UN climate change summit awaits word from heavyweights US and China
China is due to unveil a new proposal at the gathering Tuesday, but its plans to cut "carbon intensity" rather than limit emissions may not satisfy US lawmakers.
By Jonathan Adams | Correspondent 09.22.09
China is expected Tuesday to announce a plan to reduce its carbon emissions as a percentage of gross domestic product. Such a plan would boost China’s commitment to help combat global warming, while allowing Beijing to preserve its high-growth strategy.But it could leave United States lawmakers cold.
Chinese President Hu Jintao will address the United Nations Tuesday on climate change, as will US President Barack Obama. The two countries are the biggest emitters of the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, and their participation is key to any meaningful climate change deal. They remain at odds, however, over the level of China’s responsibility for carbon cuts.
Neither country ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, but many observers have high hopes that the two economic giants will sign on to a new deal in Copenhagen in December. About 190 countries will meet there to set new emissions reduction targets for industrialized countries, to replace the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, which expire in 2012.
The China Daily reported Monday that Beijing was likely to offer “carbon intensity” targets instead of caps on its overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Though details are not available, it is certain they [China’s new climate change policies] will be built up on the current policies on reduction of energy use per unit of GDP. Measures might include carbon emission reduction targets, as reported by some Chinese media.
Yang Ailun, climate and energy campaign manager for Greenpeace, said she learned Hu may announce a target for taking a new low-carbon path for development. It means China would soon assess its economic performance by how much less carbon it would emit per unit of GDP.
The Daily reported that China believes the US and rich countries should bear greater responsibility for tackling global warming since they are responsible for 80 percent of accumulated greenhouse gases. Beijing also believes rich countries should contribute 0.7 percent of their GDP to developing countries to help the latter adopt expensive new measures to reduce emissions.
The Wall Street Journal wrote that a “carbon intensity” proposal might disappoint US lawmakers who are looking for China to make tougher commitments before they are willing to sign off on any deal that could hamper US economic growth and competitiveness.
That [China’s carbon intensity plan] may fail to impress U.S. lawmakers, to whom activists are also looking for concessions if a substantive international agreement is to be reached by December at a conference in Copenhagen. Proposed U.S. legislation would impose caps, but manufacturers argue that will hurt them in competition with China and other developing countries.
A carbon intensity target would encourage China to burn more efficiently and rely more on cleaner alternatives, but won’t limit how much coal China uses.
Bloomberg quoted one prominent US senator as saying that the key to a climate change deal was agreement between China and the US. The US Senate nixed the Kyoto Protocol and has not yet acted on climate change legislation backed by the White House and approved by the House of Representatives.
“If we and China can come to an agreement, and we in Congress will recognize that, I believe the rest of this is just going to move very, very rapidly because everybody else is going to come on board,” U.S. Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said during a panel discussion in New York yesterday. “So what President Hu says tomorrow is very important.”
The Christian Science Monitor reported Monday that President Hu’s speech will be a chance to debunk the notion that China isn’t serious about curbing emissions.
<< Clinton and Chavez weigh in on Zelaya’s stealth return to Honduras | MainTuesday’s sessions represent “an opportunity to demystify what countries are doing” to deal with the climate issue, [Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] says. “This sense that China is doing nothing is a fantasy. But you cannot get US participation in an ambitious Copenhagen outcome without that fantasy having been exposed.”
Comments
2. hsr0601 | 09.22.09
1. About two thirds of deficit in the U.S. accrue from oil import.
2. As with “Inaction” cost, $9trillion over the next decade in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, supposedly the same is of inaction on the 21st energy bill to determine war & peace, catastrophe & prosperity. For the global economy to reign in the runaway price of fossil fuels, “Sustainable Option” will be indispensable.
3. Looking to worthless, painful and wasteful oil wars, namely, the “Original Source” of this great recession, to waste time bickering over meaningless things and drag feet on a defining energy bill are sure to shake the embryonic effect of stimulus package that is an interim measure for build-out of a new foundation.
4. As the overall oil reserve in Middle East, let alone the rest of oil-producing areas, is on the decline more than known, the region blessed with affluent sun rays also needs to ready for a new groundwork, particularly in this context AEU is beginning to concentrate on future energy and Iranian EV is rolling out recently, the countries in the region will never stand still on the occupation, that means no matter what the result is, the repetitious mistake at the cost of invaluable lives and gigantic spending will end up with a heartbreaking tragedy once again.
5. Facing a sharp downturn in fossil fuels all over the world, the world-wide overpopulation growing consistently is using up tremendous fossil fuels at an alarming pace. Especially when the own conventional resources in some dense countries is facing drastic dent, it adds up explicitly.
6. For that reason, it is widely accepted that the price of fossil fuels is expected to go up and up simply, which is behind all but major states taking a bold and speedy action in a bid to put the global economy on a sustainable and solid ground.
7. Thankfully and interestingly enough, 100s of Companies (with $13 Trillion) Are Demanding Strong Climate Deal in Copenhagen just like environmental activists, a coalition of more than 500 Global Businesses is also demanding ambitious new climate deal, and the report by Blair and the Climate Group, a London-based nonprofit organization, found a climate-change accord among all countries would spur economic growth and create as many as 10 million jobs by 2020.
8. Currently, a 21st energy bill has passed the House and is making its way through Senate. According to CBO, this bill known as more progressive generally would trim budget deficit by $24.4 billion of a net gain.
9. I think the world is eagerly looking forward to Americans’ participation, and if it were not for world-wide massive job creation, the world can not pull the economy out of this recession successfully.
10. I’d say only science and innovation can meet this challenge, and the science enough for all around the globe to live in harmony is awaiting final assembly by way of innovation. It seems to me that this great recession is pitching us a serious lesson to make sure we build a bridge for future generations, otherwise, our generation, too, is falling off the cliff.
Thank You !
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for UN climate change summit awaits word from heavyweights US and China | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 09.22.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. just me | 09.22.09
I am not an expert, on Global Warming, but I do understand science, thermodynamics, models (the sun is not a constant!), assumptions and history; a dangerous combination because it prevents me from accepting the issue of the hour and keeps me asking questions. Based solely upon the fear mongering that I see with the global warming crowd, the amount of money involved with the movement, and the disregard for anyone who contradicts them, I believe Global Warming is bad science.
Go to a search engine and search on science and fraud, and enjoy millions of articles outlining how a grant-driven enterprise operates. To quote Charles McCutchen, National Institute of Health and gadfly to the scientific community, “Once you get really politicized atmosphere, the appearance is all important, and if you need a little fraud to maintain that appearance, you do it.” McCutcheon’s statement wasn’t even targeting global warming, but I fear that he was extremely accurate in his description of the phenomena prevalent in the scientific community… Face it, the scientist or institution who cries “WOLF” the loudest gets the funding, and there isn’t a bigger wolf in the room than Global Warming. With so much on the line, and so much funding being driven by it, the scientific community is facing a crisis of integrity. Clearly Al Gore does not understand the Scientific Method, nor does he understand the concept of a theory. The debate on science is NEVER over, and those who wish to suppress scientific dissent or attack the credibility of those who voice dissent clearly lack integrity and credibility.
Now we are on the precipice to making huge and costly investments based upon the equivalent of modern day bloodletting, but has anyone even looked at history to determine whether a warmer planet is a bad thing? Look at the fossil record, and you will see that global warming is not new, nor has it been a problem for life on Earth. During most of the fossil record, there has been no ice at the poles, and greenhouse gas levels have been over 20x higher than they are now. During those times, life on the planet flourished and the environment became very stable. In fact, some paleontologists believe that the planet became too stable, resulting in very fragile ecosystems and mass extinction once there was a climate change. Based upon that, I can only infer that climate change is a net good thing, and not something we should invest in stopping (as if we could). If one looks at the fossil record, global cooling is the bigger problem for life on Earth, causing mass starvation and disease.
This science is challenged on so many levels. Trends also show that warming is not directly correlated to greenhouse gasses, so why isn’t anyone looking at other variables? The sun and solar activity being the obvious variable missed by most global warming predictive models… If all of the energy and investment being earmarked for CO2 and methane were instead to target deforestation, clean water and other real and truly disastrous ecological problems, we might truly “save the planet”, or at least the life it sustains. After all it is not the “planet” that needs saving. Earth will be fine long after we are gone.