How China Stiffed the World in Copenhagen

China has to show us that they are sincere about this issue rather than set grand targets in order to receive easy praise from the world. This article brings some of the themes out well. The world should focus on China and if it wants greater respect and leadership, jopining together with countires like Sudan on this issue won't win them that.

The leading industrialized nations approached the issue of the environment entirely from the perspective of the economic and strategic interests of their own respective ruling classes. In fact, the concerns highlighted in the discussions in Copenhagen are the same concerns that lead us into the quagmires in Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq and numerous other wars around the world.

The International Energy Agency says that demand for energy worldwide will increase by more than 50% in the next 20 years. The economic growth of a nation will depend on access to sources of energy. This is why the US has invested a trillion dollars on wars aimed at dominance over the world's gas and oil reserves.

With our troops in Afghanistan and in the Persian Gulf, the US is satisfying its own thirst for energy and at the same time gaining control of vital pressure points to use against rivals. The pushing of clean energy technologies would reduce dependency on fossil fuels. The US does not want to spend billions of dollars on technology that could help potential rivals be more independent (This is a small part of the reason why they don't want Iran developing nuke energy). Additionally, Pressure is exerted by hired lobbyist of the fossil fuel industry to sabotage any measure to cut emissions in the US Congress. They regard any proposal to cut emissions as CUTTING into their profits. So in their eyes, Obama did a good job last week.

Finally, the developed nations used climate change as a weapon against developing nations. The US and European colonial powers used the issue of climate change to impose a global agenda that is favorable to their own political and economic interests.

After Hillary (the bad cop) dangled a one hundred billion dollar bribe (conditional high interest IMF loans) in front of poor African countries -seeking to woo them away from their alliance with China, Brazil, India, and other fast growing economies- Obama followed up on Friday morning with his bad cop routine by ridiculing China for not submitting themselves to the international monitoring of it's industry and demanding that they take greater responsibility for climate change than the US of A.

China, understandably, sees such demands as equivalent to asking them to reduce their rate of economic growth, which Beijing regards as a threat to national stability. China, whose industrial expansion is based on heavy industry, also sees the inspection process as a violation of it's sovereignty and a possible rationale to be used to impose trade sanctions -a position championed by sections of our political establishment.

When Wen Jiabao gave his speech he predictably countered Obama by criticizing the US for failing to live up to promises made by the Clinton administration at Kyoto. The Clinton administration never submitted Kyoto to Congress for ratification, and now ten Union controlled Democrats in the senate have already wrote Obama telling him that they wouldn't ratify anything that did not protect American industry from "foreign competitors" who do not have to meet global emissions limits. I.e China.

There is no big disagreement among scientists about the effect of greenhouse gas on the ecosystem. But a cohesive, and coordinated response comes into conflict with entrenched profit interests of the nationally based ruling classes of ALL major powers. No amount of pressure will persuade the billionaires and their political representatives to act against their own class interests for the sake of the poor people who will be killed or displaced because of damage to enviroment.

What a shame!

I moved to Western China six months ago, and it has given me a new perspective on China's denigrated policy of murky stats. Two things:

1) China is a "face culture." It is also a context heavy culture. That means that it's okay to say something that is untrue as long as the people with whom you are speaking know what you really mean and that lying will save face (prevent shame) for someone involved. In my opinion, the suspicious stats issued to the world are an example of this cultural phenomenon on a great scale.

2) We can't blame China for being not living up to our ecological standards when they are not in the same place as we are economically. Imagine trying to impose modern air quality and emissions standards on the US during the industrial revolution. That's what the world wants to do in China now. If factories in China shut down or spend the money to go green(er), people will lose jobs and hundreds of thousands, possibly millions will die. There's not a lot of social services for the jobless here.

We should exercise caution in complaining about Chinese environmental and statistic policies when we are not prepared to help them deal with the economic consequences our standards would require.

and while point #1 of LIFEINCHINA's post is accurate as far as it goes (although also beside the point) the main thrust is completely wrongheaded. If manufacturing a product in China currently costs 100x, even an increase of 10% of the manufacturing cost would shift the manufacturing cost to just 110x. If the same product were manufactured in Italy, the additional emmissions costs would increase production cost from, say, 130x to 140x (even assuming that the increased cost of adherence to emissions protocols would cost no more in the West than in China, which isn't true) meaning that China would maintain the cost advantage that drove the manufacturing to China in the first place.

As far as 'millions' dying in China as a result of emissions controls, well, that is simply a laughable statement. In fact, the last time millions of people died in a Chinese famine, is was due to incompetent centrally-directed planning, and was made much worse by the unwillingness of the beaurecrats, locally and centrally, to be honest in either their planning or reporting as arbitrary industrial and agricultural production targets were magically met, year after year -- while millions starved.

It goes without saying then, that any agreement with the PRC that doesn't involve outside audits is worthless. Indeed, far beyond the issue of climate change, the world would do the Chinese a huge favor if it can convince their government to start reporting numbers that are based in reality, not in buearecratic wish-fulfillment. Unfortunately, I wouldn't hold my breath on that.

Tracing money in China may be difficult, but measuring carbon emissions is not - it is simply total coal and oil production and imports. There are a limited number of coal mines and electrical generation stations, especially since China has been pushing to close older small inefficient or dangerous examples of both. China refused carbon targets because of the targets themselves, not because verification would be hard or intrusive.

Carbon issue concerns everyday life. It's impossible to be counted and unreasonable to allow western country to investigate the details of our everyday life. Would any western country allow China to monitor their economy?

Politicians will use every excuse to blame China on this issue and make trouble for China to do any business. US spend 6000 b a year in defense budget and 1500 b a year in Iraq and Afghanistan. 1000 b seems a big number, but it's too cheap to buy even a island country.

Nevertheless US has already make it clear that no money will be given to China. Fair enough, China has already used and will use its own money to cut emission. So it's reasonable to leave a note: shut up and worry about your own business.

If the central government was planning on cooking the books on China's emissions, why did Lee write an article mostly about the perceived risk of transparency exposing China's local corruption problem? Would that even be relevant as a factor in deciding whether to allow international monitoring, if China's goal were simply to fabricate its emissions figures?

The post assumes that the international scrutiny concern is paramount, when in fact the paramount concern is one of economic development. If the central government really were willing to take the steps the world hopes to see, it would invite the world in as a way of taming local leaders. Parts of China's bureaucracy have actually used international scrutiny to enact reforms that they wanted to see.

This isn't a function of face, as LIFEINCHINA claims above. Nor is it about "allowing outside experts broad authority to peer into the workings of middle China," as the article claims--because, frankly, there is little that is likely to surprise the outside world given all the reports that have come out in recent years.

The main concern is about Chinese economic growth, and therefore social stability.

I actually responded to this article in greater depth on my Asia Ruminations blog: http://www.asiaruminations.com/ . I would invite anyone interested in this issue to comment there.

Great article. Thanks for sharing this perspective on China.
Intempo Rebel

The climate change summit in Copenhagen was billed as the last chance to get a global agreement before its too late. Its not just the Chinese, the developed countries didn't do a great job in being open either.

i think porno izle

University of Copenhagen is the largest institution of research and education in Denmark with about 37.000 students and 7000 employees. presentation folders