COPENHAGEN -- The political script for a big climate-change conference in this Danish city has U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders flying in later this week to christen a new era of global environmental cooperation. In reality, the summit is shaping up as a pivotal economic showdown between the U.S. and China.
China says the answer is yes. He Yafei, China's vice foreign minister, said on Friday that rich nations, which built their prosperity on fossil fuels, are like people who go out for a fancy dinner and then, when a poor guest arrives late for dessert, demand that he pay the same bill for his meal as everyone else.
"It's not fair," Mr. He said. "Whoever created this problem, they're responsible," he said. Although he said the European Union had largely lived up to its emission-reduction promises, he singled out the U.S. several times by name as a country that hadn't done its share.
More
In short, Mr. He is arguing that not much has changed since the late 1990s, when the basis for the current international framework designed to combat global warming -- a treaty called the Kyoto Protocol -- was negotiated. Kyoto called on industrialized countries to cut their own emissions and help developing countries with subsidies to promote cleaner technologies like energy-efficient cars and solar panels.
But the U.S. argues China no longer deserves special treatment. Though poorer developing countries still need Western help to nurture clean-energy technologies, China is different, Todd Stern, the chief U.S. climate negotiator, told a news conference here last Wednesday. "I don't envision public funds -- certainly not from the United States -- going to China," he said. "There is no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass."
Environmentally speaking, the U.S. and China, which together account for some 40% of global greenhouse-gas emissions, are the nations that matter most in the U.N. climate debate. So far, the Copenhagen summit has served mainly to illuminate their profound disagreements over climate policy. The arguments over the details of climate policy reflect the broader contest between the U.S. and China for economic power in the decades ahead. Many business leaders in the U.S. worry that efforts to dramatically cut fossil-fuel consumption could raise their production costs and put them at a disadvantage to rivals in a China that is becoming more efficient, but not limiting its carbon-fueled growth.On two consecutive days last month, both the U.S. and China announced specific emission-reduction targets. The U.S. said it would reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, a number broadly in line with climate-change legislation pending on Capitol Hill. China said it would cut its "carbon intensity" -- the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions produced per unit of economic output -- 40% to 45% below 2005 levels by 2020.
CO2 by Country
Compare carbon emissions world-wide, per capita and per dollar of GDP
Advancing Emissions
Track the rise of carbon dioxide emissions.
But even if China achieved that carbon-intensity cut, the country's total emissions still would surge more than 75% above the 2005 level by 2020, studies project. Michael Levi, a senior fellow specializing in energy and climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations, says studies by the IEA, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Chinese government all suggest that China was on track to achieve a roughly 45% reduction in carbon intensity even before its recent announcement.
The European Union and Mr. Obama have proposed that the EU and the U.S. will aim to slash their total emissions on the order of 80% by 2050. But Mr. He said it is easy to make such long-term promises. "I doubt the sincerity of developed countries in their commitment," he said.
Mr. He said China's environmental pledge, while perhaps less grandiose, is more real. "I would happily go to debate with any person to see whether what China has committed is less or more than another country," he said. "Facts speak louder than words."
Source: The Wall Street Journal | by: Jeffrey Ball Mon | 12/13/2009















0 Comment:
Post a Comment