This morning, The Wall Street Journal printed an editorial called "Copenhagen's Lesson in Limits". I'm not in an overly joyful mood, and the editorial board is testing my patience with their flippant and dismissive wave of the hand at COP and the efforts by all the delegates. If you read the piece,it is misleading and contains serious inaccuracies. It's not a meaningful commentary, just a political potshot that makes claims without a factual basis. There are major problems with the editorial because it trades accuracy for glib one-liners. Though rhetorically clever, the one-liners are still wrong--sorry, you don't get points for extra snarkiness.
Several lines in this article struck me as particularly erroneous. They were pronouncements made from the armchair, rather than with a view of the negotiating floor. For example:
We can't wait to hear Mr. Obama tell Americans that he wants them to pay higher taxes so the U.S. can pay China to become more energy efficient and thus more economically competitive.
What is the WSJ talking about? This is just ludicrous.
1) Pricing carbon is a way for AMERICA to get more energy efficient and competitive. If our industries are inefficient and polluting, instead of continuing to subsidize dirty, inefficient production by feeding cheap coal or electricity generated by fossil fuel, putting a price on carbon (via tax or permits, you choose) is a way to encourage industry to get leaner and more energy efficient. Carbon intensity in the US has slowly trended downward in the past half century. Let's accelerate the transformation and develop cleaner, greener jobs. Furthermore, in addition to ramping up efficiency of our manufacturing, the US should be getting into a leadership position on clean technology and developing innovative new industries.
2) China is most likely not even going to get funding from the United States; the primary recipients of assistance are the LDCs and other “nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change,” as Secretary of State Clinton said. The American delegation was pretty clear on this throughout the COP15 negotiations. Head of delegation, Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern also said earlier, "I do not envision public funds, certainly not from the US, going to China. We would intend to direct our public funds to the neediest countries." (Also quoted here.) He noted "China -- to its great credit -- has a dynamic economy, and sits on some two trillion dollars in reserves. So we don’t think China would be the first candidate for public funding."
(The Chinese were extremely unhappy about this statement, and Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei blasted Stern for it, claiming he "lacked common sense" or was "extremely irresponsible." However, they eventually admitted that things would probably play out this way and agreed that funds should be focused on the neediest countries. See FT Times articles here and here and a clarification by the foreign ministry.)
3) Rather than foreign aid, China is more likely to receive international funds by participating in a carbon market. This shouldn't be a problem because the Wall Street Journal loves markets and market-based mechanisms, right? One such mechanism, the CDM, has its problems, but projects in China are coming under increasing scrutiny, with several Chinese projects rejected.
4) In any case (THIS IS A KEY POINT!), China has already stated its intention to move ahead unilaterally with its carbon intensity target, regardless of the outcome at Copenhagen. Chinese industry doesn’t need U.S. funding to retool and get even more competitive. Increasing efficiency is a smart economic move, so industry and government are willing to act of their own volition. As Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said at a press conference: “Our commitment from now to 2020 is pledged on the basis of no external funds. It's a unilateral action." Premiere Wen Jiabao noted that China "will fulfill it regardless of the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks." So America’s money is safe for now. We don't have to "pay" the Chinese to do this; they are committed to doing it because they realize efficiency boosts competitiveness!
In any case, China may not even desire U.S. aid, because it would come with MRV stipulations, which they’ve been somewhat allergic to throughout the negotiations.
5) Some funding will be used for mitigation activities like efficiency improvements, but much of the funding is designated for adaptation and forest preservation. Again, see Clinton's speech at COP15 on Thursday, Dec. 17.
6) As Thomas Friedman said on the CNN+YouTube debate on Wednesday, "WE'RE ALREADY PAYING A TAX!"
(Watch the clip at http://www.youtube.com/watc
(UPDATE 12-24-09) The YouTube clip no longer seems to be accessible, so check this one out instead, around 26:20)
We are funneling money to all manner of authoritarian regimes overseas that don't like us very much because of our addiction to fossil fuels. So in terms of taxes, “We're already paying one; it's just a matter of which treasury it goes to.” Friedman says he'd prefer “paying it to our own American treasury, to fund U.S. schools, U.S. hospitals, U.S. roads, U.S. research,” as opposed to unfriendly governments.
-----
Another paragraph in the editorial that is extremely problematic:
No doubt under the agreement China will continue to get a free climate pass despite its role as the world's No. 1 emitter. At Copenhagen the emerging economies nonetheless proved skilled at exploiting the West's carbon Tguilt, and in exchange for the nonconcession of continuing to negotiate next year, or the year after that, they'll receive up to $100 billion in foreign aid by 2020, with the U.S. contributing the lion's share.
1) What a double standard. For the longest time, the United States ALWAYS got a free climate pass "despite its role as the world's No. 1 emitter." Even today, we aren't covered by the Kyoto Protocol because we refused to ratify it!Thus, while virtually every other developed economy has emissions targets, we have no commitments under Kyoto. This is why there was a scramble at COP15 to find a way for the US to make commitments to reduce emissions outside the KP track, while the rest of the Annex I countries made commitments in an extension of Kyoto.
2) "Carbon guilt"?
Uh ... if you were even paying attention to the negotiations, the US delegation repeatedly insisted that the funding was NOT for reparations, but for assistance. The head negotiator for the U.S. categorically rejected the notion of carbon guilt. (Indeed, this position was a source of tension and angered other delegations, since they thought the West should not only take on more historical responsibility, but pay for it.)
LINK: U.S. sees robust climate talks, no "reparations"
http://www.reuters.com/article
3) Aid of $100 billion through 2020
Er... what's wrong with that? The low-lying coastal countries, small-island states, and LDCs are the most vulnerable to the damage caused by climate change. We are essentially screwing them over with our refusal to curb our emissions. This money is for help with adaptation, as well as mitigation and forest management. So yes, they should be getting this money, because they face substantial harm as we continue to pollute and refuse to change our ways. (This is called the “Polluter Pays” principle.). Unfortunately, nature will not be so kind while we dither.
And is the US really going to take up the lion's share? We've been extremely stingy so far, despite having the greatest historical emissions and one of the greatest per capita emissions. The EU has been ponying up a lot more cash. Anyway, rest easy, Wall Street, funding will come from "public and private sources" of finance, so you'll get your cow to milk.
-----
Obstructionists like the WSJ editorial board need to get out of the way and let American industry and society rise up to meet the challenge head-on: to become more efficient; cut emissions and resource usage; and pursue opportunities in new fields. The SAME OLD WAY is unsustainable and headed for failure. Why do we want to preside over the old economy of the 20th century when we could be leading the new economy of the 21st? Take it from someone who lives in Silicon Valley; being on the cutting edge and innovating is actually a good thing. I believe in the capacity of people, corporations and institutions all over the United States to join in the renewal of our nation and regain a position of leadership. Fighting efforts to mitigate climate change and spreading misinformation are not helpful to that mission.
No comments:
Post a Comment