The Chinese View

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang gave a little talk yesterday on his government's view of the climate change issue. You can find it in the midst of this longer transcript but here was what I think is the key part:

Ladies and gentlemen, as the impact of climate change is global in nature and concerns the interests of all countries, this issue can only be addressed through extensive international cooperation. Developed countries should face up to their historical responsibility and the reality of their high per capita emissions. They should follow the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, which is embodied in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol and take the lead in emission reduction.

They should help developing countries improve their capacity to tackle climate change and take the path of sustainable development by providing financial assistance, transferring technologies, and assisting them in capacity building and adopting to climate change.

I think that's about what I'd say if I were China's foreign minister.

Comments

In the last sentence, I'd say "adapting to" rather than "adopting to", but that's just me.

Posted by J | September 27, 2007 11:36 AM

Right, but if I were China's Foreign Minister, I'd make a lot of typos, just like whoever gave CGI this transcript. Think about it.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | September 27, 2007 11:38 AM

Right now, China has the biggest pollution potential. In other words, due to its size and current lack of environmental stewardship, China can certainly get a lot worse.

But yeah, China's position is the eminently self-interested "you first, then help me out" position.

Posted by American Citizen | September 27, 2007 4:24 PM

China's position is quite defensible. The current situation of elevated atmospheric CO2 is the accumulated result of 200 years of high per capital consumption and lack of environmental controls by developed nations. Chinese citizens aspire to the same levels of affluence and it is in America's self-interest to help them achieve that without further damage to the environment.

Posted by Bill | September 27, 2007 4:37 PM

Bill - China's position is quite defensible

Not really. Only if you wish to ignore actual tonnage of pollution produced that adds to the global burden and individualize the problem.

The pollution debate always ignores immigration and population growth. As well as rising consumption in some countries causing ecosystem collapse and extermination of species....

Framing it as a historical IOU from developed nations to 3rd Worlders? Why not? It's worked before as moral blackmail to guilty Jewish, Gentile Elites in the West. Does it ignore the self-inflicted damage done to lands once scarcely populated like KSA, Rwanda, Pakistan?? 3rd world areas exploded in population, some up 12 to twenty-fold since 1850 without immigration...they deforested their lands, and by locale, exceeded the ability of ecosystems to sustain them. Past anything the West and Japan have done to damage their ecosystems, which now are generally sustained yield.

If America's Open Borders and high breeding rates in dysfunctional elements of our population cause us to grow to 420 million by 2050 as the Census Bureau projects? And cause net CO2 emission from the US to increase by 25%, but less than the 40% rise in population, certain environmentalists fixated on per capita CO2 generation would call that a huge success.

Similarly, if China's rising standard of living causes CO2 emissions from China to triple (China is already the largest CO2 emitter, and likely was all the way back in the 60s if we count all the thousands of coal mine fires left to burn out in NE China) but still be less than a Canadian's per capita use - that is OK to many Lefties.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 27, 2007 6:40 PM

China Bashing can be fun...

Lets see... which country has higher fuel economy standards for cars? US or China?

While the US is moving towards decreasing environmental regulations China is increasing them. They are poorly enforced, but at least in China there is some momentum towards addressing environmental issues. In the US it is heading in the opposite direction.

If a large percentage of China's co2 emissions are from the use of coal in their industrial sector, and some 60% (iirc) of China's industrial production is for export how much of that pollution can be called Chinese? That is, if Walmart pays a Chinese company to pollute and I pay Walmart to pay that Chinese company to pollute isn't that pollution at least somewhat mine?

And why shouldn't per-capita pollution be the measure? Should we regulate emissions by dividing the ideal global amount of CO2 released by the number of countries and give each country an equal share? Should Luxembourg pollute as much as India?

That's just silly. Obviously the total amount of China's Co2 production going down would be a good thing, but focusing on total over per capita is just a way of trying not to address the fact that the US is by far the most irresponsible country in terms of oil consumption and Co2 production.

But look, over there... the Yellow Peril!!!

Posted by justaguy | September 28, 2007 1:03 AM