China's ambivalent attitude towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

     Since the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change has begun on 7th of December, there have been increasing tensions between developed nations, rapidly developing countries, and developing nations. In particular, the difficulty of reaching an international agreement mainly arose from the two greatest emitters of greenhouse gases: China and the United States. Their combined emissions of greenhouse gases take up 40% of the global emission and therefore, they are considered the most responsible countries for climate change. By far, both countries put forth their own targets and solutions to reduce CO2 emissions, yet there have been a number of conflicting points between their arguments. This entry will explore the recent state of negotiations between China and US, and discuss the problematic aspect of the claim held by Chinese government.
     Last month Chinese government pledged an ambitious target of emissions reduction, which ranges between 40~45% of 2005 levels by 2020. However, this pledge became extremely controversial in light of Chinese delegation's objection to any kinds of international monitoring of its emissions levels. According to the New York Times, Chinese negotiators held that 'they will not accept any outside monitors to ensure that they are indeed making the changes that they have promised to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other pollutants emitted per unit of economic output'. It seems such a non-sense that Chinese government 'can' ensure the attainment of the reduction target when such process is 'not' transparent. I agree with the statement of Edward Markey from US Democrat Party, that China must commit to transparency and review of the regime in charge of emissions reduction. Such requirement is fundamental to international cooperation and is applied to any country committed to international cooperation. Moreover, Chinese refusal of international monitoring led the United States to consider applying punitive tariffs on imported Chinese goods.
      Such an issue as mentioned above (e.g. punitive economic measures) indicates that the problem of reaching a post-Kyoto agreement can lead to greater conflicts surrounding economic relations. International Herald Tribune recently reported that there is a high probability that climate policy will be intertwined with trade issues, as countries acting on climate change would not want to give additional economic advantages to China and India, which had not been legally bound to Kyoto Protocol. For instance, such climate policy as emissions trading scheme (ETS) underwent intense controversy in developed countries due to the risk that countries without ETS will take economic advantages on international trade. Under ETS, trade-exposed industries will be less competitive on international trade, since their carbon-priced products will be more expensive. Thus, climate policy gives economic disadvantages to developed nations in the absence of special measures called 'border adjustment'. Border adjustment measures include tariffs on foreign products made without the attachment of carbon price. Naturally, border adjustment measures are vigorously opposed by powerfully emerging economies (e.g. India and China) that maintain competitiveness of their products through cheap price. This issue, named by some US commentators 'a green trade war', is another factor in the difficulty of reaching an efficacious post-Kyoto agreement at Copenhagen.
       In conclusion, lack of progress at Copenhagen negotiation is attributed to China's ambivalent attitude in a great deal. The country sought to boast an ambitious reduction target yet it refused any attempt to oversee the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, its refusal to accept the adoption of border adjustment by developed countries adds more difficulty to the negotiation. While this entry had been drafted in 17th of December, there was a bit of hope that the international community would reach a new agreement at least. Now it is 19th of December, and the Copenhagen conference ended without any achievement. Such a shame for humanity.

Reference:

Coates, S. & Naughton, P. 2009. 'Chinese undermine hopes of Copenhagen climate deal'. TIMES ONLINE. 17/12/09, retrieved in 17/12/09, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6960135.ece

Goldenberg, S., Vidal, J. & Watts, J. 2009. 'Copenhagen conference on the brink of collapse as world leaders arrive at talks'. Guardian. 17/12/2009. retrieved in 17/12/09, from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/copenhagen-talks-brink-collapse

Reuters. 2009. 'Obama notifies congress of Asia-Pacific Trade Pact Intentions'. 15/12/09, The New York Times. retrieved in 16/12/09, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/business/global/16trade.html?scp=1&sq=border%20adjustment%20&st=cse

Walsh, B. 2009. 'Frustration mounts as talks stall'. TIME. 15/12/09, retrieved in 16/12/09, from http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1948020,00.html

Wonju, Yi. 2009/ '[Copenhagen report] US consideration of carbon tariff met an immediate objection from China'. Dong-ah Daily. 17/12/09. retrieved in 17/12/09, from
http://news.nate.com/view/20091217n01544?mid=n0507