US Vs China at the Bangkok Climate Talks

 Continued from this post.

The American negotiator,

forcefully outlined America's opposition to the Kyoto protocol. "We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries."

Here's China's positition:

Yu Qingtai, China's special representative on climate talks, said rich countries should not desert the Kyoto agreement, which all industrialised countries except the US signed up to and was ratified in 2002 after many years of negotiations. It contains no requirement for developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as both their current and historical emissions are low in most cases.....

"The Kyoto protocol is not negotiable. We want [it] to be strengthened. We don't want to kill Kyoto. We really want a revival, a strengthening of the treaty. That can only be done by Annex I [industrialised] countries having a target of 40% cuts by 2020," said Yu.

The Guardian notes: "However, China, with its surging economy and rapidly expanding population is now the world's biggest polluter."  

Isn't the way out of this impasse seems obvious?  China and the developing world must commit to meeting clean energy targets, but the West should the lead the way in terms of reducing emissions.  Is that too much too ask? The article continues:

The difference between the sides is now considered to threaten the success of the talks. In essence, the US is insisting on a completely new agreement, with all countries signed up and all countries free to choose and set their own targets and timetable. Most other countries want to keep the existing agreement as a basis for negotiations, to ensure that rich countries are held by international law to agreed cuts. China in particular wants cuts calculated on a per capita basis.

Don't these poor countries get it?  The United States is not bound by international law to the extent other countries are bound.  It's the task of Americans to help to write the laws for others (as it did in the case of Kyoto), and then lecture the rest of the world on their "delinquency" from time to time.   (For example, the Obama Administration made it quite clear that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the US.   It is for other countries to prosecute their leaders for war crimes.  Because when the US violates agreements, it always does so for good reason.)

The Guardian article continues:

Diplomats last night suggested that the only way out could be for the US to be asked to sign a separate agreement acceptable to developing countries, which would see it cutting emissions at a comparable speed to other countries.

The G77 countries are meeting to consider their oppositions. One diplomat said: "They are very angry. People have talked of walking out."

Waxman-Markey goes to the Finance Committee

Robert Reich blogs about how so much sound and fury on capital hill can produce so little by way of helpful results.

. . . .environmental legislation is now slinking its way through Congress. The Waxman-Markey climate bill was passed by the House in June; John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have now released a Senate version. All four legislators claim to be progressives concerned about the environment, but the bills are, frankly, far short of what’s needed. Waxman-Markey gives away 85 percent of pollution permits to the nation’s biggest polluters, and the “cap” it proposes on overall carbon emissions would cut greenhouse gas emissions only by an estimated 2 to 4 percent by 2020 compared to the UN reference year of 1990. (If America was to play its appropriate role in a global climate deal, the reduction would be more like 40 percent, and the U.S. would also provide financing and technology so developing countries could reduce their emissions by a comparable amount.) The Kerry-Boxer bill has a stronger cap on emissions but it’s still far short of what’s necessary — and it leaves out the hardest part, which is the actual cap-and-trade mechanism. Kerry and Boxer are leaving that to the Senate Finance Committee, of all places.

The Finance Committee is dominated by "blue dogs" -- senators from small states who mainly represent the large corporations that fund their campaigns.  Meanwhile, the US demonstrates global leadership at the Bangkok Climate Change Talks (just kidding, of course).

Bangkok climate change talks update

Oxfam reports:

THURSDAY 8 OCTOBER 2009
The G77 and China are justifiably outraged about moves in Bangkok by rich countries to re-write cornerstones of the Bali Action Plan and the UN Climate Convention, international aid agency Oxfam said today.

“In Bangkok, not only have rich countries tried to change the rules of the game, but they’ve tried to change the game itself,” Oxfam’s senior climate adviser Antonio Hill said today.


“Developing countries are right to cry foul. It’s hard to see these moves as anything other than an attempt to weaken commitments that rich countries have made in past agreements.

“Fifteen years ago, rich countries agreed they would take the lead. In 2007 in Bali, they reaffirmed their commitments would be greater than developing countries and different in nature.

“Here in Bangkok, they are unpicking the threads of those agreements and trying to force the G77 and China to take actions that would be unfair considering the gaping hole in rich country commitments....

“The Bali Road Map set a clear path to Copenhagen. Rather than walking down the path together with developing countries, rich countries are now proposing a dangerous off-road excursion. ...

“What we needed to see in Bangkok was a debate between the US, Australia, Canada, Japan and the EU about what their respective efforts would be - their fair share of both finance and emissions reduction targets and whether they address the risks that the poorest people already face.

“Today, Norway has entered this debate and set a target of 40 per cent below 1990 levels, so we know what leadership looks like.”

Consistent with the Bali Action Plan, many developing countries are already doing their fair share by making significant steps to reduce emissions, and have signalled their willingness to discuss further action – provided that developed countries provided financial and technological support.

Mexico has already committed to halving its emissions by 2050. Despite facing huge development challenges, and with much of its population still living in poverty, China is a world leader in renewable energy investment, has committed to cutting emissions by a notable margin, and has offered support to help developing countries, including small island states and African nations, adapt to the impacts of climate change.

“The actions by rich countries over the past two weeks are even less acceptable given they are yet to deliver a serious offer on finance,” Mr Hill said. “Every time developed countries talk about further actions that China needs to take, they are shirking their own responsibilities.”

Bangkok climate talks reach an impass

At the Bangkok Climate Change Talks, the developing world, led by China, wants Kyoto provisions strengthened. The Kyoto treaty, of course, had put the onus for cuts on first world countries.

The Telegraph:

Emerging giants such as China and other developing countries say the new agreement should strengthen Kyoto, under which 37 highly industrialised nations took on hard commitments for cutting carbon dioxide pollution between 2008 and 2012.

The United States signed the treaty in 1992 but never ratified it, and thus was exempt from its provisions.

In Bangkok, several nations - notably the US, Australia and Japan - have floated proposals calling for an approach in which each country would make its own national commitments.

These would be measurable and verifiable, but outside any kind of internationally enforceable compliance regime.

Rich nations have suggested that poorer countries, which had no Kyoto obligations, could make efforts to curb carbon dioxide output in keeping with their level of development under such a scheme.

Instead, China called for beefing up Kyoto, which could exist along with whatever other measures might be adopted at the climate conference in Copenhagen.

Meanwhile:

Carol Browner, Barack Obama's energy adviser, admitted that the US senate would probably not vote on its global warming bill before the talks in Copenhagen, seriously limiting the US president's ability to commit to new plans at the summit.

That's a real let down.   More about the impass at The Nation, which reports on the China delegation's frustration:

"Two months to Copenhagen and we are not making any progress in Bangkok," Chinese ambassador Yu Qingtai, who is special representative to the UN's climate-change talks said yesterday.

"The fundamental reason is the lack of political will from the 36 Annex I countries to make progress," he added.  [Annex 1 countries include most OECD member states, central and eastern Europe countries and the Commonwealth of Independent States ]

Four key issues for a Copehagen Agreement

The Copenhagen agreement must focus on four key issues (Nation):

The first is clarity on the mid-term emission reduction targets that industrialised countries will commit to.

Second, there must be clarity on the actions that developing countries could undertake to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.

Third, it must define stable and predictable financing to help the developing world reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the inevitable effects of climate.

And finally, it must identify institutions that will allow technology and finance to be deployed in a way that treats developing countries as equal partners in the decision-making process.

For an update on the Bangkok Climate Change Talks see this post.