Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Hu is in first...
The speech by China's president, Hu Jintao, to the U.N. pledging to meet "carbon intensity targets" should be a wake-up call to the United States on several levels.
First, it shows that while the United States dithers, China has not only moved ahead in green technology, they have also moved ahead in terms of shaping the global debate about how to reduce carbon emissions and enhance efficient energy use. We can argue about the level of their targets. (They, predictably, are far too low.) We can argue about their methods, their desire to shift responsibility elsewhere or even their sincerity about aggressively pursuing their goals. But we can't argue with the fact that with Hu's comments they edged ahead of the United States in terms of seizing the initiative at this week's climate talks.
Second, in a related vein, it shows that where the United States fails to lead, others are willing to step in. In fact China, whose leaders were visibly discomfited when earlier this year it was suggested that they were now part of the G-2 with the United States, seems to relish both being out front on this issue ... and leaving the U.S. stammering about the problems of having to work with the Congress.
Third, it just shows how out of touch the U.S. Congress is on climate. The scientific world gets it (see today's FT piece on the weight of scientific studies.) The governments of most of the rest of the world's countries get it. But we keep making up excuses as though somehow Mother Nature would slow down out of respect for Senate protocols. These do-nothings are great at coming up with excuses and with compromises that suck the meaning out of any legislation. But in this case, the consequences are global -- impeding progress in combating a critical threat and, at the same time, dramatically undercutting American prestige.
That China's formulation of "carbon intensity targets" is not the emissions caps that we and the Europeans have been urging on them is of consequence, but it is not central. Their commitment to reducing the output of carbon associated with each dollar of GDP is at least a respectable initial proposal. At least their words and their body language ... not to mention their quarter trillion dollar national investment in green technology ... say they are taking this seriously. They are not simply fiddling while the atmosphere burns (or at least warms up measurably) as are their counterparts on Capitol Hill.
How galling must it be to be U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern, a dedicated, earnest agent of change, a guy who really wants America to lead, who is held back by "realistic" estimates of what Congress will permit? Hopefully, the Chinese action and the efforts of other countries this week will cause the administration to shift strategies. They too should have a proposal on the table and they should push for what they think is needed. And then, they should go sell that on the Hill. If Congress won't lead, they must.
Fortunately, Congress's primary excuse on this front -- that China will drag its feet -- is now gone. They will no doubt quibble with the Chinese method and intent. But watching from this seat, they will seem mighty small in doing so and many, whose goal was really to cater to special interests like that minority of businesses who are still not taking this seriously, will seem utterly derelict in their duties.
China will need to do much more than Hu will promise this week. But he and his government deserve credit for reminding the U.S. Congress what leadership can be about.
EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
David Rothkopf is the author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making and Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. He is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf, a Washington, DC-based international advisory firm.
That China's formulation of
Yes it is. Without the caps (or an economic incentive to cut back on the total use of CO2-producing processes, period), those efficiency gains (and that's what they are) will simply get eaten up, and the total amount of emissions will continue to rise. That's what happened in the US, when the CAFE system basically forced efficiency gains in terms of gas usage on American cars (without penalizing the use of gas directly, like with a higher gas tax) - Americans simply ate up the efficiencies, and now consume more oil than we did back then.
It's the same thing Bush proposed initially, and we (rightfully) mock him for it.
Agree and disagree...
Agree that these approaches are sub-optimal. But the reason I say...in the post...they aren't central (to the argument I'm making above) is that they are a sign of legitimate engagement from the Chinese. There is a sense among many in NY right now for the talks that the Chinese are more serious about moving forward than the U.S. This is a negotiation, after all. Countries do offer less than they expect to get. And this is more than many have been saying China would profer for a long time.
And this is more than many
It is? To be honest, I'm not seeing anything different than usual from the Chinese. They still haven't agreed to any type of cap or even guaranteed reductions in CO2 emissions, and that's been their position for years.
i have to disagree
"They still haven't agreed to any type of cap or even guaranteed reductions in CO2 emissions"
*first reason: Per head of population, China's pollution remains relatively low - about a quarter of that in the US and half that of the UK.
-http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
*second reason
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $48000
China. GDP per head = $3,600
its like there is a pie. the us has already had a big lunch while china skipped lunch (the last 100 years of co2 emmissions). now there is a pie, and the US wants 4 times its share (of co2), dispite being more than 10 times full (as gdp). you guys are crazy, while you whinge, china is now the biggest manufaturer of solar panels, has the biggest investment in clean coal, and this from a third world country.
*first reason: Per head of
Per capita emissions are a red herring, ultimately - what matters are emissions in absolute terms, and China is the largest CO2 polluter on the planet right now. That said, if they agreed to a hard cap, I'd be more than willing to push for strong measures to shrink the per capita emissions in the US.
Really, so since the US emitted out of ignorance for 100 years, that somehow gives the Chinese the right to do so even if it fucks up the planet in the process?
They're also adding, what, a coal plant a year - and as I mentioned, they're already the single largest emitter of CO2 in the world. That's only going to get worse, by the way, as they pick up the "car culture" (as they are wont to do, from what I've read) and start demanding increasingly large amounts of electricity and energy.
a counter example
counter example: a small country like... canada, has the right to emit the same as america?
i guess my point is, how do you decide how much each country should emit, ie whats fair.
i "claim" that each person should get the same co2 rights, and if canadians have extra, they can sell it to america.
if we follow your method, and what matters is absolute terms, then your arguing taiwon (20 million) should have the same rights as china (1.4 BILLION)...
oh and by the way, NO country holds your position, what they are disagreeing on is the amount per gdp each person should get (richer countries want more, china says we're poorer etc).
"Really, so since the US emitted out of ignorance for 100 years, that somehow gives the Chinese the right to do so even if it fucks up the planet in the process?"
no. if the US (and europe too) cut their emissions then there will be no problem. modernising your country (with roads, bridges, trains) is energy intensive.
Sigh. You and Friedman really
Sigh.
You and Friedman really need to get over your China worship. Sure, it might seem like a nice ideal that instead of flying off on your private jets from your 20-room mansions to Davos or Aspen to lecture the common folk on what's best for them that you could instead simply issue 5-year plans for your Great Leaps Forward, and not have to worry about the messy business of democracy and accountability in government. And if you look at history this ideal always appeals to a large subset of elites; one of the most popular politicians in the US for the elites prior to WW2 was Mussolini. Except, you know, the next set of elites with that sort of power may be led by Sarah Palin or her ilk; what then?
And, I mean, you have to admit there's something a bit off about a guy who makes his bank by marrying a shopping mall heiress and then writes about the evils of American consumerism (kind of like Michael Moore making a movie about the evils of overeating).
It's a tough sell. You're asking people in an environment with 20% real unemployment to lose millions more jobs in exchange for preventing the possibility of a small rise in temperatures that will likely take place after many of them are dead. It's a tough sell; I'm not saying you're wrong for trying to make it, and I get the national security implications, which are very serious. Then again, if it really is a national security issue why are we doing everything we can to prevent energy exploration and nuclear power?
And, here's the thing: You've got the numbers; you've got the Executive, you've got Congress, even a Senate supermajority. So, what's the problem? If there really is a dire emergency, why can't your guys and gals vote the courage of their convictions? Sure, they may pay a political price, but what's that in exchange for saving the world?
Alternatively, you could swear off this dream of being like China and issuing edicts from on high and really really try to convince the American people; but, I'm telling you, lecturing the folk between sips of champagne from Davos just isn't going to do it. You're not going to convince people until you all start living your convictions. This might be harder and more inconvenient than installing a totalitarian dictatorship and issuing orders from the elites, but trust me, there's really something to be said for holding government accountable to the people.
So, maybe you all start living like there's a dire emergency to raise awareness; maybe Bill Clinton declares he won't fly on private jets for a year, maybe Friedman sells the 20-room mansion and declares he's going to spend his life living like the Yanamano Indians?
Running Circles?
I disagree that Hu is running circles around Obama as the title of this article suggests. Obama hasn't even been in office for a year. Then this article primarily aims at the US Congress which is a more accurate target to have in your cross hairs.
Still, China has historically used language that implies that they will act one way and then act another. Your point about filling the leadership void is an interesting way of looking at it and it is important to acknowledge that it is absolutely true that if the US actually wants to remain as the leader of the international system it should embrace green technology and consciously choose to lower its emissions.
Which again brings us back to the internal dynamics of both countries and why it is so difficult for one to move in that direction and so (ostensibly) easy for the other to. I don't believe that it is Obama that is the problem, I think that the US has a huge historical dilemma that has taken years to get it to where it is now. Congressional representatives sell their soul and write laws for the corporate interests that pay them. As is the debacle that health care has become, so to will it be that energy lead in a similar direction.
Then the pendulum will swing back and the GOP will gain power, fall in line, and pass everything the GOP president wants and we will fall farther behind. It's not about progress, it's about power. Perhaps a cynical way of looking at it but I haven't seen anything to my knowledge that suggests otherwise.
As the last president said: "It would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship... so long as I was the dictator." Hear, hear!
You have to overlook Mr. Rothkopf's article titles
lest you be led to think they reflect his thinking on an issue.
The largr picture
. . . is the alternate style of government that China is presenting to the world.
Up to this point, they're providing evidence that their party-run state can cope with major problems much more efficiently than the "world's greatest democracy." Or democratic India, for that matter.
I doubt that China is interested in leading some new ideologically motivated block of nations (the less free but more effective world?) but their example is what counts.
Many people around the world can look at China, and Singapore, for that matter, and conclude that the "Asian model" works better than the bumptious American model -- where a jumble of internal power blocs determine policy rather than a clear-headed assessment of the situation.
its early days yet
democracy has a tendency to be resilient... poor governments have a greater chance of getting the boot.
"it does not matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches the mouse"
look it up.
democracy, communism, monarchy, dictatorship, it doesnt matter, as long as the guy on top is good (smart, has integrity, has balls)