You’ve probably heard by now about the leak of the “Danish text” to The Guardian. In essence, it appears that a small group of developed nations, including Australia, have been quietly working on a proposed draft agreement for the Copenhagen summit. And it appears that many developing countries aren’t happy with what the proposal contains.
Adam Welz, a writer for Mother Jones, reports on an “emotional outburst” from Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of non-aligned nations, claiming the deal is grossly unfair to Africa both in terms of the climate likely to result from the cuts proposed in it, the level of compensation, and the sidelining of the United Nations in the process.
By contrast, Andrew Light, from the Center for American Progress (an American think tank headed by John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff) thinks Lumumba is just posturing:
Any veteran of the UN climate meetings will recognize the G77+China reaction to “the” Danish draft today – as the Danes reiterated, there is no single definitive draft and nothing has been finalized – as more of the same drama that has pervaded these meetings for the last 14 years. A not terribly creative mind could script these events before they happen. Two things jump out from yesterday’s episode that are typical: first, the shock expressed by Di-Aping at the very idea that the Danes were drafting anything, and second, the insistence that developing countries, writ large, will never, ever agree to any mandatory emissions reductions.
If there is going to be a deal, we’ll probably only find out, oh, five minutes before the summit finishes.
Update: More on this from the IPA’s Tim Wilson and the Greens Christine Milne at the ABC’s Unleashed. [PG]
More Update: Stephen Minas at New Matilda argues that this also has to do with the diverging interests of the G77.
More Update [dk.au]: Osman Faruqi unpacks some of the issues at play at New Matilda
I think they might be underestimating developing country resolve on this issue. The WTO always bullied them into submission and used divide and rule tactics, blackmail and a whole lot more. At Cancun at the WTO meeting the poor countries stood the rich countries up in 2003 and there has been a stalemate ever since. The poor are better organised now.
lol, It’s a bit rich for Light to say, “They would say that…”, the exact same accusation could be levelled at him. The Center for American Progress is basically a mouthpiece for the Democrats, and thus most definitely part of this political process. The argument that the things developed countries have done are somehow apolitical and not an equally negotiation gambit is risible – and extremely cynical coming from someone with his experience.
I notice Light refrains from dealing with the substantive criticisms made, instead preferring to focus on the game theory, and why the g77 position is fictional (as oppposed to the developed nation posturing?! No, the developing countries should just lie back an take it, they are the supplicant here, not an equal voice).
I’m not saying g77 are as pure as the driven snow – far from it – but this focus is wrong-headed and also blithely political. Comment number 5 on his post says it all:
That’s it in a nutshell, patrickg. It amounts to quibbling over dots and commas.
As noted, though, I think it’s important to get practice at doing CO2 reduction so when in about 2020 or so the penny finally drops we’ll have a better idea of what works and what doesn’t. So I still think an agreement at Copenhagen is potentially worthwhile even if inadequate.
They better achieve something substantial, or global popular riot is on!! What happens when all the world governments lose considerable legitimacy at the same time? We’ll see more profound divisions between state-based internationalism and people-to-people based globalism/ cosmopolitanism.
You’re there on spec, leaders. The next step is non-violent popular shutdown of the most polluting sites anwyay, so you might as well just do it yourselves, and maintain the appearance of Weberian monopoly power.
If anyone interested here is the story of “Reaching for the moon: how the poor lost and won at Cancun”. It’s mostly by me, not Margot Kingston. The first part of the tile was a steal from Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister at the time, who accused the poor of reaching for the moon.
I’m with you there Robert, on all counts. I just get ticked off the accusations of bad faith by the powers holding all the cards strike me as petty and whining, and completely unfair.
DOTS and COMMAS? Scrapping Kyoto, taking the whole process away from the UN and giving it to the World Bank, capping the poorest countries’ per capita emmissions at half those of the richest, and compensating them with what amounts to jack sh!t… Did you even read the articles you linked to?
As the predictions of the deniers that economies will be destroyed fail to pass, but the predictions of the scientists continue to come true, we will gradually get more and more serious about this. Copenhagen probably won’t go far enough, but it’s a start. I would be a lot more relaxed if we had have done this stuff ten years ago.
those poor dumb Third Worlders reaching for the moon. Well, a seat at the back of the bus is better than no seat at all, isn’t it.
Looks like they’d all better start meeting with Bono.
RM@3: “It amounts to quibbling over dots and commas.”
Pretty damn big dots and commas:
On the one hand, (in the actual G77+C press call response to the Danish text, webcast link in Brokenhagen open thread, comment 98), they say
while they (G77+C) stand accused of favouring
ie getting off scot free, international queue jumping in reverse, going to its back end.
RE: Christine Milne’s musing that
I note: Our lead neotiator, Louise Hand, said in an interview
so she might hint but she ain’t telling. The fact that Denmark’s PM happened to pop in to CHOGM and
is enough for me to believe our Kev’s been ingratiating himself with the Really Important People, (and covering his ass from those who aren’t, but could put a spanner in his works,) laying on the spadework with a supersized trowel.
It is after all his post-parliamentary job we are talking about, he’s just getting his career ducks in a row. Who said he’s not a true Labor man?
From the New Matilda link -
“But here again, the differences within the bloc(G77 plus China) were clear. China’s influential Energy Research Institute has warned that even the 2-degree target might not leave sufficient room for Chinese development. The institute’s deputy chief, Dai Yande, said: “You should not target China to fulfill the 2-degree target. That is just a vision. Reality has deviated from that vision. We do not think that target provides room for developing countries.”
And China has plenty of money to buy influence.
Then again is the idea that China and other developing nations be allowed to develop aided by technology and equity transfers regardless of the concern that such growth will entail large CO2 outputs?
Beyond that do we have to accept that the historical debt accumulated by the developed nations diminishes our ability to promote the idea of all of us having lower C outputs in future?
Development isn’t going to stop at 2050 so the idea of a differential between developing and developed nation’s citizen’s outputs shouldn’t be attacked as a glaring inequality- beyond that time the aim will be convergence.
Perhaps they should aim for a shifting scale of mandated reductions contributions which follows the developing world’s historical % over time – especially as it increases.
I’m sympathetic to the developing countries position, cuts should be allocated on the basis of historical responsibility (since thats actually how the atmosphere works) but they cant have it both ways. eg At 2000 China, India and Asia were responsible for 12% of historical emissions – that will be higher now, probably 15-17%. Why not mandatorily bear that amount of the global cuts agreed to, pour encourager les autres, with any additional cuts being voluntary, welcomed, and compensated by the world?
Surely thats the best way to ensure the differentiated principles hold – by actually following it.
“dots and commas?”
“DOTS AND COMMAS???!!”
I just thought I’d add me selected outrage..
Hmm…clearly I’ve annoyed a lot of people with that one…
What I mean is that compared to the risks we face if we don’t make more serious attempts at action sooner or later, the stuff currently being argued over at Copenhagen is trivial.
The boat’s sinking, and we’re arguing over who’s responsible for painting the liferaft.
Actually, Robert, I don’t think we’ve allocated responsibilty for painting the lifeboat yet. We’re still engaged in the vital business of re-arranging deckchairs.
What say we work out per capita GDP, and the top 20 contribute a per capita amount to supporting the bottom 20 per capita GDP countries in achieving low carbon development on a trajectory that applies to everyone, based on their share of historic emissions over the last 100 years? The amount is rolled over at each year’s end. Ditto countries in the 21-40 tranche in relation to the bottom 60-79 and the 41-50s support the 51-60s.
Sounds fair to me, and viable. Everyone is on the program, so there are no free riders. The contemporary reality that regardless of what happened in the past, we now all have to act in concert and aggressively to cut emissions is adopted. Capacity to pay and historic responsibility are factored in. The developing world gets the first world development funds it needs and these are tied to concrete progress towards sustainable outcomes. Growing wealth in the developing world reduces rates of population growth, making achieving targets easier and moderates conflict.
Everyone’s a winner, and those who win most are those who most need to.
Well that just about rules it out automatically. There is precisely one reason why the financial Corporatocracy suddenly (circa 2000-2005) jumped on the curb emmissions bandwagon. And it’s not because they want to save the planet (because they don’t), but because they’ve realized it might provide them one more means to enrich themselves by controlling a brand new State backed private carbon market, while screwing the world’s poor in the process.
North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe (et al) will be pleased to accept the foriegn currency. So much easier to bank in Switzerland.
Jeez , Razor way to be cynical.
Now apologise and we’ll let you back into our baksheesh , er um ,I mean kumbayah circle….
Hmm…clearly I’ve annoyed a lot of people with that one…
What I mean is that compared to the risks we face if we don’t make more serious attempts at action sooner or later, the stuff currently being argued over at Copenhagen is trivial.
I’m sorry Robert, but you’re completely wrong on this one. I wish I could link to it but the week before last the Guardian Weekly carried a fantastic article on one of the chief G77 negotiators, and it went through in detail the nuts and bolts of the implications of the developed nation trying to throw out Kyoto, the efforts (of which Australia is playing the role of patsy for the USA) by developed nations to remove any kind of independent mechanisms to monitor progress, efforts to divide and conquer the developing world by buying off some, shafting others.
I’m a bit tired and inarticulate tonight, but I think fundamentally what you fail to grasp that every word choice and every grammar choice has highly significant meaning for the stringency, legality, transparency and enforceability of any agreement. For all its many flaws probably the most important thing about Kyoto is that it is a legally binding treaty; it is not some set of motherhood statements. What is meant to be being negotiated now is a legally binding treaty to take Kyoto into the next phase – it won’t be called ‘kyoto’ anymore, as international treaties get nicknamed by the city etc. but that is what it would be – Kyoto 2 etc.
By trying to start ‘clean slate’, but doing everything they can to undermine having a legally binding agreement, the developed nations are forcing developing nation lead negotiators to fight a point by point rearguard battle to ensure that Kyoto itself first isn’t redefined to mush, and at the same time fight for what needs to be in the new treaty for them.
We have been hearing rumours of just how ugly this was going to be for some time, including from overseas as the pre-negotiations took place. Make no mistake that Australia is playing a key role as a spoiler; and make no mistake in understanding that the defeat of a legally binding treaty is a hell of a lot more than dots, commas and word choice.
Myriad, I’ll try to dig up the article.
That said, pardon me while I get out the violins for developing country governments (as distinct from the people of developing countries, who are indeed likely to be devastated by climate change).
Quality analysis of the ‘Danish Text’ at New Matilda by Osman (who comments here as Oz)
http://newmatilda.com/copthis/?p=684
Not so great quality analysis at The Age
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/climate-summit-chaos-wong-disappointed-20091210-kkp2.html
Fran @17: “What say we work out per capita GDP, and the top 20 contribute a per capita amount to supporting the bottom 20 per capita GDP countries…”
Not wanting to spoil a utopian solution and all that, but what if this climate aid goes the way of previous aid money???
Namely, improvements to assorted palatial residences, lavish tycoon-style yachts, money to relatives and mates, Swiss bank accounts, etc, etc.
Why would the leaders of corrupt, despotic nations suddenly change their spots?
Why would we be able to control the use of this money, any more successfully than previous aid money?
Oh, the big bad developing world governments! so corrupt and unrepresentative, HURF DURF! unlike Whitey’s nice democratic governments!
Give me a MF’n break, Robert.
This is a meeting of governments. The units of any international agreement will be States. And bad as these governments might be, to dismiss their concerns in such a sarcastic and glib manner is to dismiss the only tiny scrap of representation that the people of the developing world have at this table, since the rich governments sure as hell don’t give a damn about them.
Elise your preconceptions about aid contain a degree of truth but are based largely on stereotypes, there is a large literature on the question of aid and waste, the UNDP’s Millennium Development Goals research may be a good place to start. You think that “We” (I presume you mean the rich countries) should be able to “control” the aid for the benefit of these poor stupid corrupt darkies, a major problem with much international aid in the past is the fact that “We” DO control the aid and tie it to expenditure on our own (often military) exports, debt repayments, etc making it in fact an indirect subsidy from first world governments to their own economies.
I am amused about the British type position.Heathrow OK! More caring and concerned Poms going on holiday spreading the money purveyor values in and around tourist places.But if some poor impoverished country without a relevant airport piped up,”love your Airbus airbrush tourist passenger planes Old Boy.But we south of the Elephant ears of India dear,have not a spell of hot air that blows the ear coolers off our foreheads,but, the likelihood of major inundation that even the non-1960′s Shrimp as financing will not change any of our country’s citizens staying alive.So you don’t think you could speak to the manufacturers on our behalf and do the sodden right thing,by us, stuck there in pre-Luddite Land Old Bean !?And could Heathrow and all the vehicles landed there be holiday camps for us pre-Luddite land dwellers!?”Then again I suppose they could reinvent the turtle shell so they could slowly drift to Australia.Land of oppurtunity and the ABC!And what will the turtles hells be made of, you ask!?Imported stolen oyster shells!Why ask!?
In terms of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels China was responsible for about 56% of world emissions for the period 2003 to 2007. So we are not going to save the world if China doesn’t act. In addition, for 2007 there were 79 countries with per capita emissions higher than China’s. It is a bit hard to see why China should act unless most of these countries are committed to do doing something that will bring their per capita emissions close to that of China well before 2050.
We need to start thinking about the special issues facing those countries that must act if significant gains are to be made and try to apply that understanding to the serious business of getting real results, not just nice sounding declarations.
John Davidson@28 said
Misleading and misses the point.
The bulk of the problem lies in the 107ppmv that has been added since 1850. If China (or for that matter, the entire planet) had added as much as it did in 2003-7 from a base of 280ppmv, then the impact would have been trivial for the moment. The historic CO2 is the foundation for the problem and the reason that those who didn’t emit in the past are being asked not to emit now, even as we declare that it was these very processes that resulted in the lifestyle which we say is the starting point for civilisation.
Secondly, it is generally missed that much of China’s emission is not for domestic consumption. A cursory look at the lifestyles of most Chinese bears that out. They don’t have anything like the space per person in their houses, or the number of cars per person either. The calories they consume on average to feed themselves are way down on ours. They don’t personally use as much water as we do per capita — not even close. Much of their emissions are caused by their production of consumer goods for the west. Westerners who want to lower Chinese emissions have some simple options — stop purchasing the cheap consumer goods they produce there. Right now it is their cheap labour and their emissions that underpin western lifestyles. If emissions were allocated to end users of goods, the west would still be way up on China.
It’s as I said above. If we are serious about lowering emissions, and creating a convergent regime, we must address the equity questions. Simply asking people who are less well off to sacrifice more so that people who are far better off can sacrifice less, when this latter group’s actions have not only authored the emergency but are perpetating it won’t be saleable, IMHO. If we are to get past this we need adequate and effective restitution. A system in which over a manageable timeline, the beneficiaries of past emissions return their windfall to those whom they want to bring into the tent seems reasonable.
Nobody likes giving up wealth. The Chinese hate it quite as much as we do, but you know it makes sense. We humans must create a context in which we really can see ourselves as sharing common and at least as far as the commons are concerned, undifferentiated interests.
Myriad that was a great piece in New Matilda.
Myriad74@21:
Something I have always wanted to know about these ‘legally binding’ agreements. How is a party that breaches the agreement punished? Who goes to gaol?
More seriously, are the punishments merely trade sanctions?
yes, and in any case China was responsible for 21% of total annual world emissions in 2006 – compared to the US 20%. Surely that is the bottom line, rather than extracting the % of fossil-fuel based emissions.
Robert, what Gerard said about developing governments. Yeah, cos Tuvalu stand to make so much money out of asking for a deal that doesn’t seal their annihilation! Same for the Maldives! So corrupt and self serving. FFS – the nicest I can say is that’s the stupidest and frankly rotten thing I think I’ve ever read from you.
Patrick I can’t say I find the New Matilda piece particularly good because I don’t think the writer particularly understands the significance of such a document, and quoting Yves de Boer saying pacifying things – well of course the poor guy is, he’s trying desperately to get something to work.
I unapologetically prefer my boss’s analysis on this one, not least because I suspect she’s a tad more experienced in global negotiations than the Matilda commentator. I recommend her following posts too, particularly for a more nuanced perspective on Tuvalu’s interjection.
Not snarking here – I’m genuinely unaware – but what experience does Christine Milne have in international negotiations?
Also, I don’t know, if in political science that experience is necessarily the be all and all. Study is equally important I feel.
patrickg @ 34
don’t know if you’d regard it as relevant, but from her bio – she was (is?)vice president of IUCN which is an international organisation, and I’d say anyone who thought that Christine didn’t study the issues she deals with would be either brave, or stupid (no snark intended)
Unless I am mistaken Gerard and Myriad, Robert’s point is that in many developing countries the legitimacy of their governments is rather tenuous.
Gerard, if you don’t think that corruption in developing countries, and sub-saharan africa in particular, has been a significant factor in constraining the effectiveness of aid over the past two decades then you obviously haven’t been paying attention.
Myriad, one of the points of the new matilda piece that I saw was that one of the problems the G77 faces is that they don’t speak with one voice because their interests are increasingly divergent. I don’t think there is any doubt that this is true.
FFS, Brazil, is in the G-77 and it is large, has a medium per capita income, is converging fast, and has a major deforestation problem. How do its interests coincide with the Maldives? The G-77 also includes Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Venuzuela!! Indeed, many of the world’s largest oil producers are in the G-77.
Also, you don’t think there is at least some irony in the fact that the G-77′s chief negotiator is from Sudan, whose government has perpetrated a genocide over the past decade in Darfur?
So, it is fine to talk about the small countries that will be screwed by climate change. But to think that the G-77 really speaks for those interests is a joke.
While, there is no reason for dirt poor countries with tiny carbon footprints to accept constraints on their emissions over the next few decades, to think that we can tackle the problem without committments form China, Brazil and the oil producers is simply ridiculous.
As I understand it this week the negotiations are carried on by officials. The ministers, generally speaking arrive next week and then about 100 heads of state towards the end – some of them only the last day.
I suspect there is a serious problem in conference participants’ capacity to negotiate. Most officials would be on a tight leash in terms of the positions they take and what they can and can’t give away. Ministers for the environment are normally lower status ministers and most would have little room to move.
It’s unrealistic for the heads of state to negotiate because few of them would be sufficiently across the detail. And there is very little time.
Looks like a bugger-up to me.
Tuvalu made an impassioned plea to the conference but according to Christine Milne’s report the submission was not even discussed, blocked by 11 countries including China, India and Venezuela.
Today I heard Ross Garnaut virtually right off the small Pacific nations. Not many people involved, so not a problem. Can easily be moved. He was more concerned about the large river deltas in Asia.
I could be wrong, but I think we need consensus at the end of the day. Nations under existential threat that are told they don’t matter are unlikely to sign up.
LO,
I know the Sudanese negotiating team and they are genuinely concerned and knowledgable people. They are not part of the bastardry in Darfur, they’re trained scientists (I also know a few other Sudanese scientists – their approach to dealing with CC is through community development).
In the early 2000s, when I worked in the Pacific, the Australian scientific community did not want to be seen as representing JWH’s policies and we weren’t (luckily for us).
Smaller developing country representations are often quite independent. It’s only when they get larger and more organised, that you get the more integrated views with career bureaucrats running an organised strategy from the executive.
The G77 split is largely along the lines of internal development vs dependence on internal aid through a negotiated position. Brian’s point about next week being the main game is true.
By next week the leaked text (of which earlier versions were widely circulated) will be ancient history.
There are three main strategic aims to getting some sort of agreement that will allow peak and decline in GHG concentrations by about 2050 or asap
1. Getting the developed countries to cut by <80% by that time (from 1990)
2. Finding pathways that can get the fast growing developing countries onto a v low carbon tech track by the time they peak emissions rates (and to allow same)
3. Finding equitable mechanisms for tech and financial transfer to the smaller developing countries to integrate with their development pathways
Doing this will be very difficult if countries like Australia continue to game for their self interest without trying to promote the above three dynamics.
Patrick
Christine was VP of the IUCN & was directly involved in global CC negotiations, as well as that role including pursuing specific conservation goals etc. on global issues outside CC.
LO, as Roger has correctly pointed out most of the developing nations have got teams of highly trained (eg former diplomats, experts in global negotiations esp. those relating to environment and/or scientists) negotiators hired to represent them. Ian Fry who spoke for Tuvalu is a good example.
There’s no doubt that G77 has a broad range of interests under its umbrella, but the G77 always has. I think it’s worth remembering why the G77 formed in the first place, and that fundamental objective – to represent a voice for the developing nations that has a clear objective of stopping them from being screwed over via ‘divide and conquer’ has held well for many years now. Look at the WT negotiations.
Whether it will hold now at Copenhagen will be interesting. While they have different needs there is a common position amongst the developing worlds that they want the Kyoto architecture, of ensuring that the developed world acts and pays first, continued; and what is asked of them to be within the context of assistance and a fundamental recognition that their collective emissions barely touch the sides of what the OECD puts out.
What I fear will happen, and Brian’s post above shows, is that the emerging successful economies that don’t particularly fit the G77 umbrella will create enough dissent to splinter their effectiveness overall. Really at Copenhagen the G77 needs to speak for the poorest and most vulnerable nations. Although it still completely bemuses me as to why India isn’t sticking with it, not just for historical reasons (Nehru was key to the founding of G77) but because the consequences of a 2 degree rise for India are truly catastrophic.
Animated map of global warming 1880-2008. Supplied by those unreliable dodgy warmists at some dubious grant-whoring institution called NASA.
http://www.theage.com.au/multimedia/environment/changing-global-temperatures/20091202-k5vv.html
Still cold in New Zealand.
That’s not helpful, Paul.
LO, Robert’s point is granted, and it is irrelevant. So, we decide (according to our patented legitimacy-o-meter) that the people of the developing world have governments with “tenuous legitimacy”. Therefore, any concerns raised by these governments about climate change are illegitimate. Therefore the people of these countries are incapable of being represented in any inter-governmental aggreement. Ergo, what the rich countries say goes, cause our governments are Legitimate As, Bro! poor countries’ governments STFU, your petty concerns are mere dots and commas, and your people are better represented by nothing at all.
of course it’s a significant factor, I never said it wasn’t. and why confine yourself to the past two decades?
I wonder if LO thinks that the invasion of Iraq, responsible for a million deaths, and the fact that the USA has spent the last decade running an international network of torture prisons means that the US should have no representation at climate change negotiations. Or is it only the Sudanese delegation that deserves guilt-by-association? Ironic since desertification is a major cause of the Darfur conflict, and Sudan can expect to be one of the worst victims of global warming, despite contributing virtually nothing to the problem.
The chairs of the two working groups have now released draft texts, and the COP is now discussing the LCA text. The LCA text seems weak on legal form. There is also an interesting draft text from the small island states, which seems strong on legal form. I have copies of all of the texts (and a bit of a COP15 update) on my blog.
Di (nr)@ 43,
Apologies. Sometimes I get in front of a computer screen and I just can’t help myself. Also, part of me can’t help seeing global warming as wonderful material for gallows humour, given my absolute lack of faith in the elites doing anything comprehensive about it in time. might as well laugh our way to our graves.
“Whether it will hold now at Copenhagen will be interesting. While they have different needs there is a common position amongst the developing worlds that they want the Kyoto architecture, of ensuring that the developed world acts and pays first, continued; and what is asked of them to be within the context of assistance and a fundamental recognition that their collective emissions barely touch the sides of what the OECD puts out.”
This paragraph neatly encapsulates the problem. While this is a reasonable position for some G-77 members to take, there are other members for which holding that position will make it hard to secure an agreement. The growth rate in emissions from some developing countries is simply too rapid for the Kyoto architecture to form the basis of the next agreement. In total, developing country emissions will exceed developed country emissions by 2015. The nature of trade between the developed and developing world means that large-scale carbon leakage to developing countries is a genuine concern. You can say that developed countries are behaving selfishly, but in truth, all countries are. Accepting constraints for developing countries need not mean that their emissions cannot increase. It simply means that emissions will need to grow more slowly than BAU. If a decent agreement fails to eventuate it won’t just be developed countries that have blood on their hands…
Myriad, I don’t understand why you would expect the rapidly developing members of the G-77 to speak for their poorer members rather than their own interests? Indeed, I think it is amusing that you find it easy to accept that developed countries will act in their own interests but hold some romantic notion that China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia won’t or shouldn’t. As for India, they’ve been intransigent at the most recent trade negotiations and are happy to sit outside the international treaties trying to limit the expansion of nuclear weapons. Why would you think they would be more altruistic in climate change negotiations? It is one of the few G-77 countries that is a genuine democracy, but a large proportion of the electorate aren’t even literate, never mind both understanding and wanting action to combat climate change.
Very much my feeling as well, Paul @ 47. I should have added an emoticon too.
Some thoughts on China’s attitude at Copenhagen.
As I understand it, China has pointed out that apart from its large CO2 polluting industrial cities like Shanghai et al, the vast majority of its population is rural and impoverished and, from excerpts I’ve seen on the TV news, believe industrial growth is their route out of that poverty. I’d like to dig a little deeper on this from an historical perspective, a perspective which I’m sure Chinese leaders have in mind.
First, one has to realise that the importance of history runs deep in Chinese culture. One of their five (I think five) classic books id The Book of History.
Chinese history is generally, but also arguably, viewed as cyclical. Out of a period of civil strife comes a strong leader (Emperor, Party Chairman) who eventual falls in thrall to bureaucracy, and after a period of stability and prosperity, discontent arises, sometimes for ecenomic reasons, sometimes for cultural or spiritual reasons, and out of that discontent arises a popular rebellion or rebellions among the chinese masses leading to a period of chaos, and the emergence of a new strong leader and the cycle begins again. That’s it, roughly. The current Chinese leadership is undoubtedly aware of this cyclical process, and if they weren’t they have the Cultural Revolution and the perceived danger of Falun Gong to remind them. (Please, no debates about Falun Gong – I’m simply using them as an example of the phenomenon.)
It is now very evident that the mass of the Chinese people are very very aware of the dangers of global warming, and, I gather it has already given rise to popular protest and discontent to some extent. Given the restrictions on Chines news we’re not likely, currently, to know the full extent and intensity of that popular discontent. Hence the current chinese Government’s obsteoerousness with the US negotiators at Copenhagen. Of course, the Chinese Government is not going to spell it out the way I have, but my hypothesis might be a partial explanation.
That’s my theory, anyway.
Paul Burns @ above. This is a very good point. Leaving aside the cultural interpretation of Chinese history – what you have raised is the fact that there are very significant fractures within China. I cannot see that the Chinese party has legitimacy to speak for the entirety of the Chinese people. Western journalists generally know too little about Chinese history or current social reality to be able to present a critical account of the reality. It is therefore important for us to keep in mind that China is the remaining great example of socialism turned to totalitarianism. I find the ruling caste’s whining about equity with the West (ie with industrialised democratic nations) a most disingenuous argument when the same caste runs a nation without law, courts, independent Police etc and treat their own subjects, with astonishing contempt, as entirely disposable in the course of industrial modernisation.
A similar argument can be made in relation to Indian. The Indian ruling classes are failing the requirements of economic and democratic equity; they appear to be demanding the right to accrue pharaonic wealth in order to improve the lot of the poor via a worn out ‘trickle down’ effect. Fat chance, I say. The best route into this is via the political essays of Arundhati Roy who, for mine, is hands down the best such essayist of our times. As a democracy India commands considerably more respect than China. It has a significant radical/ecological movement that is calling for international solidarity. As an example here is a site with a broad agenda:
http://www.countercurrents.org/environmnet.htm
In short what I am arguing is that the internal conditions of India and China require critical appraisal before we accept the argument that they have a ‘right’ to industrialise when all they appear to be doing is reproducing vicious class privilege albeit flavoured with the cultural specificity of their respective histories.
I find the current kerfuffle over what may broadly be called “the convergence question” rather telling.
At the moment, the maximu level of per capita emissions that might well be sustainable on a world scale is somewhat less than 2 tonnes of CO2 per person, and probably closer to 1.5tonnes than 2. Australians emit something like 12-18 times what is sustainable. The susbtance of the claim seems to be that we want the developing world, most of whom emit far less than this figure to stay there, essentiually so we can do less than would be implied otherwise. I’ve no problem seeing why this doesn’t play well amongst those whose lifestyle is far short of what we would find acceptable.
While I can understand why, in the grand scheme of things, it would be good if progress towards conditions that would give people in the developing world the kind of life chances we’d accept could occur on a near-zero carbon path, it surely falls upon us first worlders not to ask the developing world to bear this burden. The lion’s share of the burden of making this happen surely falls upon those who have benefited most and are best equipped to bear it — and that would be us.
In this context, the $200bn figures quoted by the Sudanese negotiator sounds eminently reasonable. If the US can spend $US10bn each month occupying Iraq for several years and if they can support TARP with $US750bn even though they know much of the loss was less poor judgement than reckless dealing and fraud, then I think the world can fiund $200bn to do the stuff they should have done even if there were no climate problem. Really, if anything, it doesn’t sound enough, and if this money is spent on good programs, in the end, we are all winners.
And just to emphasise my point on relative per capita emissions above …
Myriad, I don’t understand why you would expect the rapidly developing members of the G-77 to speak for their poorer members rather than their own interests? Indeed, I think it is amusing that you find it easy to accept that developed countries will act in their own interests but hold some romantic notion that China, Brazil and Saudi Arabia won’t or shouldn’t.
I find it pretty amusing that you can’t help but indulge yourself in some sort of foolish stereotypical assumption about how I think which has led you to make such a statement. What do you think all greens are ‘dreamers’ who have never studied or participated in global realpolitik?
I don’t think I’ve ever written or even intimated that the developing world nations won’t be acting in their own interests; simply put it’s just that on the whole their self-interest coincides a heck of a lot better with what the planet needs than that of the OECD. I fundamentally agree with the most basic point that the developing world nations make – that we’re in this hole courtesy of the OECD nations’ massive economic growth at the expense of the environment, and as they are still enormously wealthy from that exercise – especially comparative to the rest of the world – it’s only fair that they pay rather than force those still trying to heave the bulk of their populace out of poverty to ‘curb’ their development. That is the ‘polluter pays’ principle writ globally. I also understand & agree with their broad demands for compensation and/or assistance to transition to low carbon economies.
But let’s also take a closer look at those self interests of the developing nations. Not only do they not have the GDP on the whole to rapidly transition to low carbon economies, they also don’t have the funds to deal with the levels of disruption and threats to human life they are going to face from climate change. This is why I point out that India’s position is somewhat inexplicable. Look over any of the maps and graphs that Brian regularly puts up here and its abundantly clear that India stands to suffer some of the worst catastrophes on a regular basis from climate change, and has less wherewithal than China to deal with it. Hence I would have thought it was very much in their interest to support the G77 case (not least because the border protection measures they are planning for Bangladesh are going to cost a mint). There are very pressing reasons for India – for it’s own security and stability – to need a stringent world target. I can only put down their intransigence to the nature of their current government; or that what they are holding out for is much more substantial technology transfer and financial assistance in return for curbing their economic growth.
I don’t think anyone needs a PhD in international relations or global economics to understand why an autocracy like Saudi Arabia that has derived its wealth solely from fossil fuels might not to be too keen on their use being curtailed. I personally wouldn’t even put them in the same camp as G77 in real world terms.
But here’s the key bit where you make silly assumptions about my thinking, and perhaps reveal a little of your own, LO:
Why would you think they would be more altruistic in climate change negotiations?
This doesn’t apply just to India. That you think pushing for hard targets and a rapid transition by 2020 is ‘altruistic’ for a rapidly emerging economy – indeed any economy – is telling. I wonder, do you really understand what is at risk here? Any nation that clings to it’s ‘right’ to massively develop at the expense of a global agreement that protects their nation from the impacts of climate change is acting for their elite only, certainly not in their national interests.
The developing nations aren’t being altruistic; they are pushing for the west to invest some of the massive amounts of wealth it has extracted from global resources into dealing with the problem before they are asked to sacrifice. At the same time the most vulnerable and powerless nations are pleading to be saved; at the same time the rapidly developing nations are determined not to get shafted.
And back to India -
It is one of the few G-77 countries that is a genuine democracy, but a large proportion of the electorate aren’t even literate, never mind both understanding and wanting action to combat climate change.
right, because our people are so literate on climate change, high school attendance rates and all. I think you’d be a little surprised at what the rural poor of India understand, even without literacy.
My point being that the literacy of the general populace isn’t what’s in question here, and it’s certainly not relevant to the erudition of the Indian delegation, or any other for that matter – I presume that’s not what you’re implying, in which case I’m left wondering what your point was?
I spent a number of months doing volunteer work in India. It is a wonderful country with incredible people. But most people in rural india have more pressing things to worry about than climate change, which many wouldn’t even know existed. Australians may also be ignorant in some ways, but their knowledge far exceeds that of rural Indians. My broader point is that delegations cannot operate as though public opinion doesn’t matter. Ultimately the delegation is accountable to the government, which is accountable in turn to the electorate. So, the views and the literacy of the general population are actually critical.
My point about altruism was merely that India will speak for its own interests, which are in many ways divergent from those of other G-77 countries. You seem to have this delusional view that because climate change will be devastating for most developing countries that they should also have common ground on how constraints should be shared and policies developed. It doesn’t.
I have no problem with their being significant financial transfers to developing countries. But that should not mean that those fast growing, relatively high emitters for their stage of development (hello China and Brazil) shouldn’t accept binding constraints on their own emissions going forward. Without a global carbon budget being allocated amongst all countries, there will simply be large incentives for emission intensive activities to take place in those jurisdictions without constraints and carbon pricing. Not only that, but within a few short years, as I said, developing countries as a whole will emit more than the developed world. Under BAU, within 20 to 30 years they will be on track to emit 50% more! There simply is no solution to climate change without developing countries accepting binding constraints. If they were to do so I’m hope that larger financial transfers would be forthcoming.
Face it, the Kyoto framework is dead. At the very least, the rapidly growing developing countries will have to accept binding constraints. Otherwise there will be no deal. And nor should they.
“What do you think all greens are ‘dreamers’ who have never studied or participated in global realpolitik?”
Well, the fact that you are more concerned about the “rightness” of the G-77 position than identifying the compromises that will be necessary to get a deal made suggests that at least some dreaming is going on.
Think of it this way. Regardless of where pollution occurs, whether that be in developed or developing countries, it has a social cost. If that social cost is not internalised either through pricing or regulatory means, or a combination of both, pollution will be inefficiently high. Just as the world doing something serious to combat climate change is in everyone’s interest, one could argue that internalising those social costs is also in all countries’ interests.
It’s all very silly of course; but Fran Barlow @ #53 is sort of a new breakthrough in silliness.
Too much lunacy to dissect here in one breath, but the use of “surely” oughta be something of a skeleton key. Surely.
I don’t think the G77 have been particularly constructive in the negotiations. When China, India, Saudi Arabia, and a bunch of oil exporters blocked Tuvalu’s proposal, they were not only blocking their proposal, but also a discussion on legal form. Many countries who are rapidly developing (e.g. China) or for all intents and purposes should count as developed (e.g. Saudi Arabia) do not want an agreement that has them taking on legally binding targets. This also prevents the United States taking on legally binding targets.
There are many countries in the G77 whose per capita GDP and per capita emissions are higher than some Annex I countries. These include Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Libya and Venezuela. These all have blocked discussion on legal form. Annex I Parties who have lower per-capita emissions and lower per-capita GDP include Croatia, Kasakhstan, Belarus, Lithuania, Portugal, Poland, Latvia, and the Ukraine.
I fully agree with the G77 that Annex I countries should have stronger targets But I disagree with the G77 claim that Annex I countries should not have conditions for some of their targets placed on the rest of the negotiations.
Myriad (and others) – forget what I have written up until now.
How about we try something a bit different.
Rather than debating the rights and wrongs of the different negotiating positions, how about we try and work out the contours of an agreement that might be acceptable both to the vast majority of countries as well as the larger ones that will determine whether any agreement is effective. This might help us to think about the compromises that will be necessary to get an effective agreement.
As a starting point, perhaps we can agree on the following:
1 – Climate change is a threat to humanity and limiting the dangers arising from it will require deep cuts in GHG emissions globally.
2 – Current developed countries are largely responsible for the increase in the atmospheric concentration of GHG since the industrial revolution.
3 – Current developing countries are likely to account for the majority of emissions over the next 30 years and hence increases in the atmospheric concentration of GHG over that period under BAU.
4 – The costs of climate change will fall disproportionately on developing countries.
5 – There are vast differences in the level and growth rate of emissions across developing countries and hence their likely future contribution to the problem.
6 – There are vast differences in levels of development across developing countries and hence large differences in: their capacity to adapt to climate change and the costs of climate change mitigation.
7 – Any international agreement has to be acceptable to all parties but in particular all G-20 countries, without which any agreement reached between the rest cannot be effective. That means taking seriously the architecture of an agreement that can be ratified in each of those countries as opposed to what is “just” or “right”.
8 – Given (7), compromises will have to be reached that take into account the concerns of all parties including the fact that: a) developed countries will not accept binding constraints on their emissions without some binding constraints on rapidly developing countries such as Brazil and China that are also competitors in international trade; b) developing countries will not accept binding constraints that unduly constrain their economic development.
I don’t think any of those statements are controversial. If you accept them, give me some specifics on where you think G-77 countries (or a sub-set if you like) should be prepared to compromise to get a deal done. I will then outline what I think developed countries should be prepared to compromise on as well.
I think that will be more constructive than what has taken place so far…
LO@60
I’m going to comment in the new open thread on Copenhagen issues but I take note of point 4 in your list.
Plainly, if by “cost” you mean “damage” or “harm” then this is a truism. What we in the first world need to ensure that this cost and harm imposition is minimised because we first worlders acknowledge the role we have played in authoring the problem by making effective local restitution and mitigation as well as doing what we need to do on a global scale on targets and programs.
LO – you’ll never herd cats and ideologues … Fran Barlow come on down! Put it this way if I were poor in India I’d want a fridge after I got a tap and sink after I got a brick wall after I got a roof over my head. Let alone a computer after a better school on the way to owning a motorbike on the way to owning a car …. I’d say if were a poor Indian I’d want a lot more growth and development.
Corin, what about the loo? I’ve heard stories of women not being able to go all day because they have to wait for the cover of darkness.