
America needs to reduce its emissions.
Did Mr. Xie joke or bluff? Not really, he might have presented a case of the China's confession. He might have hinted that China might be ready to comply only if all others can concede to the terms at the same time, which can hardly be the case for the time being where both the rich and poor are still struggling for survival. China might have made the timely reminder to the world that though China is the No. 1 CO2 emitter, it should not be blamed for this sole reason. US and India might have been stunned by China's humour which might have pleased the EU members a short while. US has many reasons not to comply taking into consderation of their reliance on their manufacturing industries, especially its pharmaceutical lines of products which are to cure its people suffering from allergy, mental, etc. sicknesses. India cant comply as the act of applying the brake will hurt badly its economic might. The elephant is still chasing desperately after the energetic dragon. Thus, the wish to cut down the CO2 should best remain status quo for now and time unpredictable. EU should not have taken China's confession seriously as the act of showhand might have lightened up the boring meeting leading all to nowhere. This time, enjoy the art and not the science. It's made by China or a Chinaman if you like to name it/him.
I love China
The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, and provides the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change.
As the article mentioned, the Protocol places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” However,why should America is one of the barriers to European's proposal? As a powered country, they should absolutely take the responsibility to slow down the speed of warm climate.
While, I think the reason for Mr Xie to make a misspoke is because China also want to take the responsibility, but the bachward economy of China can't accept the protocal at present. But China has make effort to promot a good environment as the essay showed.
I wonder why the pressure is only on China. It seems like the biggest culprit in the room is actually the USA. USA is the largest polluter both on absolute terms as well as per capita, and the most obstinate in refusing to do anything about it.
Why such a long article - make it simple:
No binding agreement after 2012.
Only tiny Europe - is trying to maintain their income stream.
2015 new aim just to continue with meaningless, wasteful UN conferences and to maintain their meaningless jobs!
The religion "Global Warming" has failed!
Seneca 30 A.D.: Religion is believed by the common people, not believed by the wise and regarded as useful by the rulers.
Please replace religion with Global warming and rulers with UN/US led politicians...
To those who like to say that China's per capita emissions are far below the west - what they really mean is that they are far below North America. In 2009 China's per capita emissions were 6.1 tonnes (probably about 6.5 by 2010). This is higher than France or Sweden (6 and 5.3), and not much below the UK (about 8). In fact the EU-15 average was 7.9 tonnes roughly on a par with Malaysia... so actually the argument that China is way behind is false.
EU per-capita emissions are now less than South Africa, Russia or South Korea. Of course the USA, Canada, Australia, Gulf States etc are all way out in front.... in double digits..
stupid! The biggest polluter is USA.
Global warming is prevalent, and it is hard to stop. Many countries are unwilling to join together to make contribute to deter it, since if they obey the rules of the negotiation, the economic development will be greatly influenced, especially in developing countries.
In China, the climate change has been largely recognized by most of the people. They did take some measures to solve these problems. Unfornately, they continue to develop the economy at the cost of enviroment. All men are born to be selfish.
Seriously, I think both sides of the policy makers know what game they are playing.
On the developed countries side, restricting emission based on country rather than per capita meaning you can ship the polluting manufacturing jobs to developing countries, then charge them for having these jobs, while you breathe the wonderful clean air free of these industries, and pollute way over your fair share as a person. Among them Japan has a lot of population but they are efficient and model consumer, so they are able to support such a standard even to embrace it. The Americans have the largest population and do not want to change their life style (hell I don't either), so they won't accept it.
The 3rd world most populated countries of course can see what this is about and will never accept it. While the less populated ones will embrace it, because this means they either get free money or jobs from the populated ones (which have to raise their costs).
So there you are, this is why the top 3 are refusing to comply, stop dreaming about it because this trick won't work on them. The Kyoto treaty was a good compromise given consideration to these concerns. The Americans will be a loser no matter how you measure it (except probably per capita reduction in absolute terms), so don't bother thinking that there will be a happy for all solution.
What a ugly "chinese official"!!!Most of them are look like this,shame!
India has already said they would agree to globally binding emission limits based on the same per-capita emission levels, and I suspect China would go along with that. This is equivalent to a global carbon tax with the tax proceeds distributed to all countries on an equal per-capita basis.
This of course would result in the transfers of carbon taxes from developed countries to developing countries. Ideally countries would just distribute their share of the carbon tax proceeds on a per-capita basis. Thus if the carbon tax is $10/ton and the world wide per-capita emission level is at 5 tons/year, each person in the world would receive $50/year.
In my mind this is only fair kind of world wide emission protocol.