Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Screw China - Climate Change Knaves

By Mark Lynas

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room.

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.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China's game

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.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

7 Opinion(s):


Why would it be in Chinas interest to support the first global tax scheme ? They know very well that in a couple of years they would be the milking cow of the oneworlder gang.
As for Obama - he is just the official front pimp of a sadly aging lady of the street that once was beautiful on had spirit and morals. Once - long ago.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, India admitted a few days ago that it had conspired with China and other "developing" countries to bring down the talks. How would you react? I would start boycotting India and Chinese goods. Yes, that would force you to start making things in your own country or buy from another first world country. When things become more expensive then you don't buy them quite as often. For eg. everyone can afford a new TV whenever technology changes. But, if it's expensive then your current TV will last a few years longer. As a result there will be less pollution overall thereby helping the environment. In years gone by, a car would last years before you could afford another one. Not today - people change cars like they change clothes. See where I'm going? The demand for Chinese goods would decrease and their economy would collapse and they wouldn't be able to hold the West to ransom as they are doing currently. In turn, your economy would be stable. This would also stop people having so many children as it would become increasingly expensive to raise them. Win win overall...

Anonymous said...

Obama was desperate for a deal? Yes, makes sense. Promise $100Billion to a global fund to pay "developing countries" to stop them polluting with money that he would have had to lend from China. The USA is technically bankrupt and this will only worsen as the POTUS lies and schemes his way to forcing through his new health "care" plan. He's on a one-man mission to self glory at the expense of his country - and the developing countries are laughing at him and waiting for their handout...

Viking said...

@Anon 2:08pm

why? surely it's good news that the deal fell through -
But on your other points I agree completely, but less Chinese crap. I have been trying to avoid Chinese stuff for around the last ten years I can tell you it's bloody hard going.
Living in SA it's a no brainer - buy local clothing (even from Lesotho) anyday, it costs the same anyway, although I've recently found out all the cloth comes from China anyway ..

Places like Walmart don't even give you a choice, everything is from China, but they have the odd product from Latin American, or Eastern countries like Indonesia.

The US's biggest priority should be to balance trade with China - handing them so much cash is not a good idea...

Anonymous said...

@Viking - Agree - it was a very good thing the talks fell through - and it showed China's true colors. I'm a climate change denier 100% so I was hoping no deal would be made. My point is that China and India need the West more than the West needs them so why not use this whole Coppenhagen debacle as a red herring to push a "sanctions" agenda and thereby help your own economy first? Unemployment would be addressed instantly. I also try not to buy Chinese goods, but I live in Oz so everything comes from there. If Rudd were serious about the environment and not being the next UN secgen then this would be a no-brainer route to follow....

Anonymous said...

We have the leaders of the Western world desperately trying to launch their flag ship called the "New World Order.

To pay for the launching they created the global warming farce and through this facre they intended a global taxation system, which would grease the launch so to speak.

China knows that global warming is a money making scheme and thus showed it the contempt that it deserves.

China does not have a seat on the ship called the "New World Order", because they have their own ship called "Global domination" and they don't need any funds to have it launched.


Anonymous said...

Like I said before, the rest of the world realised China is the new powerhouse, and came up with this ruse of Climate Change to try and get a piece of the pie.

China on the other hand aren't run by a bunch of ignorant darkies, so they saw the scam for what it is.

Good on you China, and I will continue to buy your products.