will China and the US agree on emissions?

In the buildup to the December Copenhagen UNFCCC talks, perhaps the biggest challenge is getting past the political impasse where developed countries (like the US) want developing countries (like China) to take on greater responsibilities for reducing carbon emissions, while developing countries say that historically high emitters should shoulder the greater burden. Just over a week ago, at climate change talks in Bonn, US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern had this to say:

I think that the most fundamental issues in this negotiation in general have to do with how to think about, capture and express the actions and the level of the undertakings to be taken by major developing countries as well as the developed countries. We already know the developed countries have already traditionally been in the mode of making commitments and undertakings. Now we are obviously adding the United States to that package. And I think we also need to add, in a different way, in a differentiated way to be sure, the major developing countries. And again I say that in a way that harkens back to my comments in my prepared remarks about the centrality of science here. I am fond of saying, if you do the math you simply cannot be anywhere near where science tells us we need to be… You cannot directionally be where you need to go on the science if you don't have China above all, but also other major developing countries taking real steps. I think how that is captured, how that is understood and expressed, quantified, committed to, etcetera is going to be extremely important.

This simmering debate is already starting to boil over with growing threats of protectionism. Countries like the US say they need to protect their own producers from imports that are cheaper by virtue of the fact that these imports (from developing countries) do not bear the cost of moving to low-carbon production processes.

Chinese economist Hu Angang is offering a more nuanced approach to classifying countries than the current developed / developing binary system - one which he believes could extricate politicians from the blame game and hopefully result in substantial agreement in December.

His concept is that country classification - for the purposes of setting emissions reduction targets - needs to consider both the quantity of emissions and the Human Development Index (HDI). The index shows much more clearly the capability of countries to absorb the cost of reducing emissions. He points out that there are a number of provinces within China that have a low GDP (and therfore classified as "developing") but a high standard of living and correspondingly high emissions.

Countries in the high HDI group (above 0.8) would have to agree to non-conditional targets as set by the UN. The medium-high HDI group (0.65 to 0.8) would be subjected to conditional cuts, the amount of the cut depending on how close they were to 0.8. Countries below an HDI of 0.65 would not face compulsory carbon reductions; but of course as their standard of living improved, compulsory targets would kick in.

Under this new system, whether or not a country would be required to make emissions cuts would depend on its HDI rating, while the extent of the cuts would relate to the extent of emissions from that country.

South Africa's HDI value for 2006 was 0.670, putting it in Angang's medium-high group and therefore liable for emissions cuts - whereas under its classification as a developing nation, it is not currently liable. To illustrate the distinction even further, Botswana is ranked just below South Africa with an HDI value of 0.664, whereas Botswana has a higher GDP (US$12,744 compared with South Africa's US$9,087). Meanwhile, South Africa's energy mix and rate of consumption give it much higher emissions than Botswana, both absolutely and in relation to GDP. So of these two neighbouring countries, the one with the lower GDP should actually shoulder greater responsibility for carbon reductions, under Angang's proposed system; and the basis of the targets would be clearly understood.

But the big picture that he is trying to address is the standoff between China and the US, which between them account for 38.14% of global emissions. Without including compulsory targets for both countries in December, any agreement will be powerless to reach the global target of having CO2 emissions peak by 2020.

Angang's new three-part article sets it all out clearly.

Comments

[Duncan Drennan]

Why shouldn't *all* nations, developing or not commit to lowering their emissions, or possibly capping their per capita emissions?

It is silly that developing nations oppose this, as they stand to gain the most from reductions in emissions - improved health, lower production costs, and new technologies (for export!).

Taking a "not-our-problem" or "but-we're-still-growing" attitude puts a limit on how far nations will be willing to push themselves to improve the way they function.

[Rory Williams]

Sure, absolutely, Duncan. But politics is silly, isn't it? There has to be a way to ease politicians into things like this. Even the IPCC reports on climate change are tempered by politics - which is scary, since it means that science is saying that things could be a lot worse than the official reports are forecasting.

Having said that, it is expected that an outcome of Copenhagen will be that countries like South Africa ("developing" nations) will be required to make some sort of commitment to emissions cuts, and South Africa is readying itself for that.

To make it palatable, I expect there will need to be some sort of stratification of nations, whether using Angang's proposal or some other method. There are countries that would not be able to afford the costs of mitigation, and their only option would be aid - which is what they are asking for - but my view is that something like Angang's proposal makes more sense than increasing dependence on aid.