Latest Articles by Gao Feng

The road ahead from Bali

Feng Gao — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:53:00 +0000

Is a new direction in climate politics emerging? There is much negotiation to come, writes Gao Feng, but last month's UN-led talks in Indonesia were a global breakthrough.

The UN-led summit in Bali last month was the world’s largest-ever conference on climate change, with around 11,000 participants and seven heads of state in attendance. The historic significance of Bali, however, was in its concrete agreements and its “Bali road map”. To paraphrase Marthinus van Schalkwyk, the South African environment minister and head of the country’s delegation, these were results that would have been unimaginable even a few months ago.

The Bali road map sets out a framework until 2009 for negotiations among the parties to the conference, with the aim of reaching an agreement on a global response to climate change, which will include measures on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology. It is a diplomatic breakthrough, which should have a profound effect on the way we approach the issue of climate change.

Taking responsibility

The core issue for climate diplomacy is the way in which each country bears responsibility for global warming. The Kyoto Protocol in 1997 set quantified targets for emissions reductions by developed nations. Ever since, rich countries have put pressure on developing countries – especially large, fast-growing developing countries – to adopt similar targets. Poor countries have refused, emphasising that their main priority is economic growth and poverty alleviation. Solutions to climate change, they say, must be sought within the framework of sustainable development; developed countries have an obligation to support developing nations in areas of finance, technology and capacity building.

Another major problem is that in 2001, US President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, saying it would be harmful to the US economy and that developing countries should accept emissions reductions. From that moment on, getting the US – the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases – to sign up to emissions cuts became another focus of climate talks. Over the past few years the US position on climate change has adjusted. Its main policies are now:

• The US opposes the rigid short-term emissions control targets specified by the Kyoto Protocol;

• No country’s emissions reduction obligations should be detrimental to its economic development; emissions targets should suit a country’s national conditions;

• There should be an emphasis on technological solutions.

The Bali road map uses broad language to outline the positions of developing nations and the US on climate change, enabling them to participate in future global action on their own terms. For the first time, therefore, tackling climate change will be based on real global participation.

Another key feature of the road map is that it seeks to encourage international cooperation, a basic principle that in the past has not always been put into practice. For over a decade, developed countries have failed to support developing countries with financing, technology transfer and capacity building. Technology transfer has been especially problematic, with virtually no progress being made. The Bali road map reaffirms the principle of cooperation and ties participation from developing nations to the provision of international support.

Who is included?

The core political idea of the road map is that different countries can choose their own routes to climate-change prevention. Developed countries have to meet obligations on emissions targets and on assistance to developing countries, which are subject to measurement and verification processes. Developing countries must act within the framework of sustainable development and their progress is also subject to measurement and verification.

A narrow reading of the road map would suggest that “developed countries” only refers to the US; all other developed countries are already parties to the Kyoto Protocol, whose post-2012 emissions targets will be decided by the Ad Hoc Working Group (AWG), not by the Bali road map. However, since the road map’s language is quite vague, a broader reading is possible, and “developed countries” could be taken to mean all developed countries, opening the door to new rejections of the Kyoto Protocol – and fierce debates ahead.

As far as developing nations are concerned, the “actions” they are be required to take under the road map will be very different from developed countries’ “obligations”. “Actions” are voluntary and economically beneficial, and do not mean emissions reductions.

The road map will also encourage global participation by guaranteeing developed countries start to provide the support to developing countries that was first promised by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 1994.

Careful balance

The road map places as much emphasis on climate adaptation as mitigation. Climate change is occurring; its negative effects across the world are becoming ever more obvious. Adaptation is an especially serious issue for developing countries and small island nations. In the past, developed countries placed too much emphasis on mitigation rather than adaptation, and this more balanced approach that emerges from the road map expresses the urgency of developing countries’ concerns better.

In representing shared global interests, the road map establishes a system of common responsibilities and unanimous action. Three requirements, “reporting”, “measuring”, and “verification”, crop up repeatedly in the obligations of developed countries and the actions of developing countries, words that were the subject of fierce political debate at Bali, and in fact represent its careful distillation of political balance and compromise. They embody the sense that we are in this together; that action will be matched with action, yet inaction will be met with inaction.

It is crucial that support from developed countries is tied to actions from developing countries. This means developing countries will do as much as they can on their own; additional achievements are limited only by the support developed countries are prepared to provide. The three requirements ensure developing countries’ actions are quantified and available for comparison. These contributions will be counted by the UN and be part of the global effort to reduce emissions.

Specific regulations on reporting, measurement and verification still need to be discussed, and the negotiations will be a long, hard process. However, the political framework for each country to excel and play to its strengths is already in place. Negotiations over technicalities also have a clear direction.

New era for action

The Bali roadmap symbolises recent changes in global politics and economics. The fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last year focused unprecedented levels of attention on climate change. Developing countries announced one after the other that they were willing to contribute to a solution. China has shown extraordinary determination to make the transition to a high-efficiency, clean economic model. China became the first developing country to produce a national climate-change programme in June 2007, and others were quick to follow suit. In the US, regional governments and corporations voluntarily adopted policies designed to protect the environment. Proposals on adopting emissions reduction targets have been debated in Congress. The White House, under pressure from public opinion, has started to adjust its stance on climate change. Under the leadership of a new secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, the UN is striving to reach an international consensus on climate change.

In such conditions, the success of the Bali road map should be assured. The details of the two-year negotiation process are unclear, and there is much that needs to be discussed and confirmed. It is too early to predict the outcome of the negotiations, but the positive start we wanted to see is surely here. From this hopeful beginning, the world can enter a new era of global action on climate change.

Gao Feng is director of the legal department of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat

Homepage photo by tropical living via Flickr

The north is forcing the south to repeat its mistakes

Feng Gao — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:17:00 +0000

Poor countries are on a development path to climate disaster, says Gao Feng. But the fault lies in part with the rich nations that benefit from exporting carbon emissions and responsibilities overseas.

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

Capitalist lifestyles and modes of production dominate our era, which has been characterised by mechanised manufacturing, international trade and colonisation. Developing nations have lost their traditional, pastoral ways of life and joined the quest for materials and resources needed to fuel consumer lifestyles and increasing profits. The end of the cold war marked the defeat of a century-long attempt to find a socialist alternative; the developed nations of the west donned victors’ laurels and declared the end of history.

It was also a victory, however, for the inherent failings and extremes of the capitalist system. Years ago a now-retired senior German official became agitated when I remarked that if the Chinese wanted to combat climate change, his country’s car manufacturers could go home and the Chinese could return to their bicycles. This would not do, he said, the Chinese should keep buying cars, but only drive them once a week. How much petrol would this require, however, even if China’s 1.3 billon citizens only drove once every seven days? And would people then sanctimoniously blame China for plundering oil? In the words of one online song doing the rounds: “When we closed the country, you came with gunships and opium; when we embraced consumerism and free trade, you said we were plundering resources and polluting the environment…”

As David Wheeler, Kevin Ummel and Robin Kraft wrote on chinadialogue in their essay “Another inconvenient truth”, developing countries (“the south”) have followed in the footsteps of developed nations (“the north”) by expanding their exploitation of resources and their energy usage. The south will overtake the north, both in terms of their annual and accumulated greenhouse-gas emissions, somewhere between 2025 and 2030. The population and economic scale of the south – bearing in mind that in 40 years the world’s population may reach 10 billion – means these emissions levels will bring the world ever closer to the danger level for greenhouse-gas emissions. This does not surprise me: growth of this nature is inherent in capitalism, and in some senses this system has been founded and determined by the north.

In the past few decades, the north has restructured its industries and exported polluting and energy-intensive low-end factories to developing nations, while keeping the high added-value work at home. This has brought these countries huge profits, while dumping the need for energy and resources on the south and exporting rich countries’ greenhouse-gas emissions, too. Moreover, these greenhouse gases have not just been relocated, they have increased.

The United Kingdom is an interesting example. The country has seen a significant downturn in its greenhouse-gas emissions, helping to meet the European Union’s climate-change targets in the process. But one of the characteristics of the country’s development has been the relocation overseas of its energy-hungry sectors, and a greater reliance on finance, scientific research, design and education to provide economic growth. This is, of course, a model for developing nations to follow. The Chinese capital Beijing has already done so, with almost every energy-hungry industry relocated. Steel giant Shougang’s smelting operations were moved to neighbouring Hebei province, leaving only their headquarters and electronics manufacturing behind. Consequently, Beijing is the only one of China’s directly-administered cities and provinces to have achieved the national target to reduce energy consumption by 4% every year. But if all developing nations were to follow the example of the UK, we would run into a problem: who would do the manufacturing? The north can move production to the south, but where can the south send it?

The north also has a scientific and technical advantage, which it uses to maintain its competitiveness over the south. Rich countries even go so far as to limit the use of key technologies in the developing world, hindering many years of effort on the part of the United Nations regarding technology transfer. As Wu Changhua observed on chinadialogue, the EU marches under the banner of environmentalism, but is ever more conservative when it comes to issues of technology transfer and international trade. If the south is only entitled to the old technologies that the north is willing to hand over, what choice do they have but to follow in the north’s polluting footsteps?

Perhaps there is another inconvenient truth at work: that the north has forced the south to follow its path. Climate change has forced a consensus that developing nations must find a new, sustainable development model. But what is this road, and how can it be opened for travel?

This path can only be to build energy efficiency and emissions reduction into the process of industrialisation and prevent the locking-in of old technology as far as possible. China’s 17th Party Congress put forward the principles and policy framework for this move. The country’s national climate-change plan set a mandatory 20% reduction of energy consumption per unit GDP by 2010, along with other concrete policy measures. Many other developing nations are putting similar programmes in place or soon will.

But success will not be achieved until the necessary conditions are met. There are two prerequisites for this low-carbon development: first, the north must set an example and cut its own emissions, providing experience that the south can apply. Second, the north must offer genuine assistance by taking the lead in research, technology transfer and investment. This is already reflected in the Bali Action Plan. The agreement that provides the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, which is expected to come from the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, must go beyond the contradictions and failings of capitalism. This task cannot be achieved in one action. However, the Copenhagen meeting must provide a route and a direction to a brighter future.

The shift of low-end industry from north to south has been essential for global economic development and aided the elimination of poverty. But the north should now help the south to deal with issues of energy efficiency and emissions, rather than casting smug accusations after getting the better end of the deal. There is a need to examine international trade mechanisms in order to provide compensation for the energy used in manufacturing, so that developing nations can bear the costs of associated emissions. This item is not in the Bali road map, but it is likely to be on the agenda after Copenhagen.

Northern climate-change policy puts ever more emphasis on emissions cuts in the south, while calling for the south to fall in line with their economic, environmental and social standards and open markets further. This increases the cost of development in the south, suppressing economic growth and making sure the north does not lose its competitiveness. The United States and EU have long considered plans to levy a carbon tax on products imported from developing countries.

To call for the south to emulate northern standards is a superficial solution, which does not cure the problem. Doing so is similar to cheating the voters in an election. If developing countries really emulated the EU, for instance, Europeans would have to spend more for the same products and would not be happy. In any case, some European countries, such as Portugal, Spain, Finland, Greece and Ireland, have still seen their greenhouse-gas emissions rise since 1990. To follow the UK example is not an option for the south as a whole. Even if the south did reach such standards, the climate-change issue would not disappear. The only solution is to concentrate on helping the south achieve a sustainable development path.

Gao Feng is director of the legal department of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat.

Homepage photo by fortes

Produced in association with:

What was achieved in Accra?

Feng Gao — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:13:00 +0000

Did recent international talks in Ghana bring the world any closer to a new global agreement on climate change? Gao Feng was following the negotiations, and reports that some progress was made.

The recent UN-led climate-change meeting in Ghana (see Jennifer Morgan: “In Accra, the fog slowly lifts”) was one of the key steps on the path toward fulfilling the mandate of the “Bali road map” for greater international cooperation on global warming. At the end of the preceding set of talks, three months earlier in Bonn, Germany, there was disappointment expressed openly by nearly all of the negotiating groups. No visible progress had been made with almost half of the year behind us. Few expected the talks in Accra would see a great breakthrough, but there was a stronger sense of urgency, and the parties were more eager to engage in meaningful talks. The chairs of the two ad hoc working groups (AWGs), with the assistance of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, also showed capable leadership.

During the negotiations under the Bali Action Plan, known as the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action (AWG-LCA), parties focused on sectoral approaches and issues relating to forestry. They also set up contact groups on mitigation and adaptation (the “what” groups) and one on how to deliver on technology and finance (the “how” group). The discussions in these groups were more specific than in previous sessions, and there were some converging views with regard to adaptation and – to some extent – finance. In the contact group on adaptation, all parties supported the need for creating or strengthening regional centres to support adaptation activities in countries. Some countries wasted no time in expressing their wish to host regional centres for adaptation.

It came as a surprise to many that the working group in question invited its chair, Luiz Machado of Brazil, to assemble the ideas and proposals presented by the parties in 2008. His text will be presented at the next meeting in Poznan, Poland, where it will be updated and hopefully become the first draft of a negotiating text to advance the debate next year. Conscious of the quickly approaching deadline for the completion of its work in Copenhagen, the working group said it would “shift into full negotiating mode in 2009 and organise its work accordingly”.

On the side that is negotiating under the current Kyoto treaty, known as the ad hoc working group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), parties concentrated on the means available to achieve emission reductions in industrialised countries. Three contact groups were set up to work on land use, land-use change and forestry; emissions trading and flexible mechanisms; and other issues (which include new gases and sectors, sectoral approaches, relevant methodological issues and “spillover effects”). There was good progress in all three groups. Useful lists of specific issues that need in-depth consideration can be found in annexes attached to the conclusions of the first two contact groups.

The discussion on "spillover effects" – the environmental, social and economic consequences of polices and measures to address climate change – reached a shared understanding that this matter should primarily concern poorer countries. Strategies on biofuels and the food crisis, as well as the life-cycle of certain technologies and social impacts of structural change, were discussed. The working group chair, Harald Dovland of Norway, urged parties to flesh out their ideas and proposals; a text that he compiles could hopefully become a draft negotiating text for 2009.

The hot issues in Ghana

Sectoral approaches

The debate on sectoral approaches in the AWG-LCA workshop centred on the interpretation of Article 4.1(c) of the Convention. (“Promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion, including transfer, of technologies, practices and policies that control, reduce or prevent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in all relevant sectors, including the energy, transport, industry, agriculture, forestry and waste management sectors.”) Some developed countries highlighted the usefulness of sectoral approaches in assessing the mitigation potential, as well as the technological needs of developing countries.

One developed country requested an in-session workshop to discuss mitigation potential in key emitting sectors of all parties and the methodology used in assessing the potential. Other developed countries stressed the importance of sectoral approaches such as crediting and sectoral no-loss targets. For developing countries, sectoral approaches were to be strictly confined to enhancing technology cooperation under article 4.1(c), and not used for target-setting. There was a divergence in views, but the chair managed to identify several areas of shared understanding and interest in the discussion (these are listed in conference room paper four).

The AWG-KP group listed sectoral approaches to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) emissions-trading system and sectoral crediting of emission reductions below a no-loss target as options to improve flexible mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol.

Differentiating developing countries

In the contact group on mitigation, developed-country parties suggested there should be a new approach to differentiate between developing country parties, and suggested that developing countries with a high per capita GDP join the Annex I industrialised countries in the Convention, with the least-developed countries taking on no mandatory actions.

However, the G77+China said that the AWG-LCA’s mandate was only to enhance the implementation of the Convention, not to amend it to divide developing-country parties. They argued that the difference between the commitments of parties in developed countries and the actions of developing-country parties, which should be supported by technology transfer and finance from developed countries, should be upheld. They also highlighted the need to recognise the efforts of developing countries in reducing emissions. The question of how to define the words “developed” and “developing” was raised. Indicators such as per capita GDP, per capita energy use and the Human Development Index were suggested.

Recognising that these discussions were ultimately divisive and unhelpful, the AWG-LCA chair said that it was not productive to lose time discussing such questions, and urged parties to work in a cooperative spirit.

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

The debate in the workshop on deforestation and forest degradation was open and constructive, and a consensus seemed to have emerged. There was an increasing recognition that developed countries should support forestry activities in developing countries, including actions to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, forest conservation, the sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. Developing countries appeared ready to make these actions measurable, reportable and verifiable.

Several concrete proposals on policy approaches and positive incentives, both market and non-market mechanisms, were presented. But developing countries, in particular, remained deeply divided on whether these measures should be linked to the carbon market, with actions offsetting the targets of developed countries.

Financing mitigation and adaptation

The contact group on delivery of technology and finance agreed that to address the urgent risks of climate change, financial and technological support to developing countries must be streamlined and scaled up, with innovative approaches to mobilise and channel public and private resources. Specific proposals were suggested, such as auctioning 50% allowances in the European emissions trading system, developed countries pledging a certain percentage of GDP or the application of a global carbon tax.

There was an important debate about whether or not to recognise funding and support outside of the Convention framework. The G-77+China tabled a proposal that would create a new funding mechanism under the Convention, with no other financial contribution recognised or counted towards donor countries' commitments under the Convention. This was questioned by many donor countries, who highlighted the important bilateral activities they were undertaking and existing links with other institutions and mechanisms that deliver finance. It became clear that governments are very dissatisfied with the existing financial architecture; not only with the Global Environment Facility, but also with its implementing agencies. The G-77+China also said that since the Official Development Assistance (ODA) target of 0.7% of GNP since 1970 for developing countries has yet to be met, any increase in ODA up to 0.7% could not be for mitigation or adaptation, but has to be over and above this.

Improving emissions trading and flexible mechanisms

Emissions trading was identified as one of the issues that may be available to Annex I parties in order to reach their emissions reduction targets and achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention. There has long been general support for continuing these mechanisms after 2012, as well as calls to improve them. Many people called for a broader scope for CDM activities and simpler rules; others underscored the need for strict rules to ensure the mechanism's environmental integrity.

The AWG-KP compiled and synthesised all the proposals and issues to be clarified. Projects using certain technologies, such as nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, were listed in Annex I as potentially eligible CDM projects, to be determined by parties. Annex II lists issues, such as changing the composition of the Executive Board (EB) membership, moving the secretariat’s function of supporting the EB to another organisation and allocating proportions of demand of project types that contribute more to the sustainable development of host parties. It seems it will be a huge challenge to clarify all these issues in the remaining months before Copenhagen.

The mandate of the AWG-KP

There was a divergence of views in the contact group on emissions trading and flexible mechanisms about whether the AWG-KP has a mandate to go beyond the amendments on targets for industrialised countries as listed in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol and make changes to other articles of the treaty. Some parties expressed the view that the AWG-KP does not have the mandate to do so. Some other parties believed that legal analysis was needed to clarify this issue. The conclusions of the AWG-KP chairs have recorded this difference, together with the specific inputs from the parties. Parties have been invited to submit their views on the legal implications arising from the work of the group by 15 February 2009.

What was achieved?

The general feeling when the talks closed was that important and valuable progress had been made. There are two aspects to this conclusion:

First, valuable discussions took place on a number of key issues on the agenda, which clarified different parties' different positions and allowed specific options to be better framed. In some aspects, the convergence of positions seemed to be heading toward an agreement in 2009. In other words, parties are finally getting to the heart of their discussions.

Second, the process was revised, with the two AWGs requesting their chairs put together the ideas raised and elements submitted or proposed by parties in 2008 to form the first draft negotiating texts for talks in Poznan, Poland, in 2008.

It is difficult to say if Accra should be characterised as a political breakthrough, but it is safe to say that it represented an important step in advancing the negotiating process and preparing the ground for Poznan and 2009.

The three contact groups under AWG-LCA in Accra will continue at Poznan, with an additional contact group tackling the topic of the “shared vision”. It is expected that Poznan will be the final step to clear the ground for substantive negotiations in 2009 toward an agreement in Copenhagen.

Time is scarce, but the pace has accelerated. The international community will have to get ready and push for stronger and wider political impetus in order to move deeper into the negotiations.

Gao Feng is director of the legal department of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat.

Homepage photo by finnish eye

Lessons from a turbulent year

Feng Gao — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:37:00 +0000

Increasing threats to economic stability and energy security present challenges to China’s prevailing model of growth. Gao Feng reports on the low-carbon solution.

Reflecting on the events of 2008 can spur China to re-examine its strategies for political and economic development. The lessons of the past year can also inform its climate-change strategy. This year will be crucial for climate-change negotiations, and a number of events of the past year are of particular significance to consider at this time:

Energy security

First, fluctuations in the price of oil, piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the freezing weather that struck southern China in early 2008 threw into sharp relief the fragility of China’s energy fundamentals. International speculators, maritime hijackers and the weather can easily threaten the country’s energy and economic security. And there will not be any significant change in this situation for the foreseeable future.

Variations in the price of oil will continue to affect the global economy. A small group of international speculators control the markets, and governments are powerless. At the same time, the world relies on the United States to protect shipping lanes. No other navy has the ability to carry out extended long-distance patrols or operations, and it is unclear if China has the will to do so. On December 18, after the attack on the Chinese vessel Zhenhua 4, Liu Jianchao, then spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that he was “sure the Chinese crew dealt with pirates tactfully to ensure safety of their own and the ship while waiting for assistance.” According to reports, “tactfully” meant the crew locking themselves in their cabins to shut out the pirates, although at one point the crew used petrol bombs to hold them off. On December 20, China announced a naval task force would go to the Gulf of Aden. However, the mission will last only three months. So what happens when it ends? Last year, 1,300 Chinese vessels travelled through these seas, three or four every day. OPEC says that 80% of China’s overseas oil supply comes through the Gulf of Aden, compared to only 6% of Russia’s supply.

The lesson is clear. Besides taking advantage the protection offered by the United States and strengthening its own navy, China needs to learn lessons from Germany and Japan in producing maximum wealth from minimum input. A nation that has to rely on its sailors locking themselves into their cabins needs another path. China has been on a new path since the State Council issued the Comprehensive Working Program on Energy Saving and Emission Elimination in May 2007. The pirates provided a vivid demonstration of why it is necessary.

Financial crisis

Last year saw an entire country go bankrupt, yet the economic slump will worsen yet. The major economies have launched rescue packages, with the Chinese government’s 4-trillion-yuan (US$585 billion) stimulus plan earning widespread praise. But economic problems always end; the important thing is to learn from them and strengthen the economy to weather future storms.

The Chinese stimulus is no small figure. But if the country does not establish mechanisms to provide sustained economic growth – and simply reacts to short-term circumstances – only the symptoms will be cured, at best. China has allowed its people to subsidise production, achieving rapid growth but allowing macroeconomic risks and an imbalance between internal and external markets. Capital, labour and land costs have been kept low, resulting in over-investment and excessive export growth. The role of technological advances in economic growth lags far behind that of developed countries – and even some emerging economies. This model of economic growth, which damages resources and environmental capacity, is akin to killing chickens to obtain their eggs. Feeble welfare safeguards and a bias toward (mostly state-owned) businesses and government in the distribution of income means that little wealth ends up in the hands of the people – and domestic demand remains weak. Foreign reserves, hard-earned through the people’s labour, are lent to the United States and spent there. (Before Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke turn round and criticise China.) If China continues on this route, it will become a rich country with a poor population – and find itself in the situation of Latin American nations. The Far Eastern Economic Review predicts the crisis has sounded the death knell for the coexistence of the Chinese and American economic models.

Without new sources of economic growth, China will struggle to escape its predicament. Without new industries, the wonder of the last three decades will not be repeated. The government announced in December that new policies would aim to maintain growth, expand domestic demand and readjust national structures. This showed that transforming the country’s model of growth is now a key government aim. Addressing the external/internal imbalance and ensuring the nation is strong – and the people are wealthy – is of strategic import for the long-term political and economic governance of the country. It is not just a question of deciding how to spend 4 trillion yuan.

Which international mechanisms could help China to achieve its aims? The global trade system is not a likely candidate, but climate-change mechanisms have some potential. Climate-change negotiations stand at a crossroads: if they can lead the world towards a low-carbon economy, with high-technology energy sources and new employment opportunities, they could help with China’s economic transformation.

Media conflict

During the Olympic Torch Relay, war broke out between the western media and Chinese netizens. This showed that China no longer suffers starvation or attacks, but it still suffers abuse. China is now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and this added one more reason to criticise the country. However, the official media lacks credibility – its public relations efforts leave it looking strangely feeble. China needs to innovate and improve its public relations strategies.

In 2007 China became the first developing nation to announce a national climate-change programme. The next year the country issued a white paper on energy-saving and emissions reductions, which showed the initial achievements of that process. The country’s climate-change efforts are earning greater international understanding and approval, but using public relations to support these actions is a long-term challenge for China.

The financial crisis demonstrates that the world cannot simply rely on American consumption to drive economic growth. But what can replace it? Many said at the recent meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos that the crisis must not delay action on climate change. In fact, it presents an important opportunity. There has been a major change in the way the world views global warming: if the right policies are adopted, there is an opportunity to meet the future and its challenges. The world needs to shift its reliance on high-carbon energy sources and create low-carbon economies. The future of China and the world economy lies in innovation – in concepts, systems and models of growth. Climate-change negotiations provide a context for this, and we must hope they are successful.

Gao Feng is director of the legal department at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change secretariat.

Homepage photo by randomix