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

NGO campaigns for actions on climate change at Copenhagen

Image retrieved in 17th of December, 2009from http://news.nate.com/view/20091217n05383?mid=n0507

"Small countries cannot clean it all, large countries must take charge." This work of Je-seok Yi, a renowned South Korean ad designer, conveyed the message that such large countries as India, China, and the United States should take the lead in combating climate change. Developing countries like African countries or Pacific Island states are not equipped with financial, technological and intellectual capital to mitigate or to deal with adverse impacts of climate change.

[London] Environmental tax

London Congestion Charge, Old Street, England. Picture taken by Nevilley. (Retrieved in 10/12/09, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Congestion_Charge,_Old_Street,_England.jpg )

According to Transport for London, London has the worst air pollution across Europe and the United Kingdom. Consequently this has laid various negative impacts on human health and the quality of life of Londoners. This serious air pollution is largely attributed to the road transport, which emits a substantial deal of Particulate Matter (PM10) and oxides of Nitrogen(NOX). The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, sought to reduce air pollution by regulating diesel-engined trucks, buses, large vans and so forth.

1. Congestion Charging

The image retrieved in 10/12/09, from Transport for London http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/CC-Cameras.pdf

Since 17th of February 2003, Transport for London enforced congestion charging. The Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ) was gradually expanded from Central to West London, and it remains today as one of the most extensive application of congestion tax. In this scheme, £8 is daily charged for driving or parking a vehicle on public roads within CCZ between 7am and 6pm, Monday to Friday. The Congestion tax is not charged on public holidays, weekends,  and the period between Christmas and the New Year's Day. This scheme has been largely regarded successful by many environmental activist, according to Threadgould (2008).

2. Low Emission Zone (LEZ)
This scheme has been enforced since 4th of February 2008 through the fixed or mobile cameras that read the registration number plates of vehicles. This is then matched with a database of the vehicles to check whether the vehicles meet the LEZ emission standards or not. If a vehicle meets the LEZ emission standards, it is exempt from the charge or registered for a 100% discount. The following chart shows the charge for vehicles that do not comply with the LEZ emission standards:

Image retrieved in 10/12/09, from Transport for London http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/lez/5725.aspx

 3. Benefits

According to Transport for London, Congestion Charging diminished the traffic flow by 21 percent compared to pre-charge levels. This means 70,000 fewer cars daily. In contrast, the number of bus passengers during charging hours increased by six percent, which signified the rising popularity of public transports. In addition, the increased revenue of £137m from Congestion Charging could be invested on the improvement in London transport. Most importantly, the reduced air pollution by these schemes may reduce the rate of respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses amongst Londoners.

Reference: Transport for London http://www.tfl.gov.uk/
                    Threadgould, A. 'The London Pollution Charge', 13/02/08, retrieved in 10/12/09, from  http://tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/economics/comments/the-london-pollution-charge/