Climate officials from around the world have assembled in Copenhagen for two weeks to address global warming. Here’s an interesting article from today’s Guardian. Highlights:
China’s carbon emissions will peak between 2030 and 2040, the country’s science and technology minister [Wan Gang] told the Guardian as the global climate change summit began in Copenhagen.
And:
The precise timing, he said, would depend on uncertain factors such as the pace of China’s economic growth, rate of urbanisation, and level of scientific development. But he added that the earlier date in the range would be possible if China continued to invest in renewable energy, improved energy efficiency, commercialized carbon capture technology, and changed consumer behavior.
And:
Environmental groups gave a cautious welcome to the figure, but said China could be more ambitious if rich nations provide technology and finance. “This is a good thing. This is the first time that a ministerial-level official has confirmed the peak range,” said Yang Ailun of Greenpeace. “If China really makes climate change a priority, they could peak by 2030. And if they get support from developed countries, they could do it even faster.”
An agreement to transfer technology and money from rich to poor nations is one of China’s main goals at the Copenhagen conference. China is keen to get international help to reduce the price of silicon processing for solar panels and to develop ultra-efficient coal gasification plants. It is already collaborating with the U.K. on a project to capture carbon dioxide. In future, Wan said the country will explore the potential for storage or conversion to algae biofuels.
There is an awful lot to unpack in this one brief article. Is this really a “good thing” from the Greenpeace perspective? What shape and scale will the “technology and money” transfers take? Also at Copenhagen, the deputy head of China’s climate delegation has reportedly complained that “neither the U.S., the E.U., nor Japan had offered sufficient cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.”
What do these reports make you feel about the future of governmental efforts to decrease greenhouse-gas emissions? I suspect that, as with other climate issues, one’s incoming biases will dictate whether the glass looks half full or half empty.
In SuperFreakonomics, we express skepticism about the likelihood of meaningful agreements in this realm:
If, say, Australia decided overnight to eliminate its carbon emissions, that fine nation wouldn’t enjoy the benefits of its costly and painful behavior unless everyone else joined in. Nor does one nation have the right to tell another what to do. The United States has in recent years sporadically attempted to lower its emissions. But when it leans on China or India to do the same, those countries can hardly be blamed for saying, Hey, you got to free-ride your way to industrial superpowerdom, so why shouldn’t we?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I would not characterize China as a “developing nation” needing financial assistance. In any case it is a good thing that they are pursuing cleaner technologies. The U.S. should be even more agressive. The leader will be able to sell the technology especially as oil begins to peak and local pressure to clean up the environment builds. All this will happen regardless of the belief in climate change. It just parallels the historical track of the US and Europe. First smoke belching factories and powerplants then as consequences were seen in the 60s and 70s pressure was exerted to reduce air and water pollution. Higher carbon dioxide levels now and the resultant impact on coral and other marine life is like the acid rain in the latter half of the 20th century.
It’s the right thing to do from a purely economic point of view.
“one nation does not have the right to tell another what to do”- this is an extremely facile ethical point- of course nations have that right, and have exercised it throughout history- if you’re the US, you bomb; if you’re a mature nation, you use diplomacy; if you’re an enlightened nation, you use the UN or World Court- so if a nation breaks the rule of international law, than other nations have the right and duty to compel it to stop- the issue here is whether pollution is breaking the law, and this is precisely the type of “agreement” that is trying to be hammered out- that is, what level of pollution will be seen as breaking international standards and hence be compelled to change ( via cap + trade, tax, bombs, etc)
I suspect that most people in the developing world such as in China have more pressing concerns than the 2 degree change in the atomspere in the future. If you don’t have bread and butter, you would not have the drive to clean-up the water; if your life is full of hard labor to make ends meet, how could you be bothered by the 2 degree difference in temperature?
Climate change is an issue for the developed countries, which contributed the majority of the greenhouse effect. These countries have the obligation to lead and help to reverse the situation.
What if we are past the tipping point? If we are, then the focus on to what extent rich or poor countries should bear the burden of cutting emissions to mitigate climate change is academic.
“If you don’t have bread and butter, you would not have the drive to clean-up the water”
If a temperature increase of 4 degrees melts the himalayan glaciers and messes up the water cycles of the great south asian and east asian river basins, then the person who barely has bread and butter will definitely care because agricultural yields will drop significantly.
China and India have to get involved because they have so much to lose.
I’m pretty pessimistic about the ability for governments to coordinate collective action at this kind of scale. The near-term costs are significant, and the large forgone losses are far away. People are terrible about making those kinds of tradeoffs, so why should we expect governments to do much better? Its not like today’s politicians will be around in the future to be blamed anyway.
The one economics perspective theory I haven’t seen mentioned much is bargaining theory. Bargaining theory tells us that the outcome reached (if any) will be a function of the outside option attainable by each party. If you have a poor outside option, then you get few of the gains from the bargain.
This is very important when thinking about climate change negotiations. The most serious consequences of climate change will be on the poorest countries – so they have the least bargaining power. Rich countries will get along ok even if they don’t do much.
So if poor countries just demand that rich countries act while giving up nothing, then there won’t be a deal.
The only way rich countries are going to take serious action is if rich country citizens (especially in the US) are a lot more altruistic (and care a lot more about the immorality of harming poor countries) than I think they are.
The other thing that doesn’t get mentioned is the un-PC idea that rich country citizens resent straight per-capita emissions comparisons, on the grounds of “it’s not my fault if you can’t control your population growth”.
Ignoring of course that rich countries had the same population growth not that long ago.
They talk, and talk, and talk. The agenda of summits, meetings become myopic. We might as well just pack up and butt off to another planet and kickstart a new carbon cycle all over again.
If Australia alone makes carbon reducing changes than Australia will profit. Climate change has many local effects even if we can’t adequately predict them. And certainly other pollutants that are reduced along with CO2 will greatly improve air quality, particularly in Chine which uses coal heavily.
At one time, science was considered human property; certainly there should be basic science research that the developed nations share with all countries. While the developed nations may have the research and educational facilities, the developing countries may have the geniuses that will make the big breakthroughs. I would like to see a global Manhattan project that would try to increase the planet’s overall energy efficiency. Whether or not you believe in global warming, you have to believe that is a good thing.
To Stephen,
You point sounds like RIch countries are helping poor countries. Well, here is some different view.
1. The histrical pollution by the industril CO2 emission was mainly made by the current rich countries. so , for US and EU , it should be obligations.
2. poor countries also have a lot to do , I agree, but also you have to know, countries like India ,China or Arifa. reducing the use of energy will cause poverty and death. So ya, obviously they should do that, but they maybe do not have the tech for that goal.
3. China made a goal that by 2020 , reduce 40-45%. but EU ‘s plan was 2008 to 2012 reduce 8%. which was 2.4%. But now, by 2020 totally 20%, which is 1.2%each year. I mean, this is something you should do . Now , if you blame poor countries. It’s like asking poor people to lose weight.