Obama, China and the climate

2009-11-25 00:00

PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s Asian trip has been on the political calendar for many months. So has the climate summit at Copenhagen in December. And I strongly suspect that Obama’s people originally planned to announce a United States-Chinese deal on climate during his three-day visit to China last week, so that he could take it with him to Copenhagen as the template for a broader deal between all the “old rich” countries and the rapidly developing ones.

The Chinese leadership is ready for this deal because it is very frightened by the prospect of climate change. China will get hit harder and earlier than most countries by global warming, and the risk of political destabilisation is real. All Beijing needed was a serious commitment to emission cuts by the U.S. and the deal would have been done.

It would have been a bold deal in which the U.S. acknowledged that the old industrialised countries have to take deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions

upfront, because they are the ones who created the current crisis by burning fossil fuels for 200 years. They didn’t mean any harm by it, but they did it, and they are rich because they did it.

Rapidly developing countries like China, India and Brazil, on the other hand, have only recently begun to pump out carbon dioxide on a large scale. So they would only be required to cap their emissions at the current level or somewhere close to it.

Since the developing countries are not willing to stay poor, they must still be allowed to go on growing their economies even after they agree to cap their emissions. That means that they will need a lot more energy, but none of it can come from fossil fuels if they are to stay under the cap. It must come from wind farms, solar arrays or nuclear plants, all of which are more expensive than cheap and dirty coal-fired power plants.

So who pays the difference? The rich countries do, or at least they pay for a lot of the difference, because it is they who created the conditions in which newly industrialising countries must install expensive clean power rather than the dirty power that the rich countries themselves used to climb the ladder long ago.

If the U.S. and China had gone to Copenhagen next month with that deal in hand, everybody else might have climbed aboard, but that’s not going to happen. The political timetable in the U.S. got in the way. After eight years of denial and obstruction on climate issues under the George W. Bush administration, even the Chinese need a solid U.S. commitment on emission cuts before they sign a climate deal, and Obama cannot yet deliver that.

Congress will not pass legislation imposing cuts on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. this year, so Obama goes to Beijing empty-handed. The Chinese will not deliver on their part of the deal until they are sure that Obama can deliver on his part. So the world’s two largest emitters, the U.S. and China, will

arrive in Copenhagen next month without having made any official commitment to curb their emissions.

With no bilateral U.S.-Chinese deal to serve as a framework for a wider agreement, the Copenhagen conference is very unlikely to succeed. How upset should we be about that?

If failure this December means permanent failure, then we should be very upset indeed, but the problem is one of scheduling, not of bad intentions. Given another six months or so, Obama will probably succeed in getting Congress to agree to serious cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The best thing to do now would be to postpone the Copenhagen meeting for a year, but it has become a diplomatic juggernaut that cannot be stopped. The next best thing is to ensure that it fails now, leaving the way open for a follow-on conference that revisits the issue in 12 or 18 months’ time with a much better chance of success.

The best is often the enemy of the good, but patching together an inadequate climate treaty at Copenhagen just to avoid the stigma of failure would repeat the mistake of 1997, when the botched Kyoto Accord locked the world into an unambitious climate policy for 15 years. If the problem lies mainly in the political timetable in the U.S. — and it does — then just change the international schedule to deal with that reality.

• Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.