China’s European tour: Common but differentiated purposes on climate

Posted by Emma Owen on February 03, 2009
China, EU, Politics, Summits

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s recent “Journey of confidence” through the EU, including visits to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the European Commission in Brussels and Britain, was intended to demonstrate China’s international leadership and co-operation on the global economy and climate change.

Most interesting to watch, however, is the increasing power struggle which has emerged between China and her Western counterparts. On the one hand developed countries are desperate to court their slice of investment from China’s economic stimulus plan, while on the other, political tensions remain on the need to limit carbon emissions.

China has recently surpassed the US as the largest emitter of CO2 in absolute terms and with the financial crisis now affecting China’s own markets, China recognises that its economic survival depends on mitigating the environmental damage that costs it $200 billion annually.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Wen Jiabao asserted that “China supports the Copenhagen conference” and “gives top priority to meeting the challenge of climate change”, highlighting China’s proactive climate policies such as the National Climate Change Programme and targets to annually reduce the per unit GDP energy consumption by 4 percent and in total by 20 percent in five years.

However, it is clear that China sees clean technology as the solution to a low carbon future and carbon emissions reductions as the historical responsibility of developed countries. Wen stated “it’s difficult for China to take quantified emission reduction quotas at the Copenhagen conference, because this country is still at an early stage of development. Europe started its industrialisation several hundred years ago, but for China, it has only been dozens of years.”

Meanwhile, the European Commission President Barroso called on China “to put itself in the frontline of international efforts and to show an example”, pointing to the Commission’s proposal that developing countries should reduce growth in their greenhouse gas emissions by 15% to 30% by 2020.

While there is no doubt of the historical responsibility of developed countries to take significant action to reduce their emissions, in the spirit of such “good-will” and “co-operation”, political leaders might be a little braver in persuading China that its cake is also no longer for eating.

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM ANNUAL MEETING 2009 - Wen Jiabao in Davos by World Economic Forum

Related posts:

  1. US and China agree to cooperate on climate change – a step in the right direction
  2. G77+China: least developed countries vs. major developing economies
  3. China & Cancun
  4. Poznan Day 6: UK and China – A practical example of a ‘Shared Vision’
  5. France & Brazil: A common call to climate change action in the Amazon!

Tags: , , , , , ,

Make a Donation

Like what you read? Climatico is a nonprofit organization and relies on donations from readers like you to continue to provide you with quality independent coverage. Help show your support and make a tax-deductible donation today.

Comments

  • Chris Wright

    Great post. U.S Congress, even when it has a Democratic majority, will be looking very closely at Chinese commitments to climate change. The opposition to any climate treaty that does give binding reduction obligations to large developing countries was made clear already in 1997, when the Byrd-Hagel resolution passed 97-0. Here are key excerpts from that text;

    - Whereas the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed;

    - Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and

    While I think this sentiment is perhaps less strong now, I think Chinese opposition to binding obligations can derail the whole thing in Copenhagen. Particularly since growing unemployment has tied the climate agenda in the US much closer to economic security and national economic competitiveness. So my sense is that a lot depends on the success of US-China climate diplomacy in the next 6 months.

    February 04 2009
    CommentsLike