文章 Articles

A national team for the climate

How could China – and other developing nations – consolidate a response to the climate-change crisis? Qiu Dengke interviews Li Lailai, of the Stockholm Environment Institute.

Article image

[Produced in association with Rutgers Climate and Social Policy Initiative]

Li Lailai is deputy director of the Stockholm Environment Institute. She was formerly director of the Beijing Institute for the Environment and Development and chair of Leadership for Environment and Development’s China Project. Qiu Dengke interviewed her in Stockholm.

Qiu Dengke (QD): How do you view the differences between developed and developing nations when it comes to climate change?

Li Lailai (LL): Nobody can doubt that the developed nations brought about our current predicament, a crisis which humanity – rich and poor, developed and developing – must face together. To put it simply, developed nations have deprived the developing world of development opportunities.

If we overlook regions and borders and make a sweeping generalisation, we could say that the poor suffer most and have no ability to react. Sociologists would say that the difference between rich and poor is the ability to allocate resources. With climate change creating disasters and increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, the rich can allocate resources to mitigate their circumstances, while the poor can only wait for disaster to strike.

QD: This leads to our “common but differentiated responsibilities”?

LL: It is a challenge to the common wisdom of humanity. We need to ensure a decent standard of living in developing nations, and also mitigate climate change. This needs joint action, it is not something that can be tackled unilaterally – so the proposal of “common but differentiated responsibilities” is a wise one.

QD: The post-Kyoto climate-change talks have continued on that basis. What suggestions do you have for China’s stance at these talks?

LL: First, we need to clarify the different responsibilities of developed and developing nations.

Let’s start with technology transfer: undoubtedly, less populated and more technologically advanced developed nations should be aware that they have written the rules of the game, and thus have a natural advantage. But climate change cannot be tackled unless everybody has the necessary technologies – hence technology transfer is needed. The largest obstacle here is that developed governments maintain that these technologies belong to private companies, and that governments cannot interfere in the market-led exchange of technology. But this is merely an excuse and avoids responsibility. Governments need to take action on climate change, removing intellectual property and other trade barriers, so that developing nations can get the technology to combat climate change – or there will be no joint action to speak of.

Second, there are finance issues. This is somewhat easier: there are huge potential markets for new technology in developing nations, and developed nations can invest here. There is massive potential, but how it will actually work needs discussion – and that’s the point of the negotiations. My suggestion is that developing nations – without making commitments to emissions cuts – adopt national sustainable development goals, with voluntary emissions reductions in exchange for technology and funds. This will allow the strengths of both parties to complement each other, and will be acceptable to both. The achievements of China’s three decades of economic reform provide lessons for today’s reform in energy saving and emissions reduction. This time around, China could achieve even larger-scale technological advances.

QD: International criticism of China currently focuses on the country’s supposed avoidance of negotiations and its failure to take concrete action on addressing climate change. How do you view those criticisms?

LL: I don’t know about the issue of avoiding negotiations. As for taking concrete action, I don’t think there is any basis to western criticism of China on these grounds. In the eleventh Five-Year Plan [2006 to 2010], China set a target for reducing its carbon intensity by 20%, which meets the call for measurable, reportable and verifiable targets in the Bali road map.

On the issue of negotiations, I think there is a reason that developed countries have their view. China does not have an overall plan, rooted in its own interests, to deal with climate change. It does not have a unified technology platform; it does not have a trading platform linked to international markets; it lacks a “national team”.

The rules of the game, as they stand, were set by the developed nations and are best represented by the European Union. Countries participate in climate-change politics at the national level, whether they are in high-level negotiations or addressing detailed technical issues (such as setting standards and market entry mechanisms). Most countries create technological, economic and political groupings to play to their strengths. There is only one reason for that: national economic interest. Therefore, China should have its own “national team” and set up similar groupings to represent its own best interests.

Take energy saving and emissions reduction as an example. China’s binding target to reduce carbon intensity by 20% is a measurable emissions reduction plan – it couldn’t be more concrete. China could use this to invite developed countries to share the associated cost burden. Incomplete statistics put government and business spending towards that target in the first two years of the eleventh Five-Year Plan [2006 and 2007] at 80 billion yuan (US$11.7 billion). If we set similar targets for the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth Five-Year Plans, then even with quite rapid economic growth, carbon dioxide emissions will peak by 2030 or earlier. During the current plan, China has made massive investments in independent, voluntary emissions reductions. To quote one local government official, “we will do whatever it takes to complete the national targets.” It is not just the Chinese that benefit from those investments: it is a public good for humanity as a whole. Should China, a developing nation, continue to take these independent undertakings? Can it afford to bear these costs? If international climate-change cooperation does not come into play at this point, is the Bali road map anything more than empty rhetoric?


Qiu Dengke is a reporter for Private Economy News

Li Lailai is deputy director of the Stockholm Environment Institute. She was formerly director of the Beijing Institute for the Environment and Development and chair of Leadership for Environment and Development’s China Project. She has long been involved in environment and development research and education.

Produced in association with Rutgers Climate and Social Policy Initiative



Homepage image by troy

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

工业化

从蒸汽机开始冒烟的那一刻开始,全球环境就注定了面临被人类破坏的命运。只要看看这几十年中国经济增长所带来的环境恶化现状,就不难明白这几百年来资本主义国家的工业化对全球生态环境的巨大影响。只有发达国家向发展中国家提供先进的技术和资金,整个地球才有希望避免被人类所毁灭。

industrialization

From the moment that the steamer began to smoke,the global environment was doomed to be faced with human's destruction.Only looking at the status quo of environmental deterioration caused by the economic growth in the past few decades,it's not difficult to understand the great impact of the industrialization in the capitalist country in the past few hundreds years on the global ecological environ ment.Only if the developed country provides advanced technology and fund, can the whole earth avoid being destroyed by human beings.

translated by anna,chen .

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

关于回避谈判

有人指责中国在“回避谈判”,无非就是想向中国施加压力,让中国承担减排的义务,这是国家间政治博弈的惯用手法。
首先,中国政府的政策明确表明了减排决心。发展电动汽车、风能、太阳能,中国已经在努力向减排目标迈进。
其次,中国的发展现状不允许在现阶段向国际社会做出减排承诺,能源结构还是以煤为主,新能源方面的技术还未跟上国际水平,甚至是以污染环境的代价为发达国家“做嫁衣”。
在国际社会,减排的呼声很高,然而,实实在在的技术共享行动却不多,而这才是最为紧缺的东西。

About avoiding the negotiation

Somebody critizes China for avoiding negotiation,it is nothing but put pressure on China and make China take the duty of reducing emission,which is the the favorite method in the game between countries.
First of all,the Chinese government has proclaimed their determination to reduce the emission .Developing the electric vehicles,wind energy and solar energy, China is trying to stride forward the goal of reducing the emission.
Furthermore, it is not allowed for the present China to promise to reduce emissions,in the the energy structure the coal is crucial and the energy technology has not kept up with the international standards and even made the bottom drawer for the developed country at the cost of polluting the environment.
In the international environment, the appeal for reducing is pretty loud.However, sharing the technology is really rare,which is the scarcest thing.

translated by anna

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

不懂装懂

一味地强调所谓的技术转移,而不深究究竟有啥技术可以为我们所用,这是中国普遍的问题,也是发展中国家的普遍问题。

泱泱几十亿人之中国,难道就这样一直空谈下去?资金援助如果有当然是好,恐怕也不是我们想象的那样,想怎么用就怎么用。何况这个世界上并没有可以有效减排的手段,就像核武器似的,有了就天不怕地不怕了。

Pretending to know what they don't know

We blindly emphasising on the so-called technology transfer, instead of thinking about what technology can be adopted by us. This is the common problem in China and other developing countries.

Will a great country with billions of population indulge in empty talk forever? Sure it'd be better to have financial support, but I'm afraid it does not go as we have imagined that we can use it at will. What's more? There is no effective measures to reduce emission, like the nuclear weapons, with which nothing to be afraid of.

translated by anna.chen

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

回应2号

2号的发言只是照搬了政府的官话,没有什么新意。在技术方面,中国在新能源产业的核心技术和关键零部件上还要继续努力。风能、太阳能发电设备对后期维护的要求很高,即使我们引进国外技术,也要进行改进以适应中国的环境。何况,我们引进的也是人家的二、三流技术,想要核心技术是很难的。

Response to number 2

Number 2’s statement just imitates the bureaucratic language of the government; it does not have any new ideas. With regards to technology, the key components and core technologies in China’s new energy industries need to continue to work hard. Wind energy and solar energy generation facilities have stricted requirements in order to be maintained in the long term. Even if we introduce foreign technology, we have to make improvements and adapt them to the Chinese environment. Besides, the technology that we are introducing is second- or third-rate technology in those developed countries. It is difficult to obtain the desired core technologies. (Translated by Michelle Deeter)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

应对气候变化不需要技术,需要艺术

这个世界上目前还没有应对气候变化的有效技术,找遍互联网我也没看到有哪个国家,哪个人拥有了哪怕一个这样的技术或者发明。说来说去技术转让,转让什么技术?工业革命我们可以说要学蒸汽机;信息化时代我们要学习电脑和互联网;应对气候变化时代,我们要学习什么技术?如果谁知道有这么个技术,请一定告诉我们,谢谢。

To cope with climate change, we need art rather than technology

There is no effective technology, so far, to cope with climate change. I've searched through the Internet but failed finding a single country as a case in point, nor any individual. We've been talking a lot about technology transfer these days, but what exactly is THE technology? For industrial revolution, we could learn from the steam machine; In the information age, computer science and the World Wide Web is the tech to study.While in the climate-change era, what is the linked technology? It'd be appreciated if anyone can tell us about it.

translated by Hunt.Lee

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

载人航天工程与法律执行力

虽然中国拥有载人航天工程和一支现代化军队,但仍属于发展中国家,要求或祈求成为发达国家是不合时宜的。作为贫困的发展中国家,中国如何能在20国集团峰会上以发达的市场经济国家地位与美国平起平坐主导争取主导地位呢?也许中国应该把钱多花在基础建设上而不是“大面子”工程上。印度也属于这类国家。中国也很不情愿去公平有力地执行现有法律,促进清洁技术的广泛推广。是中国自己造成了后院的混乱局面,不是发达国家。应该承担责任了。

Manned space program and law enforcement

China has a manned space program and a modern military but goes to developing nations hat in hand, demanding/begging for handouts. How can China be a developed, market economy demanding to sit at the head of the G20 with the US while also a poor, struggling developing nation? Maybe China should spend less on "big face" projects and more on fundamentals. India also falls into this classification.

China also refuses to evenly and vigorously enforce existing laws that would promote greater use of clean technology. China made a mess of its own backyard, not developed countries. Take some responsibility.