Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Irresponsible. And realism bites back.

Just a few days ago, my own feelings were that the Chinese had not been particularly uncooperative, but still gave them some credence, as the United States itself is not a paragon of climate virtue. I was still disappointed in the outcome at Copenhagen, though.

Then on the airplane, speaking with a person from Fiji who was in Bella Center the last two days, I suddenly realized that there was no incentive for the Chinese to have a deal come through. Either way, they were going to unilaterally do the carbon intensity cuts. The question is, what message did they hope to send with the talks? 1) "We care about the climate and are a cooperative partner" or 2) "We are a big country to be reckoned with now"?

The Fijian and I had suspicions it might actually be the latter, and when we examined China's interests and incentives, we realized that the Chinese didn't really have much at stake if no deal arose. The funding hopes were cut off pretty cleanly in the first week, and the Chinese admitted as much. So there wasn't much left for the Chinese to bargain with; posturing, support for the G77 and developing nation agenda (i.e. bloc leadership) could be the name of the game. Then when the heads of state started arriving, their role as a broker and make-or-break linchpin became apparent.

As she put it, they were "not here to play ball." Any negative publicity would be outweighed by the rise in national stature -- or at least at least in an equivalent message delivered behind the scenes.

Now we find out from someone who was there first hand what had happened ... this is just horrible. China's role ... confirmed! Grrrr!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

More to come.

No comments:

Post a Comment