Yet the academics also agree that China should acknowledge CO2 cuts sooner or later, it should not let the western countries take the lead anymore and it should avoid topics such as “low carbon economy”. Becoming a reasonable player at the international level and contributing in strategies against climate change is recommended for the long-run for China. The British Stern Report has pointed out that, economically speaking, earlier mitigation pays off. Therefore, China should take climate change into its development policy to shift to low carbon economy earlier, instead of falling into the vicious circle of low-end production.
If so, has the Chinese Government taken climate change seriously? My answer is yes, certainly.
Let’s look at some statistics: by the end of the 11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010), China is achieving its goal of 20 per cent energy intensity reduction, which means it has cut 1.5 billion tons of CO2, five times the EU’s emission cut as agreed at the Kyoto Protocol. It also announces that by 2020, it would reduce the emission intensity of its economy (tons of CO2 per yuan) by 40-45 per cent, as compared with 2005.
China’s current political system means it is highly efficient and once it has decided to follow the low carbon path, with the correct direction, it will have a fruitful achievement.
So what is the motivation for China to combat climate change and shift to low carbon economy? Does it come from the international pressure? Professor Hu Angang, a Chinese economist, points out four factors contributing to China’s motivation:
1. Huge loss of natural resources due to the traditional development path
The World Bank has evaluated the loss of various natural resources of different countries since 1970. China’s booming economy came from 20 years of continuous exploitation of the natural resources and irreversible pollution. Minerals, forests, water bodies are all affected.
In 1986, China surpassed the USA, to become the worst victim of loss of natural resources globally, and it peaked at 38.2 per cent in 1993, and eventually slowed down to one quarter of the world’s natural resources. In 2003, America’s average purchasing power parity was barely two times of China’s, but China’s loss on natural resources exceeded two times of America’s.
2. Green development is an inevitable path for China’s rise
For industrial countries, the traditional development path, i.e., exploiting resources (especially non-renewable resources) and promoting mass consumption to maintain the economic growth, should not be applied for China’s modernization. China’s resources per capita is only a tenth or some-tenth of America and European countries, such a reality would not allow high exploitation of resources and mass consumption to keep up with the growth. China should seek production methods with low exploitation of natural resources and advocate for reasonable consumption, to keep its economy steadily growing and enhance its efficiency, and to provide social justice.
3. China as the worst victim of climate change
The sea level rise would affect three major deltas of China, which are highly populated and economically well-developed. These three developed areas would be most severely and directly hit by climate change. Among the impacts of climate change, the rise of sea-level is the most dangerous one for China. The so-called “once in a century” or “once in a millennium” disasters are indeed happening every few years.
4. China is capable of investing in climate change mitigation
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that it would only cost each country 0.12 per cent of its GDP, to stabilize the impact of global warming from 2015 onwards. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) says that by 2030, 1.6 per cent of the global GDP should be contributed to prevent the emissions from reaching a dangerous level. Developed countries have the capacity to invest on emission cut technology and to launch immediate measures. China is financially capable of investing in climate change mitigation in the long run.
As an adviser to the state, Professor Hu recommended that China should take emission cut seriously. China should first set a target and then look for a way as the official target would indicate the development path. He says that the current leaders would not stay in power more than ten years, while the emission cut target would take much longer than a generation. Therefore, the current leaders have to start with the promise, and guide the country to become a pioneer, an innovator and an advocate for the future green revolution, to lead it together with the USA, EU and Japan.
However, Hu’s voice is not the mainstream among the officials. Soon after his recommendations were reported by Chinadialogue, an anonymous delegate of China’s negotiating team in Bonn criticized Hu for providing “irresponsible Utopian views” saying “Hu has not acknowledged the basic facts of China when talking about climate change, he talked about international fairness and justice, without in-depth knowledge of the causes of climate change, and no idea about the basic history and reality of international politics.”
Hu finds more sympathy from civil society. A Chinese NGO representative in Bonn sent a letter to Chinadialogue, supporting Hu, “With only a few months to the Copenhagen Conference, if China keeps repeating the word ‘justice’ without further elaboration of a concrete viewpoint on justice, its own responsibility and feasible recommendation, it would only keep weakening its position in this international event under the spotlight. I do think Professor Hu made a very good start by presenting his viewpoints and initiating discussions, the earlier the better.”
This NGO representative was indeed right. At the Copenhagen Conference, China did not take up Hu’s recommendations and was widely blamed for failing to give concrete and binding targets. Although, it has the capacity and will to cut emissions, China did not want to set out a binding target to be monitored by the international community. The reason behind this was probably the “you first game” China and the USA are playing.
