China wrecked the Copenhagen deal

[xoxoxoBruce]

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

An eyewitness account of the negotiations you can read here.

And the why, which is speculation on the writer's part, but makes sense to me.

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Walmart is not your friend, folks.

[piercehawkeye45]

Another article:

During the frantic final two days of negotiations at Copenhagen over the weekend, U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set a clever trap for Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. Having just announced that the United States would establish and contribute to a $100 billion international fund by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the challenge of climate change, Clinton added a nonnegotiable proviso: All other major nations would first be required to commit their emissions reduction to a binding agreement and submit these reductions to "transparent verification." This condition was publicly reaffirmed by Obama, who argued that any agreement without verification would be "empty words on a page."

Everyone in the room knew that "all other major nations" primarily meant China. From the beginning, China has steadfastly refused to place its commitments within a binding framework or accept outside monitoring and verification of its progress toward any promised targets. But the eleventh-hour U.S. proposal immediately isolated China. The onus was now on Beijing to agree to standards of "transparent verification." If it did not, poorer countries standing to benefit from the fund would blame China for breaking the deal. Clinton's proposal had cunningly undermined Beijing's leadership over the developing bloc of countries.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._in_copenhagen

[lookout123]

So China is the bad guy - ok, I'm comfortable with that. Where I get lost is why refusing to be held accountable to a binding agreement with outside powers is a bad thing. Seems to me the US would be better off if we weren't so busy promising everything to everybody.

[piercehawkeye45]

In the article I posted it seems that the author is really using the title as a catch to get across the point that China's proclaimed GDP growth rates are outright lies, how they are taking "illegal" advantage of the carbon credit system, and how China's economy is so decentralized that they would not be able to live up to an agreement even if they wanted too.

A binding agreement would ideally show, more than what is currently believe, of how China is taking advantage of the environmental issue for personal benefit.

[ZenGum]

The Indian environment minister made a speech in Parliament taking credit for sinking the conference, saying that it was a joint effort between India, China, Brazil and South Africa.

The Europeans are blaming China and the USA.

IMHO, blaming one country over another is generally an expression of the blamer's idea of how the agreement should have gone. It's the developing countries' fault for refusing to cap at current levels! No, it's the developed countries' fault for refusing to link emissions directly to population rather than current pollution....

Personally, I blame New Zealand. No reason; it's just something I like to do.

[Elspode]

China has a long history of not really caring for human life in any serious way as a government. There are plenty of excess bodies there, and they could lose 50% of their population to pollution and global warming and still be overpopulated. Therefore, expecting them to change *anything* that might reduce their runaway growth and profits ain't gonna happen. Cheap and plentiful labor and energy, all controlled by a totalitarian government equals lots and lots of money in the right pockets.

If we want China to curb their emissions, someone's going to have to conquer them to get it.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by lookout123

So China is the bad guy - ok, I'm comfortable with that. Where I get lost is why refusing to be held accountable to a binding agreement with outside powers is a bad thing. Seems to me the US would be better off if we weren't so busy promising everything to everybody.

Because China is not only polluting its own air and water, but also the air and water of nations that neighbor it. All that gunk they're putting into the air does not just all drop out when it hits China's border.

[lookout123]

I understand that. I just don't get why some of you are surprised that a nation would refuse to participate in something they perceive not to be in their best interests.

[piercehawkeye45]

Who is surprised?

[classicman]

Obama apparently. He acted as though he would walk in there shmooze a bit and all would be well.

Reality says he got his handed to him. err. . . our asses?

Originally Posted by classicman

Obama apparently. He acted as though he would walk in there shmooze a bit and all would be well.

Reality says he got his handed to him. err. . . our asses?

Not a partisan reaction?

Bullshit, asshole.

There were no expectations of coming out of this with a formal agreement.

The hope was for a framework and the one that resulted was less than hoped, but better than none at all.

[classicman]

And again more name calling. What came out of there was the reality that China isn't going to do shit if they don't want to. No matter how long and sweet a speech Obama gives, they don't care. No gain, no change.

Originally Posted by classicman

And again more name calling. What came out of there was the reality that China isn't going to do shit if they don't want to. No matter how long and sweet a speech Obama gives, they don't care. No gain, no change.

What came out of Copenhagen was a new framework for cooperation for reducing C02 emissions....that is a fact.

You can ignore it and take partisan shots, but that doesnt change the facts.

[Elspode]

I'm not partisan, and I say nothing of any substance whatsoever came out of Copenhagen. Zip. I'm one of those guys who thinks that Rush and his accomplices figure that the rich will have enough money to protect themselves from any ramifications of global warming, and they will deny it's existence until such time as it is undeniable, and then they will turn and blame the other side for it existing.

That said, nothing but binding agreements with consequences for noncompliance will change *anything* about global warming. Frameworks are not useful in any real world way. I do not blame Obama or any other single party, I simply state that nothing useful happened.

[SamIam]

On the positive side we do have the acceptance of a 2C limit for temperature increase, and reference to the scientific basis for doing so. This indicates that science has finally had an influence on negotiators defining what would represent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.