A good start to the Chinese new year
Happy Chinese new year. And there is indeed good news from China with the agreement of the Chinese delegation at the latest climate change meeting that they need to place some constraints on their greenhose emissions.
The informal and non-binding meeting of legislators from the G8* plus China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico carries no official weight but will add to the momentum for a stronger and broader global agreement on greenhouse reductions. The meeting was organised by GLOBE - Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.
Importantly the joint statement says:
- Costs of inaction greater than costs of action
- Obligation on all countries to take action
- Set a target of stabilising CO2 concentration at between 450 and 550 ppm [the upper end of which is dangerously high but at least it is a quantitative target]
- Support for a global price on emissions
- Urge the G8 + 5 to reach agreement on a post-Kyoto framework and the UNFCCC meeting in November to make progress so we have an agreement signed by 2009.
- Targets for developing countries.
Unfortunately they seem to put a lot of faith in carbon capture and storage but overall it is a significant and hopeful declaration. It will undermine the argument that we should take no action because developing countries aren’t willing to take action. 2009 is also significantly the year that China is estimated to become the largest polluter(though still much less per capita than the US or us).
* “G8″ is USA, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Japan, Russia, and the EU - yes I know it’s nine!
February 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am
This is good news. It is really sad that the Chinese government had to let their environmental problems get to the point that they have.
However, there is still a lot that is schizophrenic about Chinese policy. There is still huge future investment planned for coal mining and coal-fired electricity, which no matter how efficient the stations (and the standards for the new stations are high) will still add to greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, as I understand it, the central government has some difficulty in imposing its will upon the provincial and local governments, many of whose officials have made a great deal of money from ignoring environmental regulations.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
jingyang - “the central government has some difficulty in imposing its will upon the provincial and local governments…”
That’s a really interesting comment. Do you think that central government intends to “impose its will” on provincial and local government, and if so, how do you think it will go about doing so?
February 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Easy, just look at how the central govt here imposes its will on us.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Investment in coal mines is not the only sad thing - it’s the safety record in mines that is truly abysmal. It seems that more people die in mines in China than by Capital Punishment in China. And that’s saying something.
February 20th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Strategist,
I have no doubt that the central could impose its will, after all it still controls the PLA (People’s Liberation Army), but it would require concerted ongoing effort, due to the high levels of political patronage and corruption.
ZenTiger makes a very good point regarding safety levels in the mines too. Again, as with polluters, the most likely to be closed down or investigated are those that run afoul of other local business interests. There is a close link being the communist cadres who still rule, and local businesses. In many cases they are one and the same.
In theory, the new mines and power stations all have to conform to very high standards, and there are Chinese companies making a great of money from selling pollution control technology. The rub lies in whether the technology is used once installed, and the enforcement of regulations.
The other difficulty for a business is that even if they follow the regulations to the very letter, they could still find themselves arbitrarily taxed or harassed by local authorities. Of course you could argue that is due to negligence cos of not paying off the right officials :p)