envelope
注册免费订阅每周通讯 Sign up for email updates

中国与世界,环境危机大家谈 WHERE CHINA AND THE WORLD DISCUSS THE ENVIRONMENT

查看评论 view comments

中文

Did China win at Bali?

Li Taige

February 01, 2008

In taking the lead at recent climate-change negotiations, China puts itself at the forefront of the fight against warming, but also opens itself to greater international scrutiny. Li Taige reports.

"China is already taking action to slow its growth in emissions, but however the climate-change negotiations shape up, the Chinese economy will need to change. "

Developing countries, including China, were the winners of recent UN-led climate change talks in Indonesia, said a recent commentary in the influential Chinese newspaper Southern Weekend. But can China really claim victory in December’s complex negotiations?

Unlike earlier meetings of the signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), China went on the attack at Bali. In a speech [pdf] on the first day, Su Wei, deputy head of the Chinese delegation, proposed replacing the current dialogue with a working group that would discuss emissions reductions by developed nations. It was a suggestion clearly aimed at the US, which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but remains bound by the UNFCCC.

“For developing countries,” Su Wei said, “they should contribute more to undertake policies and measures to address climate change, and the developed countries must provide financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building in this regard.”

Meanwhile, Xie Zhenhua, the head of the Chinese delegation, said in an interview that developing nations, including China, should use finance from developed countries and technology transfer to “slow the rate of growth of greenhouse-gas emissions, in accordance with their national circumstances.”

Observers noted that this was the first time China had proposed substantive undertakings for developing nations and laid out a formal solution to the problems posed by America’s stance on Kyoto. The delegation had prepared its proposals in advance, Su Wei told Chinese reporters, to push negotiations forward and increase the likelihood of genuine progress.

This change in China’s attitude won praise from many quarters. “Many developing countries, united in the G77 plus China, have come to Bali with considerable ambition and are showing flexibility,” said Hans Verolme, director of WWF’s Global Climate Change Programme.

China’s proactive stance at Bali was rooted in the country’s domestic effort to reduce emissions and energy consumption. China has “pledged to reduce energy consumption (per unit of gross domestic product) by 20% over five years” noted UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon in the Washington Post, “not far removed, in spirit, from Europe's commitment to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.”

The Chinese delegation displayed unprecedented levels of activity at Bali. The delegation held meetings with staff from NGOs including WWF, Greenpeace, the Climate Group and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. Two small meetings were also held with the Chinese press.

China’s public-relations strategy left room for improvement, however. Many people in other countries are unaware of the country’s work in dealing with climate change and cutting emissions and energy consumption. China has “done a lot, but talked little,” admits Su Wei. The foreign press was very keen to interview Chinese representatives at Bali, but the delegation had no-one appointed to deal with the mea and did not hold any open press conferences.

On the last day of the talks, DPA, the German news agency, reported that China and India were obstructing negotiations. This aggrieved members of the Chinese delegation, who were prompted to discuss better communication with the foreign media and the importance of providing accurate information.

In fact, it was Nobel-prize winner and former US vice-president, Al Gore, who identified the US as the main obstacle to climate-change negotiations when he spoke at Bali. But at the last moment, the US delegation approved the “Bali road map”. Over the next two years, talks will take place that aim to reach a concrete agreement by 2009 on the international community’s response to climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

The Bali road map is the result of a compromise. Opposition from the US, Japan and Canada meant China and the EU’s call for developed countries to reduce emissions by 25% to 40% on 1990 levels by 2020 were not explicitly included. However, the US is now on board – and future negotiations can continue to take on the issue of its obligations.

According to the road map, developing countries will receive technology, finance and capacity building from developed nations in exchange for measurable, reportable and verifiable actions to reduce emissions. And thanks to efforts by representatives from developing nations, the finance, technology transfer and capacity building provided by the developed world must also be “measurable, reportable and verifiable.”

China needs finance to fight climate change, but it needs technology more. The developed world has an obligation to transfer clean technology to developing countries under the UNFCCC, and a duty to assist developing countries in their own technology research. Talks on this process have made little headway, but Bali saw some progress. There are, of course, still major differences between the developed and developing world, and negotiations will not be easy.

The EU and developing nations like China and India were the eventual winners at Bali, said Time magazine, while the US lost – managing to concede its position on the road map, while still appearing “selfish and churlish”. From the “selfish” point of view, the US may not have lost: its delegation fought for the country's national interests. But the Bush administration’s stance is also coming in for increasing criticism at home, from citizens who want to see the US playing a bigger role in international negotiations on climate.

China’s commitment, along with other developing countries, to discuss adopting “measurable, reportable and verifiable” measures to slow its emissions is not equivalent to developed nations’ undertakings on emissions cuts, but it will undoubtedly bring huge pressure to bear on their economies and societies.

China is already taking action to slow its growth in emissions, but however the climate-change negotiations shape up, the Chinese economy will need to change. Whether or not the US ratifies the Kyoto Protocol and commits to emissions cuts, says Xie Zhenhua, “China will continue to take active measures in reducing emissions and power consumption and dealing with climate change.”

However, say analysts, the road map's call for “verifiable” action on climate change by developing nations means that China’s statistics will be tested for their credibility. Therefore, China needs the foresight to put in place internationally recognised standards for appraisal.

Acting on climate change means joint action from the international community: no country can act alone. For China to be a winner in the end, it needs to uphold its own interests, make the switch to a greener economy and make a larger – and more open - contribution to the global fight against climate change.

Li Taige is a Beijing-based journalist. He obtained a masters degree in engineering from Sichuan University in 1997, and studied as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2003-2004.

Homepage photo by iyers



参与讨论       COMMENTS

Original Posting Language Key
- 原始发表语言 original posting language
上次 Posts: 6
上次 Last post: 10 Feb 14:36
subscribe to discussion
参与讨论
RSS
RSS
中国-气候变化-法律实施

如果中国真正执行关于环境污染,尤其是对燃烧煤炭的发电站的法律法规,如果中国能够尊重知识分子的产权,中国试图推动全球减小气候变化的努力将会得到更大程度的信任。如果10年到20年以前,中国就在绿色技术(那些发达国家的主要产业拒绝接受)的基础上大踏步地发展经济,当然需要加上良好的管理,中国现在就能在这些技术的飞速扩展的世界市场上占据支配地位,这将为中国赢得骄傲和国际社会的尊重。

China - Climate Change - Law Enorcement

If China enforced its own legislation concerning pollution - especially coal fired power stations - and if China respected intellectual property rights, China would have much stronger credentials for her attempts to drive the global effort to minimise climate change.

If, 10-20 years ago, China had sought to expand its economy with a great leap forward on the basis of existing green technologies (which the then wealthier nations' major industries refused to adopt) and of course good governance, China would now dominate the rapidly expanding world market for such technology, and this would warrant both international respect and domestic pride.

中国态度

中国新一界领导人对环境保护的态度已发生变化,我们期待着大家的行动。

China's attitude

The attitude of Chinese new leaders to environmental protection has changed. We are looking forward to more action.

走在前面的人

致一号

走在前面的人掉进一个坑,但是他们爬出来后,等着后面的人也掉进去。
二十年前的中国走在后面,怎么可能看到今天的环境问题?发达国家走过了这条路,但他们没有说,也不可能无偿提供环境友好的技术,直到中国掉进坑里去,需要花钱来购买这些技术。
而如今,无论中国多么想在环境问题上赢得尊重,这么大的国家,这么多人民的吃饭和就业需要保障,这么多既得利益者站在那里,要走对一步谈何容易。

李阳
慕尼黑工业大学

Still a long way to go

To Comment No. 1

Let me use a metaphor here.The pioneers on the path of development used to fall into a trap. But they just climbed out, stayed mute, and waited for the latecomers to fall into it as well.

Twenty years ago China was merely one of the latecomers trying to catch up with the trend of development, so how can it foresee today’s environmental problems?

The developed countries experienced the cost of
development. However, they offered neither good experience nor free environmentally-friendly technologies to China until China get stranded and has to buy these know-hows from them.

No matter how China makes efforts to deal with environmental issues, it can not simply achieve the goals itself, due to its huge population, tough employment issues, as well as the large number of interested groups.

China still has a long way to go to tackle the environmental problems.

Li Yang, Technical University of Munich.

老调重弹,缺乏新意

中国(在减排方面)主动出击了?我看大同小异:不过是一边作着含糊不清的声明一边继续要求那些从未间断过要求的技术、资金、人才罢了。加强现有国内法的执行并制定更严格的新法规,也许更能帮助中国及其它发展中国家顺利减缓排放及污染的进程(这不需要什么高科技,也不用花大笔的钱来换取工厂主不向河流倾泻废料的承诺)。中国还应该把投入军事战备的科学人才及资金更多地转移到污染控制领域——这个建议同样适用于其它发展中国家。

more of the same

China went on the offensive? No more so than in the past, demanding a list of explicit things that China has always demanded: technology, money and expertise, while making vague statements about what it should do. Enforcement of existing domestic laws and enactment of tougher laws would help China and the rest of the developing world to reduce emissions and pollution (it doesn't take high technology and money to keep factory bosses from dumping raw waste into rivers). Maybe China ought to steer military scientists and funding to more pollution control and cleanup, same for the rest of the developing world.

气候谈判没有赢家和输家之分

在气候变化谈判问题上,没有赢家和输家之分,而是一荣俱荣,一损俱损的关系。不达成有效机制大大减缓和应对气候变化,大家都是输家。因为我们只有一个地球。拒绝行动不符合任何国家的“国家利益” 作者提到:“从自私的角度来讲,美国或许并不是输家,因为美国代表团极力维护的是其国家利益。”我认为此观点值得商榷。首先,任何一个国家都逃不掉气候变化的负面影响。美国如不积极应对气候变化,更多的像卡特林娜飓风那样极端天气将对其造成更大危害。其次,从经济层面讲,美国也并非赢家。越早行动,减缓气候变化的费用越低,迟缓的行动只会使代价大增。拒不行动还会削弱企业竞争力。比如,美国汽车企业拒绝提高能效,结果效益每况日下。最后,在气候变化问题上,布什政府更多代表石化企业为首的大企业利益,未必完全代表美国“国家利益”。同样,认清中国在气候谈判中的国家利益至关重要。首先,发展生态文明就是中国最大的国家利益。否则,我们30年的经济奇迹将难以为继,百年崛起的梦想也将面临重大挑战。且不讲温室气体排放在影响全球的同时也影响中国,单就资源短缺,能源安全,空气和水污染来说,中国已经面临不可承受之重。其次,积极发展低碳经济是提升中国全球竞争力的根本。令人欣慰的是,随着发展观的改变,中国从强调经济快速发展转变为又快又好。气候谈判也从过去一味强调“减排影响发展” 改变为积极寻求国际谈判突破。事实上,在气候变化这一全球最大挑着问题上发挥积极作用才真正符合中国的国家利益。总之,各国在气候变化问题谈判时应当摈弃狭隘的国家利益,协同合作,实现最经济和最大限度的减排。当然发达国家,尤其是美国不应逃避其历史和现实的责任,应发挥真正的领导作用。同时,中国应以自力更生为主,将减排作为实现经济转型的历史机遇,力争在新一轮的低碳经济革命中后来居上。但最重要的是,中美两个温室气体排放大国(约占全球一半),应全力合作,实现双赢。 JN Beijing

No Winner or Loser in Climate Talks

No Winner or Loser in Climate Talks
For climate change talks, there is no winner or loser. Either all the countries win or they all lose. If no effective mechanism is reached at the talks to mitigate and adapt to climate change, all countries stand to lose. After all, we have only one planet to live.

Inaction is not in any country’s interest.
The author writes: “Perhaps the US is not a loser, because the US delegates tried their best to protect US national interest. In my view, this point is arguable. First, No country is able to escape from its dire consequences of climate change. Without active mitigation, climate will get worse and extreme weathers like Hurricane Katrina may hit the US more frequently. And no one knows for sure what potential catastrophic result all countries will surfer. Moreover, the US is not even a winner for the economic point of view. Early action will be much less costly. Inaction will not strengthen competitiveness of enterprises. On the contrary, some companies that refuse to improve their standard are suffering. The auto industry in the US is an obvious example. It is worthy mentioning that the Bush administration is not representing the true national interest of America, rather it is more influenced by large industrialists such those from oil and chemical industries.

As for China, it is equally important to identify what kind of national interest is involved in the climate talks. Fist and foremost, building eco-civilization is the biggest national interest. Otherwise, China’s 30-year economic miracle will not last and the centaury-long dream of renaissance will face serious challenge. The pollution pattern of industrialization is simply not sustainable. And China is unable to fuel the pattern with shortage of natural resources, energy security, and air and water pollution. Let alone the emission of greenhouse gasses that affect the world as well as China itself. In addition, developing low carbon economy is the key to strength China’s competitiveness in the future. Fortunately, the concept of development is under significant change from “economic development first” to “balanced development”. As a result, the rhetoric of climate talks is shifting from “emission reduction puts burden on economic development” and points fingers with the US to more constructive actions. In fact, it is in China’s best interest to play a key role in tackling climate change. Reducing Greenhouse gasses can actually promote economic development rather than hurt it. Strategically, China should take the advantage of global fight against climate change to speed the great transformation to low carbon economy and realize sustainable development.

To sum up, all countries should discard the narrow minded concern of national interest and unite together to realize cost-effective measures combat climate change. The developed countries, the US in particular, should shoulder their historical and current responsibilities. China should rely mainly on itself to seize the opportunity to play a leading role in low carbon economy. More importantly, the US and China as the two largest greenhouse gasses emitters should work together toward win-win result.

JN Beijing

给中国提供经验技术

“发达国家经历了发展的代价,但是他们没有给中国提供好的经验也没有无偿向中国输出绿色技术,直到中国自己碰到了问题只好跟他们去购买这些技术。”
很多专家,美国和欧盟的环保机构都在北京设有永久办公室,帮助中国发展一个可行的,综合性的环境发展及实施项目。而中国只是拒绝有效一致地执行法律(这方面的任何法律)。
至于向中国提供环境技术,中国有足够的钱去支持载人宇宙项目和军队的快速现代化 ,以及向派对老板们提供大量的糖果。中国可以知道环境技术的市场价格。而且中国有反对西方环境技术输出给其他贫穷国家的记录。
没有免费的午餐给中国。

Giving things to China

"The developed countries experienced the cost of development. However, they offered neither good experience nor free environmentally-friendly technologies to China until China get stranded and has to buy these know-hows from them."

Lots of experts, the US EPA and its EU equivalent have permanent offices in Beijing to help China develop a workable, comprehensive environmental development and enforcement program. China simply refuses to effectively and uniformly enforce its laws (any laws for that matter).

As for giving China environmental technology, China has plenty of money for a manned space program and the rapid modernization of its military, as well as lots of goodies for party bosses. It can market prices for environmental technology. China also has a track record of reverse engineering western environmental technology for resale to other, poorer countries.
No free lunch for China.


发表评论 Post a comment
标题 Title :


(Maximum characters: 1200 | 不超过 1200字)


发表的评论在预先被管理员浏览后翻译成中文或英文。
Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated.

我们建议你在评论后署名, 以便其他浏览者能更好地与你交流。你没有必要使用真名,但你的署名将会协助我们维护网站的信息交流畅通。
We suggest you add your name to your comments so that other readers can respond to you more easily. You don’t have to use your real name, but providing a name will help make communication clearer for other forum participants.