Latest Articles by Yi Shui

“Developing countries need to seek a balance”

Wu Yuan, Shui Yi — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:11:00 +0000

As the Bali conference ends, where does China stand on the negotiations? Xie Zhenhua, China’s top delegate at UN-led climate talks in Indonesia, talks to chinadialogue.

As key climate talks in Bali draw to a close, Xie Zhenhua, the head of the Chinese delegation, is direct about the country’s position on climate change. If rich countries fulfill their obligations, says Xie, in areas such as climate-change mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and financing the transition to a low-carbon economy, China will take efforts to slow its increasing greenhouse-gas emissions.

“Developing countries need to seek a balance between economic development and protecting the climate,” Xie, deputy director of China’s top economic planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission, told chinadialogue. “We cannot continue a development mode without any restriction on emissions.”

But Xie expressed disappointment that developed countries had so far failed to meet Kyoto requirements on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by a collective average of 5.2% below 1990 levels. For EU member states, he said, this would correspond to some 15% below their expected greenhouse-gas emissions in 2008.

He also urged delegates to support the EU-backed proposal that industrialised countries should agree to cut emissions by 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

“Common but differentiated responsibilities”

The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be strictly followed in the negotiations, Xie stressed, saying some delegates to the conference had pushed for the two-track approach first adopted at the 2005 climate talks in Montreal.

“This means they require the United States, China and India to accept a quantified binding target. But this is impossible for China, because different countries should have varied responsibilities according to their history, development and per capita greenhouse-gas emissions.”

Many people involved in the process, including Yvo de Boer, the UNFCCC executive secretary, Phil Woolas, UK climate-change minister and Hans JH Verolme, director of WWF’s US climate-change programme, have expressed agreement that China, as a developing country, should not have to accept binding targets.

Achievements

Xie is also keen to stress China’s own achievements in restructuring the economy and improving energy efficiency.

Energy-saving in China had conserved 800 million tonnes of coal equivalent in the period from 1990 to 2005, said Xie, avoiding 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

China’s eleventh Five-Year Plan set targets to reduce energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% from 2006 to 2010, he added, which will save 600 million tonnes of coal equivalent and avoid 1.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.

Meanwhile, China is greatly increasing its use of renewable energy. In 2007, China invested 160 billion yuan (US$21.7 billion) in the field.

Yi Shui is chinadialogue’s Beijing branch deputy editor

Yuan Wu is a Chinese journalist

“I openly call for emissions cuts” (1)

Shui Yi, Jianqiang Liu — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:39:00 +0000

He is one of the country’s best known economists, and a rare voice in calling on China to commit to reductions in greenhouse-gas pollution. Liu Jianqiang and Yi Shui talk to Hu Angang.

[Produced in association with Rutgers Climate and Social Policy Initiative]

The publication of Hu Angang’s essay for chinadialogue, “A new approach at Copenhagen”, met with a large response. Hu is a well-known economist and professor at Tsinghua University; he is also an adviser to the Chinese government. The article, published in April, suggested that China promote a global deal on emissions reductions by drawing up its own commitments, thus making an environmental contribution to the world.

Hu’s article has received both fierce criticism and enthusiastic praise. A member of the Chinese delegation to the climate change talks in Bonn commented on chinadialogue that Hu’s standpoint “lacks intrinsic knowledge about how climate-change problems have appeared and lacks any common sense of history or knowledge of the current situation of international politics.” However, an NGO observer at the talks responded, “if China keeps repeating the hackneyed refrain of ‘equality and justice’ in the few months left before Copenhagen round of talks, rather than putting forward its own views and propositions on this issue, it will find itself stuck in an ever unfavourable position. I believe professor Hu has made a good motion by airing his viewpoint and sparking a popular discussion. The sooner we do this the better.”

Liu Jianqiang and Yi Shui, editors at chinadialogue in Beijing, interviewed Hu to ask him how China should deal with the climate-change problem.

chinadialogue: Some commentators say that although you are an expert on China, your work on climate change does not reflect that expertise. As an economist, how and when did you come to research climate change?

Hu Angang: Actually a lot of people think it’s strange: “Hu’s an economist – an expert on the nation, why is he interested in climate change? How has he come up with these new and distinctive opinions so quickly?” However, a mature point of view does not just appear; it took 10 years, 20 years or longer.

Twenty years ago I wrote a report with Niu Wenyuan and Wang Yi, two colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, called “The ecological deficit: China’s greatest future challenge”. We wrote that the ecological crisis would evolve into the central issue of human existence and development in the twenty-first century. We covered seven major ecological and environmental issues, the very first of which was global climate change and rising sea levels. In 1989, academics had calculated that by 2030 global temperatures would have risen by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with sea levels of between 20 to 140 centimetres. We were very concerned about the impact of that on China’s coastal regions and agriculture, including the availability of fresh water.

cd: What were your conclusions?

HA: Our basic conclusion was that this was a crisis for humanity as a whole. One nation’s pollution impacts on its neighbours by exacerbating climate change. The greenhouse gases emitted by one country do not remain in that particular country. Humanity had to respond in concert.

Thus in 2008 I paraphrased the Olympic slogan, “one world, one dream”, adapting it to climate change. “One world” is to say that our world continues to get smaller; “one dream” refers to our need to adopt environmentally-friendly practices – that’s our dream. I would also add “one action”: we need to reach agreement at Copenhagen to reduce emissions together.

As early as 1989 we had discussed the consequences of the environmental crisis for China’s security. Rising sea levels would have a grave impact on China’s three densely populated and economically crucial river deltas [the Pearl River Delta, the Yangtze River Delta and the Yellow River Delta]. Those are China’s three most developed areas, and also the areas most frequently hit by natural disasters; thus the potential for economic losses is huge. In 2008, I visited Caofeidian, in Hebei province, a development on land that has been reclaimed from the sea. However, have they considered rising sea levels? If they were to, the costs would rocket. In February 2008 I went to Zhuhai, in Guangdong province. There, they take rising sea levels into account when reclaiming land and building infrastructure. But are there many more areas that are not taking such questions into account? It is very likely there are, and nobody knows how far sea levels will rise. The impact of climate change also means that disasters that at one time would only strike once in a century, now might hit every decade or even more frequently.

In 1989 we also discussed the major environmental impact that China had on the planet. At that point I was already pro-globalisation. First, China is the world’s most populous nation, so it has a major impact on environment and climate-change issues as a result. China is already one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Second, China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal, a huge contributor to global warming, and no other nation can ignore this. That inevitably leads to frictions. We were saying that this background was important, that it gave China no choice but to view environmental management as of great strategic import, in order to participate in humanity’s efforts to protect the environment and save the planet. That view is still valid today. It was basically my view on global climate change and the environment 20 years ago.

In 1997 I co-authored a report with experts from the Institute of Geographical Sciences at the Chinese Academy of Sciences called, “China’s natural disasters and economic development”. I was the first of China’s economists to research the country’s natural environment and economic development, because growth and social progress is founded on an understanding of the environment, on protection and investment in natural systems. Through that research, I found that the climate is often the cause of natural disasters in China, making the country the largest victim of natural disasters, and the biggest victim of climate change. I went on to do some initial calculations and research, and found that the impact of disasters has increased rapidly since the 1950s. In that decade, 3.8 million tonnes of grain were lost per year, compared to 34 million tonnes per year from 2001 to 2006. In terms of the percentage of total production, in the 1950s that was 2.1%, in 2001 to 2006 it was 7.4%. On the one hand you have increased production, but on the other you have wider areas affected by disasters. We concluded that China would be the biggest victim of global warming, even before we considered that receding glaciers, rising snowlines and melting permafrost are putting the “water tower of Asia” – the source of our rivers – in grave danger.

In my book, Survival and development, I calculated that the frequency of natural disasters increased from the Sui Dynasty (581 to 618 CE) to the Tang Dynasty (618 to 917), from the Tang to the Song (960 to 1279) and increased again in the Qing (1644 to 1911). Historical data shows that disasters have increased in frequency since the 1950s; I inferred that this will continue. In the future, more scientific predictions will be made, but the conclusion will not be much different.

cd: When it comes to climate change, what would you say China’s “national circumstances” actually are?

HA: First, China is the largest victim of climate change. Second, adapting to climate change is in China’s core interests.

It would be petty of us to discuss how best to haggle with the foreigners at Copenhagen. We should start with the question of China’s own interests. In The second transformation: construction of state systems, I wrote that ecological security and environmental protection were two of our five core national interests. And this is not because of pressure from the United States and western nations. Unfortunately, many do not realise that addressing these issues is in China’s own interests, and those of all humanity – they are the shared core interests of China and the rest of the world. If our leaders can realise this, they will agree to make emissions cuts, rather than continuing to refuse. But as you know, I am the only Chinese academic openly calling for emissions cuts, and that is just lamentable. I need to spread this idea, no matter how long it takes. I believe that ultimately it will become the consensus among both China’s leaders and its people. So, that is how I sum up my views on China’s environment and climate change: it’s in China’s core national interests, and I’m saying so publicly.

NEXT: How is Chinese climate-change policy formed?

Hu Angang is one of China’s best-known economists. He is professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Tsinghua University and the director of the Centre for China Study, a leading policy think-tank. Hu has worked as the chief editor for China Studies Report, a circulated reference for senior officials.

Produced in association with:

Himepage image Bert van Dijk

“I openly call for emissions cuts” (2)

Jianqiang Liu, Shui Yi — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:23:00 +0000

In the second section of a two-part interview, Liu Jianqiang and Yi Shui talk to Hu Angang about how China’s climate-change policy is formed, and how it can change.

[Produced in association with Rutgers Climate and Social Policy Initiative]

chinadialogue: Many Chinese people who oppose a commitment to emissions cuts say that to do so would harm China’s interests and slow development. This is also the view of many of your critics.

Hu Angang: There would be no loss to China. In fact, it’s a huge opportunity. Twenty years ago, in national situation reports such as “Survival and development” and “The ecological deficit”, I first proposed a sustainable development strategy. In 1994 this became the national strategy. Then, at the start of this millennium I proposed the concept of “environmentally friendly development”. This is actually a Chinese invention: our ancestors spoke about nature and man as one. Environmentally friendly development is proactive, sustainable and of benefit to green industries and green power, and thus it presents huge business opportunities. It is based on social needs and market mechanisms, unlike the idea of sustainable development, which relies on the role of government. Also, I am very aware that we need to launch a fourth industrial revolution. The first two industrial revolutions were lead by the developed nations, with China nowhere to be seen. In the information revolution, China was originally left behind – but now it is in hot pursuit. This time round, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the developed nations on the starting line of the green revolution. Mastery of green technologies will be vital, and the development of green industries will provide core competitiveness. If we fail to see that, we let down our descendants.

I have written several articles over the past few years that suggest China makes an environmental contribution to the world. This echoes Mao Zedong’s statement in 1956 that in the twenty-first century, China would make a contribution to the world. He never specified what kind of contribution, but I do: a green one. China’s leaders have already stated they will make a “peaceful contribution”, but that alone is inadequate – there must also be an environmental contribution.

China should play a larger, positive role in international affairs. An editor at The Economist asked me quite a specific question: “What can China do to restore the economy as quickly as possible – and thus promote recovery of the global economy?” In the past, when humanity faced disaster or crisis, the world would never look to China to play any kind of role. But this financial crisis has been different, in a way that would have been unimaginable before. Similarly, the world’s gaze has again turned to China when tackling global climate change. And I believe that the financial crisis is a temporary one; climate change is the true threat. We need to ask what the most important challenge is, and what the most pressing task is. The most pressing tasks are not always the most important challenges, which are often ignored due to the perceived urgency of the former. The financial crisis has weakened people’s awareness of the greater threat to humanity. Look at the two recent summits in Washington last November and London this April. There was little mention of climate change. This year is crucial – we must see consensus, joint undertakings and action at Copenhagen.

An example of successful joint action was the Millennium Summit in 2000. Consensus was reached on poverty reduction, and humanity agreed on the Millennium Development Goals, of which the first is to reduce absolute poverty to half of 1990 levels by 2015. China achieved its part in this undertaking early – without that contribution, the world could not meet its target. China’s success led to global success.

History again offers us a rare opportunity. Humanity faces a grave threat, and as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China will play a decisive role in the success or failure of joint action. I hope the Chinese leaders will sign a deal at Copenhagen, just as Jiang Zemin signed on to the Millennium Development Goals in 2000.

cd: Have China’s leaders seen your reports on climate change?

HA: They have received them. My national situation reports could constitute a kind of political pressure. I have made it explicit that on such a crucial global issue, a 1% error in China’s decision-making will result in total global failure. China could bear great responsibility for any failure to reach an agreement at Copenhagen. Speaking in the Czech Republic on May 20, premier Wen Jiabao called for positive results at Copenhagen. That was gratifying to hear, but it still needs to be proven in practice.

cd: One scholar in the government told us that people like yourself can play a very important role. Politicians largely get their information from reports published by the Chinese Meteorological Administration, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the National Development and Reform Commission and the ministries. They then look to opinions from academics. They get a lot of information from within the system, but important academics play a balancing role.

HA: I have published seven national situation reports on climate change in the last two years. I don’t do pure scientific research; climate change isn’t a purely scientific issue. I have seen very clearly the historical trends and the international trends. If this administration doesn’t take action, then the next will have to. This issue is always raised when our leaders meet foreign politicians – it’s unavoidable. I’ve put myself in their position and felt the international pressure they are under. We can’t claim that as a developing nation we don’t have to accept responsibility. The Millennium Development Goal I mentioned earlier is one example of success – and I have advised them to look at what Jiang Zemin did, and also to look at Deng Xiaoping. The implication is that they must not let this opportunity pass.

cd: How is climate-change policy formed at the moment? What institutions work together to produce policy?

HA: The formation of climate-change policy is not as open, transparent and democratic as, for instance, the drafting of the eleventh Five-Year Plan. It is discussed internally within a small number of departments – and that is very rare. With such a major issue, it is wrong not to seek expert opinions, and it is in breach of the working principles of the State Council. The fourth article of the principles is clear: policy-making by the State Council and its ministries must include public participation and expert consultation. When the ministries request that the State Council make important decisions, the necessity, feasibility and legality of the policy must be examined by expert institutions. Relevant authorities or localities must be consulted; in cases where the public interest is affected, public opinion must also be solicited – if necessary, through public hearings.

However, I’ve never attempted to influence the ministries. It is enough to influence the nine members of the Politburo. The ministries have never been major policy-makers, they only provide information. I need to break that monopoly on information, to compete with them. They provide their information, I provide mine – and not just to one person, to all nine. Central policy-making is handled by the Politburo, not by one individual: it’s not like it was in the era of Mao, Deng or Jiang. Now there are policy-making mechanisms with democracy, political consultation and votes. Your influence over those nine people is your influence over the policy-makers. That is not to say that they do accept my views and suggestions – that’s a different matter. But I have presented them in writing. That’s very important: the policy-makers don’t just need information, they need to hear both sides. The former premier Zhu Rongji and the current premier Wen Jiabao have both said that experts have a duty to provide these materials. So I do – I just hope they don’t find it troublesome. I joke – but we can provide valuable information. Sometimes I read chinadialogue, if necessary I quote it.

cd: On May 20, the government published China’s Position on the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. One expert told us that he felt the official attitude was still very firm.

HA: That document wants developed nations, who represent less than 20% of the world’s population, to cover the costs for the rest of the world. It basically says: if developed countries won’t pay for it, we won’t reduce our emissions. That position might garner political support from some developing nations, but there are different kinds of developing countries – many island nations and ecologically impoverished countries are in opposition. If this is the position, the Copenhagen talks will fail – with no consensus or agreement. I do not know how likely that is, however, as Wen Jiabao has said that China will promote cooperation. We can only watch. Every country has put forward its policy: US president Barack Obama has put forward his; the European Union has put forward very clear policies; and now China stands alone. With global policy you need to compromise and make concessions – to be rational, pragmatic and practical.

Hu Angang is one of China’s best-known economists. He is professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Tsinghua University and the director of the Centre for China Study, a leading policy think-tank. Hu has worked as the chief editor for China Studies Report, a circulated reference for senior officials.

Produced in association with:

Homepage image of Hu Angang, by Chinese Society for Environmental Sciences