中国与世界,环境危机大家谈

china and the world discuss the environment

  • linkedin group
  • sini weibo
  • facebook
  • twitter
envelope

注册订阅每周免费邮件
Sign up for email updates


文章 Articles

Tianjin by numbers

Sam Geall

Readinch

Mistrust between the United States and China dominated last week’s climate talks. After another disappointing round of negotiations, Sam Geall considers the figures behind the impasse.

article image
 

Disappointment lingered in the air of Tianjin's Meijiang centre on Saturday morning, as pervasive as the polluted haze in the north-eastern Chinese city that last week played host to UN climate-change talks, the final session before November's COP16 meeting in Cancún, Mexico. The narrative is becoming familiar, certainly to readers of chinadialogue. Despite flashes of promise (some progress on finance, technology transfer – and hopeful words from the UNFCCC's executive secretary), procedural paralysis dogged much of the process and deepened distrust.

The United States and China, the world's two largest greenhouse-gas polluters, traded blows. OK, not really: disputes were conducted in the arcane, theological discourse of the UN framework convention. QERCs and QELROs; MRVs and ICAs. For the uninitiated: numbers, and how to count them. And it's these numbers that still hold up progress.

China opposed certain forms of monitoring of its domestic greenhouse-gas targets, but accused the United States of using negotiations about this issue to stall progress on targets themselves. A member of the Chinese delegation, who on Thursday spoke to chinadialogue on condition of anonymity, said of the talks: “The US constantly refused to start the discussion on quantified emission reduction commitments [QERCs], instead sticking to technical issues like MRV [measurement, reporting and verification], thinking that these more practical and detailed issues must come first.” He continued: “Talking about MRV but not discussing targets is like talking about the design of a ruler before you know what you are going to measure.”

The next day it was the turn of Todd Stern, the US special envoy on climate change, to accuse China of bad faith, telling an audience at the University of Michigan Law School that Chinese negotiators had acted “almost as though the [Copenhagen] accord never happened”. Stern's deputy, Jonathan Pershing, suggested that China had moved away from previous agreements on transparency, telling the South China Morning Post: “What we are seeing now in this negotiation is that countries are very wary and very unwilling, moving away from the reporting, not from actions.”

So, what lies behind these exchanges? Transparency is a smaller part of the puzzle than Pershing's comments might suggest. Rather, the dispute seems to hinge on how the United States and China formalise and internationalise their domestic pledges on reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, on the part these commitments would play in a future, legally binding treaty. In other words, it's not about the counting so much as the numbers.

Some more numbers: as chinadialogue readers will no doubt recall, China last year set a domestically binding target to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy – that is, the carbon dioxide emitted per unit of GDP – by 40% to 45% by 2020 compared to 2005 levels. According to a new analysis by David Cohen-Tanugi at the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council, this represents a significant deviation from previous trends: prior domestic commitments had China on track for a 37% reduction. The study suggests that, assuming ambitious policies remain in place during the next two five-year plans, China should exceed its target, achieving a 48% reduction in carbon intensity.

Rolling blackouts have recently darkened some Chinese provinces in the rush to meet such targets. But through the smog, more than one bright example of low-carbon development and innovation can be found in Tianjin itself. In the Binhai New Development Zone on the Bohai Gulf, chinadialogue saw construction work on the GreenGen project, a state-of-the-art, full-scale (250-megawatt) research, development and demonstration integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant, which will be operational next year and is designed to have carbon capture and storage (CCS) fitted in its next phase.

By contrast, the United States pledged a 17% reduction in overall emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 levels (equivalent to a 4% reduction on 1990 levels) but the prospects for the climate-change legislation needed to achieve it are in disarray, despite continued support from the president. Federal agencies and states could use existing pollution regulations, and while a recent study by the World Resources Institute (WRI) suggested it was “technically feasible” to approach the target, even in the most aggressive scenario, the 17% reduction cannot be met. It is understandable then, that other countries might lack confidence that the US is serious about its targets.

Considering this, the belligerent tone of the United States during Tianjin seems odd. It is also unsurprising that such tactics haven't moved China. Rather, they are more likely to provoke indignation. (Dale Wen, an activist scholar who helped organise an open letter to Stern signed by Chinese intellectuals and NGOs, said: “Instead of transparency, let’s talk about responsibility. Where is Jonathan Pershing when it comes to that conversation?”) A Chinese friend suggested an apt analogy: he had found a tiny car park used by local Tianjin residents as a tennis court. The space was so small, he said, that the tennis players had to serve and volley very gently, for fear of hitting the ball into the street. The cramped space of the car park, he said, represents the limited time of the negotiations – the risk is not just the much-discussed “gap between commitment periods”, but the UN process sliding into total irrelevance. The American playing style at the negotiations, he said, had lost the ball.

So, can the United States and China move past this impasse? Jennifer Morgan, director of the Climate and Energy Program at WRI, suggested that the US first needs to create some certainty about its numbers. “President Obama needs to make clear the US is going to meet its 17% target, place that target into the UN framework convention and [show] that the US still supports a legally binding instrument moving forward,” Morgan told chinadialogue. “He needs to lay out how the US plans to do that: he's done it a bit in a recent Rolling Stone article, but my sense is that countries around the world need to hear the president directly, in order to hopefully build some trust that – despite the lack of legislation passing this year in the US – the president is still committed.”

Can this build the trust needed? It might assuage fears that the United States is going to step back out of the process, as it has in the past, but it's unlikely to be enough. Perhaps paradoxically, the deadlock serves to remind us of the other countries in the process. “I think that the European Union, along with a couple of key countries, will need to step up their game,” said Morgan. “Working with Europe, Mexico, the host of this year's meeting, South Africa and Brazil – the hosts of two very important upcoming meetings – need to be ready to rise above their own national positions and step into a place of international leadership if they want the multilateral system to move forward. Part of that needs to be engaging the US and China in finding solutions.”

On Thursday, European environment ministers will discuss their numbers: in particular, whether unilaterally to increase the EU target from a 20% reduction to a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020 below 1990 levels. As a symbol of low-carbon leadership, that could be a start.

 

Sam Geall is deputy editor of chinadialogue.

Homepage image from cnpc 

 

评论 comments

3

评论 comments

中文

EN

嗨 Hi Guest user

退出 Logout /


发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文 最大字符 1200

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200

排序 Sort By:

大哥不是谁都可以当的:巴西?

中美吵吵闹闹的,总结起来,也不算奇怪。看来这个大哥没人愿意当,一个太穷,一个太富,那么既不穷、也不富的巴西,在墨西哥的坎昆,是不是会报个冷门呢,就像巴西擅长的足球?我觉得有可能。

Not anyone can be the boss: Brazil?

The constant quarreling between China and America is not, in the final analysis, that strange. It looks as if no-one wants to be the boss - one is too poor, one too rich. Could Brazil, neither poor nor rich, go in for this unwanted position at Cancun, just like football, in which Brazil excels? I think it's possible.


很好的文章

感谢您对天津谈判和焦灼议题的解释。看来只要谈判代表还是采取零和方式,美国继续消极对待气候变化,联合国进程就注定无望了。但是我们已经给了美国20年觉醒的时间了,或许现在我们该拍案而起,已到无法再等的时候了。可能他们永远不会觉醒,那难道我们不应该对美国做点什么么?

excellent article

Thanks for making sense of Tianjin and the issues. It seems that the UN process is doomed to irrelevance as long as negotiators take the zero sum approach and the US remains in denial about climate change. But we have waited 20 years for the US to wake up and maybe it's time to conclude that we can't afford to wait any longer. Maybe they never will wake up, so shouldn't we be working out what can be done with them??


美国指责中国逃避气候责任是“猪八戒倒打一耙”

发改委气候司的领导这么说美国,好像不大合适吧。美国纽约时报对此作了报道,还提到了什么“猪八戒照镜子”,这样不友好,还怎么谈?不知道参加这些气候会议各路英雄,差旅费都是谁掏?不会是中国当冤大头吧。

The US accusation of China evading climate responsibility is "making false charges"

It's inappropriate for the NDRC Climate department leader to speak of the US in that way. The New York Times reported on this and mentioned something about "looking in the mirror," which is so unfriendly. How are they suppose to continue negotiating? I wonder who paid for the travel of these heroes attending the climate meeting. It's not China getting ripped off is it?


合作伙伴 Partners

项目 Projects