China Sunk the Copenhagen Deal

[Michael Hardner]

Says the Guardian:

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again.

The US also wanted to improve monitoring over what was in Kyoto, satisfying the concerns of many here who have pointed out flaws in the Kyoto monitoring system.

[Riverwind]

The US also wanted to improve monitoring over what was in Kyoto, satisfying the concerns of many here who have pointed out flaws in the Kyoto monitoring system.

1) The flaws with kyoto CDM are not the monitoring system. The entire concept of buying credits for hypothetical emission reductions is flawed and cannot be fixed because the incentive for fraud is too great (i.e. the buyers have an incentive to promote fraud because it reduces the prices, the sellers have an incentive to promote fraud because they make money, the monitors have an incentive to ignore fraud since exposing it would likey cost them their jobs).

2) The dispute with the Chinese was over emissions intensity promises that they made. The US wanted to be able enter China to verify its emission claims. To be effective this would require a level of openness that the paranoid communist regime could never tolerate. I suspect the call for openness was a delberate ploy by the US to undermine China's credibility.

[Michael Hardner]

1) The flaws with kyoto CDM are not the monitoring system. The entire concept of buying credits for hypothetical emission reductions is flawed and cannot be fixed because the incentive for fraud is too great (i.e. the buyers have an incentive to promote fraud because it reduces the prices, the sellers have an incentive to promote fraud because they make money, the monitors have an incentive to ignore fraud since exposing it would likey cost them their jobs).

Good point - I lumped that part of it as 'monitoring' when I shouldn't have.

I reject the idea that monitors would ignore fraud as our whole society is successfully built on people inspecting, monitoring, and what have you for salary.

2) The dispute with the Chinese was over emissions intensity promises that they made. The US wanted to be able enter China to verify its emission claims. To be effective this would require a level of openness that the paranoid communist regime could never tolerate. I suspect the call for openness was a delberate ploy by the US to undermine China's credibility.

Nonetheless, as you would surely agree it's a necessity as we can't expect China to self-report accurately.

[Riverwind]

I reject the idea that monitors would ignore fraud as our whole society is successfully built on people inspecting, monitoring, and what have you for salary.

It really depends on who pays the monitors. If the monitors for projects paid for by Canadian companies were working for the Auditor General's department in Canada then I would have some confidence. However, that is not the way it works. The monitors work for the UN which is not accountable to anyone and prone to corruption. There is no reason to believe they would not be bribable or more worried about giving opponents ammunition to shut the entire system down.

Nonetheless, as you would surely agree it's a necessity as we can't expect China to self-report accurately.

Which is why I say we forget about international treaties with binding targets and let each country proceed with a policy that makes economic sense to them.

Edited: Here is an example of the integrity I have come to expect from UN officials.

The release provides details on more than $250,000 in payments to TERI over the past three and a half years in exchange for Dr. Pachauri's services from companies with a direct financial stake in climate policy. I do not see how this information in any way clears up the issue. In fact, it raises more difficult questions for the IPCC and Dr. Pachauri, who based on this information is unambiguously in violation of conflict of interest policies of the WMO and UN, the parent bodies of the IPCC. This level of remuneration from parties interested in specific climate policy outcomes would clearly violate conflict of interest guidelines at most federal agencies with respect to service on science advisory panels (e.g., FDA has a threshold of $50,000 per year). The fact that the money goes to an organization that Dr. Pachauri directs rather than directly into his pocket is not relevant (to the FDA, WMO or UN).

Edited December 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

It really depends on who pays the monitors. If the monitors for projects paid for by Canadian companies were working for the Auditor General's department in Canada then I would have some confidence. However, that is not the way it works. The monitors work for the UN which is not accountable to anyone and prone to corruption. There is no reason to believe they would not be bribable or more worried about giving opponents ammunition to shut the entire system down.

We're talking about US monitors.

Which is why I say we forget about international treaties with binding targets and let each country proceed with a policy that makes economic sense to them.

That would make sense if countries could also voluntarily withdraw from the planet.

[Riverwind]

We're talking about US monitors.

Not with the existing Kyoto CDM - this is a seperate issue.

That would make sense if countries could also voluntarily withdraw from the planet.

There are two options on the table:

1) Sign an agreement where only democratic societies would be held to their promises because they are the only societies with systems open to public scrunity that allow honest verification of emissions.

2) Have no agreement.

It really does not make a difference if China agreed to some watered down version of inspections because we are not dealing with a few missle sites. We are dealing with a huge number of industrial sources that already flout laws on copyright and pollution. There is no reason to believe that they would adher to CO2 emission regulations even if the government wanted them to.

[Michael Hardner]

Not with the existing Kyoto CDM - this is a seperate issue.

Understood.

1) Sign an agreement where only democratic societies would be held to their promises because they are the only societies with systems open to public scrunity that allow honest verification of emissions.

2) Have no agreement.

It really does not make a difference if China agreed to some watered down version of inspections because we are not dealing with a few missle sites. We are dealing with a huge number of industrial sources that already flout laws on copyright and pollution. There is no reason to believe that they would adher to CO2 emission regulations even if the government wanted them to.

If the Chinese government wanted them to ? I think that they'd likely comply don't you ?

[Riverwind]

If the Chinese government wanted them to ? I think that they'd likely comply don't you ?

The Chinese government "wants" companies to comply with China's obligations under the WTO to protect copyright. How many listen?

You also need to remember that it is a lot easier to hide GHGs emissions than hide copyright abuse so one would expect cheating on emissions to be much worse than the current cheating on copyright.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

You used "wants" in quotes there. That implies that they don't really want what they say they want, and reinforces my point. You didn't put quotes around want when you said:

There is no reason to believe that they would adher to CO2 emission regulations even if the government wanted them to.

[Riverwind]

You used "wants" in quotes there. That implies that they don't really want what they say they want, and reinforces my point.

There is no evidence that the Chinese government really wants to limit its emissions. In fact, I am not convinced they even believe that AGW is problem that requires action today. If they did they would be acting on CO2 emissions even without an international agreement because it would be in their self-interest to do so as the worlds biggest emitter. Edited December 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[Wilber]

There is no evidence that the Chinese government really wants to limit its emissions. In fact, I am not convinced they even believe that AGW is problem that requires action today. If they did they would be acting on CO2 emissions even without an international agreement because it would be in their self-interest to do so as the worlds biggest emitter.

You wonder, Shanghai is 13 feet above sea level.

[myata]

I think the deal was sunk by the Harperite style approach to seek one common standard for everybody, as opposed to building consensus about the need for a positive change, and a committment to it. The two speed approach proposed in Kyoto (not necessarily to be confused with the trading component of it) had a lot of sense, allowing the second echelon economies to learn and adopt greener technologies developed by the leading countries without risking resources critically needed for their development.

In my understanding, the deal started to unwind when developed countries attempted to press (Harper's) idea to replace Kyoto with entirely new deal. For developing countries it meant a great deal of added risk without any confidence in the possibility of practical results (after all, leading economied failed to demonstrate the approaches that would work to reduce emissions, reliably and significantly).

At that stage, no better option could be found that the good old buyoff (money for more or less meaningless agreement in principle).

[Bugs]

The dispute with the Chinese was over emissions intensity promises that they made. The US wanted to be able enter China to verify its emission claims. To be effective this would require a level of openness that the paranoid communist regime could never tolerate. I suspect the call for openness was a delberate ploy by the US to undermine China's credibility.

But China was never going to allow its sovereignty to be compromised -- which is how the US Senate feels, as well.

What major power is going to allow itself to be 'regulated' and 'be responsible to' a rabble of 190-whatever countries, most of them tin-pot dictators or out-and-out tyrants?

This has always been the problem with Kyoto -- the loss of national sovereignties. For many of these countries, the boss never has enough German cars ... and that's all it is. Policy can be bought, like sausages.

Not only that, but China was never oblique about these negotiations. That's why Harper's line was acceptable to them -- and if you want to keep the big players at the table, you have to take 'enforceable' off the table.

[Riverwind]

I think the deal was sunk by the Harperite style approach to seek one common standard for everybody, as opposed to building consensus about the need for a positive change, and a committment to it. The two speed approach proposed in Kyoto (not necessarily to be confused with the trading component of it) had a lot of sense

The two track approach is total nonsense and would only lead to a wealth transfer from poor in rich countries to the rich in poor countries without any significant reduction in global emissions. The reason is simple: when relocation is possible it will always be cheaper to relocate production to countries with no emission limits than to actually reduce emissions.

Bottom line: If the problem is not serious enough to require that developing countries accept limits then it is not serious enough to require that developed countries limit their emissions.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Riverwind

[ZenOps]

IMO, China already did its part with the finishing of the Three Gorges Dam.

22,000 MW of squeaky clean power - equal to approximately 36 coal power plants (or 11 Hoover dams) or enough to power Alberta and still have plenty of electricity left over.

Actions speak louder than words.

As small as a market as Alberta is in comparison, we still use carbon emitting power for 85% of electrical generation.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Electricity/682.asp

And thats not even talking about oilsands development, just electricity generation.

Edited December 23, 2009 by ZenOps

[bush_cheney2004]

IMO, China already did its part with the finishing of the Three Gorges Dam.....

Yep...no environmental damage from the Three Gorges Dam....an environmental impact study wasn't required!

[Riverwind]

IMO, China already did its part with the finishing of the Three Gorges Dam.

Great. By your logic Canada gets a pass on the oil sands too because it gets 50% of its electricity from hydro dams.

[ZenOps]

Noone cared about the environmental impact when Hoover went up either. Other than the farmers who were very glad to have a capturable and more reliable water source that is.

Would you rather China put up another 36 600MW coal power plants? There are very few downfalls to a dam once built.

Canada is nowhere near clean per capita. We actually have a higher per capita carbon footprint than a US citizen.

[Riverwind]

Canada is nowhere near clean per capita. We actually have a higher per capita carbon footprint than a US citizen.

So you do believe it is unfair for wealthy people to have better cars, bigger houses, more food, more clothes or any other luxery? If you have no problem with wealthier people having more things then you should accept that wealthier people will pollute more. In fact, it is mathematically impossible to buy more things without polluting more. Edited December 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

Noone cared about the environmental impact when Hoover went up either. Other than the farmers who were very glad to have a capturable and more reliable water source that is.

Fine by me....let's build thousands of dams just to piss off the tree huggers....more nukes too!

Would you rather China put up another 36 600MW coal power plants? There are very few downfalls to a dam once built.

They are building a lot more than 36 more anyway.

Canada is nowhere near clean per capita. We actually have a higher per capita carbon footprint than a US citizen.

Oh no....anything but that....the shame!

[myata]

Bottom line: If the problem is not serious enough to require that developing countries accept limits then it is not serious enough to require that developed countries limit their emissions.

Only in your "do nothing till kicked in the a.." zero sum game. The idea though was that all or most rationally thinking, intelligent people would come to understand the importance of action, only in their own time. Certainly possibility of a successful transition would be greatly enhanced if working and practical way was found and could be shared.

And now it's back to square one, i.e good old zero sum. Nobody would let go of a piece of their hard won right to burn and pollute unless they get something from somebody else. You win = I lose; and vice versa. Let's see if it'll end up being a more efficient approach. In the end we can always find consolation that we had our share of fun burning, just like that smoker with terminal cancer.

Edited December 24, 2009 by myata

[Riverwind]

Certainly possibility of a successful transition would be greatly enhanced if working and practical way was found and could be shared.

So what would you sacrifice in order for action? Note that I said sacrifice which means you have to come up with something that matters to you. The typical "make the big bad polluter over there pay" excuse is not enough. You can't argue fairness because you have already said you think it fair to make poor people in Canada suffer in order to line the pockets of the wealth in countries like China. Edited December 24, 2009 by Riverwind

[ZenOps]

Haha, props to someone who does their homework. Yes, China puts up a new 600MW coal power plant about every two weeks regardless of its hydro expansion.

The Three Gorges really only represents about one years worth of electrical demand growth.

[ZenOps]

So what would you sacrifice in order for action? Note that I said sacrifice which means you have to come up with something that matters to you. The typical "make the big bad polluter over there pay" excuse is not enough. You can't argue fairness because you have already said you think it fair to make poor people in Canada suffer in order to line the pockets of the wealth in countries like China.

I don't think China gets anything from anyone in the Copenhagen deal. China would be paying into the Copenhagen accord just like the US. In fact I believe Hillary Clinton wanted to see an equivalent 100 billion dollar pledge from China.

The money would be spent on the "other" 190 nations, not the 16 speaking nations. Hugo Chavez is actually very wealthy in Venezeula - who can afford to subsidize gasoline to 30 cents per gallon in his country.

[GostHacked]

IMO, China already did its part with the finishing of the Three Gorges Dam.

22,000 MW of squeaky clean power - equal to approximately 36 coal power plants (or 11 Hoover dams) or enough to power Alberta and still have plenty of electricity left over.

Actions speak louder than words.

As small as a market as Alberta is in comparison, we still use carbon emitting power for 85% of electrical generation.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Electricity/682.asp

And thats not even talking about oilsands development, just electricity generation.

There are other environmental factors to consider when building a dam. China relocated a huge population because after the dam is built that whole area would be underwater. Give and take.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

The project management and the Chinese state regard the project as a historic engineering, social and economic success,[5] a breakthrough in the design of large turbines,[6] and a move toward the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.[7] However, the dam has also flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.24 million people, and is causing significant ecological changes, including an increased risk of landslides.[8] The building of the dam has been a controversial topic both in China and abroad.[9]

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=3+gorges+dam&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=36.315864,79.013672&safe=on&ie=UTF8&hq=3+gorges+dam&hnear=&radius=15000&ll=30.82339,111.021824&spn=0.07695,0.154324&t=h&z=13