China climate talks cast the host in a flattering light: The sharpest contrast of the latest UN talks is not between Tianjin and Copenhagen, it is between China and the US
The first three days of the Tianjin climate talks have thrown up some striking contrasts with the Copenhagen summit last December: dumplings instead of meatballs, order instead of chaos, quiet work instead of noisy intransigence.
But perhaps the most remarkable difference is that while Copenhagen ended with China painted as the villain, Tianjin has started with the host nation cast in a distinctly flattering light. By paying the lion’s share of the $5m (£3m) cost of this event, China looks set to have snapped up a public relations bargain.
China’s leaders were far from certain that this would be the case. In fact, they were so uneasy about hosting their first United Nations climate conference that it took the State Council four months to approve the plan. But once they gave the go ahead, the Tianjin talks were arranged in just two months – easily a record, according to those familiar with preparations for previous negotiating sessions.
Putting on a week-long meeting for 3,000 delegates is no mean feat at any time. Yet the organisers have done it during one of the country’s two most important national holidays. It is hard to imagine the US or any European nation interrupting Christmas or Easter to stage such an event, despite all their talk of “saving the planet”.
Delegates have praised the smooth organisation, particularly compared with Copenhagen, where the chaos started with four-hour queues at the front gate and ended with night-long rows in the conference rooms.
Such comparisons are a little unfair. Copenhagen was a huge political summit, where the stress was as high as the expectations – and the stakes. Tianjin is a modest gathering of technocrats who appear far less burdened with the hopes and fears of the world. Whether the calmer and more workmanlike mood translates into substantive progress or weak ambition will be clearer at the end of the week.
But the hosts have already achieved one objective: to show that actions speak louder than words.
The choice of Tianjin is no accident. This port city exemplifies the speed at which China is moving towards a low-carbon future. This is the site of the country’s most ambitious eco-city development, a carbon exchange, a high-speed rail network and what will be one of the world’s most efficient coal plants equipped to capture carbon dioxide emissions.
Speaker after speaker this week – Chinese academics and international environmentalists alike – have highlighted the concrete steps that the world’s biggest emitter is taking to reduce its footprint.
China is closing down thousands of wasteful factories in a drive to achieve its energy efficiency targets. Last year, it invested $34bn in clean energy projects, almost twice as much as the United States. Since 2007, its high-speed rail network has gone from almost nothing to be bigger than the rest of the world combined. The government is now drawing up a new five-year economic plan that looks likely to initiate the country’s first mandatory carbon-trading scheme well before the US Senate.
Many visiting delegates have expressed admiration and envy. US negotiators are just as likely to feel embarrassment and anxiety. Washington has yet to pass even modest climate legislation and is falling further and further behind in the race to lead a clean energy market that is forecast to be worth $13 trillion.
Never mind the dumplings and meatballs, the starkest contrast so far this week is not between Tianjin and Copenhagen, it is between China and the United States.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: With our current economic situation, the fact that we’re still not moving forward with a new and REAL green revolution is nearly criminal. We could get the jobs market moving again if we created green jobs and new environmental engineering industries aimed towards developing technological advancements that cut down on human emissions. There are many reasons we’re so far behind the rest of the world and very few have ties to our current economic situation. We’re a nation that’s very scientifically and mathematically illiterate, we’re very divided and polarized, especially politically, we live in an informational bubble that’s centered on American concerns, etc. We’re totally focused on the wrong things and are vastly unaware of international happenings - nor does our concern for other beings extend past our maritime borders. Furthermore, even though the United States is one of the world’s biggest polluters, other countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Algeria, Sudan, Ecuador, etc. are those who have the most to lose and have already begun to feel the effects of global warming.
Not only is the complacency of the United States a concern for the rest of the world, but it’s in our interest to eliminate our environmental apathy and to take radical action on the issue. We all live on the same terrestrial rock that’s orbiting a single star around 108,000 km/h. It’s in the interest of each inhabitant to not only preserve their own well-being but also the entity that allows for such an existence, that is, Earth itself.
As it is with strategic military considerations, the confrontation now seems to be between China and the US.
Yes Anna, I wholly agree with your thoughts on this one. The US really needs to seriously consider a shift in the energy sector. The sad part though is that instead of pursuing cleaner alternative sources of energy such as solar and wind, I read some articles a while back on the US DOE’s website itself, that they are turning their eyes on sources like bio-ethanol. While on the surface bio-ethanol may seem clean, the production process involved in coming up with the “clean” fuel consumes a lot of petroleum.
While Obama’s plans to have solar panels on the White House seem laudable, the steps his administration would pursue on the environment in the months and years to come would only mean much to us in the developing countries if the US, would finally decide to bind itself with the Kyoto Protocol.
China may have been one of the biggest consumers of coal over the past few years, but their shift to alternative sources of energy will make a big difference not only in the People’s Republic itself, but more so in the the developing countries.
Knowing China’s capability in mass production, some academics here in the Philippines believe that should the Workers’ and Peasants’ State decide to seriously pursue manufacturing components for alternative power generators, the prices of these components would be driven down. So much so that even poor countries such as mine, would be able to buy them.
True, the effects of climate change are already being felt in countries like mine and we will have more of it in the years to come. Several academics, environmentalists, and NGOs here have already conducted studies on possible scenarios that the country will face in the coming years. They have also been identifying some mitigation measures such as relocation of communities, construction of dikes, and even rice which feeds on salty or sea water.
What worries me much was a report made by the World Wildlife Fund which said that sea levels in this country would be as high as 12 meters in the next few years. That would mean the disappearance of coastal communities, towns, and even whole cities.
If at present we have more than 7,100 islands, I don’t know how many of those will still be there in the next 25 years.
