Environment

China and US global warming politics

Jotman — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:15:00 +0000

I recently blogged about a legislative issue in the US that concerns precisely the point where the world's number one policy issue intersects with the world's most important bilateral relationship: Climate change on one hand, and US-China relations on the other.

Should the US should take a carrot or a stick approach to China? Even among those who agree on global warming policy, there are differences of opinion concerning tactics by which various countries -- especially China -- might be brought on board. Case in point: Although journalist James Fallows and economist Paul Krugman both share similar views on a range of issues (both stand in agreement that climate change action is of the utmost importance), they have expressed quite different views on the question of means. That is, the manner by which a global agreement can best be reached.

A few weeks ago James Fallows, based in China, expressed disapproval of a column Krugman wrote in his NT Times after a visit to China. This line gives you an idea of the tone of the Krugman article:

Each time I raised the issue during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels. . . .

Fallows responded: "I've heard that Chinese response too many times to count. But it's mainly a throat-clearing prelude to talking-turkey discussions about what the country will and can do, and under what circumstances." Fallows says many Chinese he has spoken to are not nearly so intransigent on the issue of climate change as Krugman believes:

While his conclusion -- that China has to be part of global efforts to control carbon emissions -- is obviously correct and important, his premise -- that no one in China admits this -- does not square with my observation over these past three years. . . .

If blunt-instrument outside pressure like this column makes it more likely that Chinese authorities will keep making progress, then as a pure matter of power-politics I say: fine. But my guess and observation is that it is just as likely to get their back up -- and encourage the ever-present victimization mentality that makes it less rather than more likely that Chinese authorities will behave "responsibly" on the international stage.

Concerning global climate change policy, should the US take a leading-by-doing approach, or adopt a more coercive approach to getting countries like China to cooperate?

My perspective.
_____
* ----> Recommended reading: Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?.

Google and China-US relations

Jotman — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:34:00 +0000

James Fallows, having recently returned from China after a long stay, has blogged a particularly interesting post concerning Google's decision to pull out of China. Fallows points to a string of recent developments that give the appearance that China is entering a particularly antagonistic -- but not threatening -- phase with respect to its relations with the outside world:

But there are also reasons to think that a difficult and unpleasant stage of China-US and China-world relations lies ahead. This is so on the economic front, as warned about here nearly a year ago with later evidence here. It may prove to be so on the environmental front -- that is what the argument over China's role in Copenhagen is about. It is increasingly so on the political-liberties front, as witness Vaclav Havel's denunciation of the recent 11-year prison sentence for the man who is in many ways his Chinese counterpart, Liu Xiaobo. And if a major U.S. company -- indeed, Google has been ranked the #1 brand in the world -- has concluded that, in effect, it must break diplomatic relations with China because its policies are too repressive and intrusive to make peace with, that is a significant judgment.

I should add that Fallows recent posts concerning the Copenhagen negotiations have provided rare glimpses of the Chinese leadership in action. The accounts were weird enough to make me wonder whether China might be experiencing some serious internal conflicts. Of course, no one seems to be talking this way. But as Xiao Qiang asked some journalists gathered in Helsinki, what makes us so sure the experts have China right?

China's postition at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks

Jotman — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:47:00 +0000

From the Guardian:

Yu Qingtai, China's special representative on climate talks, said rich countries should not desert the Kyoto agreement, which all industrialised countries except the US signed up to and was ratified in 2002 after many years of negotiations. It contains no requirement for developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as both their current and historical emissions are low in most cases.....

"The Kyoto protocol is not negotiable. We want [it] to be strengthened. We don't want to kill Kyoto. We really want a revival, a strengthening of the treaty. That can only be done by Annex I [industrialised] countries having a target of 40% cuts by 2020," said Yu.

More about the impasse here.