Leading emitters failing the world

For quite a while, China and the US have been linked together and put under the global spotlight due to both their global economic and climate impacts. However, they belong to different economic bloc, the South and North. The US, as the largest developed country, has been widely criticized for failing to fulfill its duty and take the leadership in fighting the climate crisis.  On the other hand, China, though already implementing massive domestic action to turn its low-carbon vision into reality, is blamed for using its status as a developing country as an excuse to continue polluting the world, something not accepted by much of the developed world.

China has, more than once, highlighted its status as a developing country at the Tianjin UNFCCC conference, which was concluded on Friday. This position is the fundamental reason for its not choosing to cap its emissions for absolute reductions but only to slow down the growth of emissions. However, its domestic targets to reduce carbon intensity of per unit GDP by 40-45% by 2020 have been mostly recommended globally, and the implementation of the ambitious targets will go through provincial-level efforts, to ensure the national goal is realized through this top-down approach.

Facing similar concern as China that emissions caps will have an impact upon GDP, the US has been lagging behind China after failing to pass the climate bill this year.  Despite this, the fact is that climate action plans have been designed and even executed at the sub-national state levels through the bottom-up approach, and climate efforts at the federal level are still actionable through the Clean Air Act and other related legislation.

Now the question is whether the climate issue should be perceived as a global one or just an issue connected between China and the US. Whether the two big nations are ready to stand up to take the leadership of the global climate efforts if they are entrusted with this privilege. Or if they fail in their duties, shall the whole world lose confidence in fighting climate change and overlook all efforts which have been, are and to be done on the ground even without any international deal.

The problem is that the whole world, influenced by media coverage, has given too much attention to climate negotiations, whose results are unfortunately decided by national interests rather than global interests. Most delegates negotiate for their countries' interests rather than the global interests or precisely the interests of the whole mankind. So in the near term, there is only a slim chance of reaching a deal.

The lack of progress at the UNFCCC conference in Tianjin has reduced hopes for a successful meeting in Cancun, Mexico in two months' time. If trust in governments' attempt to collaborate is lost, we have instead to look to people working on the ground and projects at home.

Pictured: Jonathan Pershing, US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change and Chief US negotiator and China's Chief negotiator Su Wei

UN climate delegates warned against carbon market

Three NGOs jointly urged on Friday that UN climate delegates stop using carbon markets as an approach in combating climate crisis, and warned
that more harm than benefits stem from the market mechanism.

The warning came during a news conference, a joint effort of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), the Friends of the Earth (FOE), and The EU Forest Campaign (FERN), at the Tianjin UNFCCC conference a day ahead of its conclusion.

 "Carbon as a commodity into the same poorly regulated global markets that so recently tore apart developing country economies and pushed a hundred million more people into hunger is highly irresponsible," said IATP President James Harkness.

"There is a proposal here at the UNFCCC to introduce carbon credits from forests into carbon markets, but in reality, they do nothing to reduce emissions, and should not be counted as offsets," said Kate Dooley, Forests and Climate Campaigner at FERN, adding that "even offsetting is not mitigation."

Dooley argued that developed countries have agreed to offer, without conditionality, financial support to help the developing world fight against climate change. And thus the North using money to buy carbon credits from the South is wrong, she said, adding that it won't solve the problem and is bad for the South.

Nick Berning, Director of Public Advocacy and Communications, said that using carbon markets compromises climate integrity, and is subject to credit fraud and abuse, and will cause bribery for credit verifications. Issues like the uncertain nature of financial markets and high overheads will make carbon markets work less efficiently than the public fund, he added.

The organizations also argued that there are many other alternatives to carbon markets to raise funds for mitigation projects. Their opposition to carbon markets becomes noticeable and adds controversy to the issue, especially at a critical moment when the financial tool has been highly valued for its role in the global efforts in mitigating GHG emissions.

China has just announced that it will soon issue a provisional regulation on voluntary carbon trading, paving the way for creating a regional sector-based carbon market in the near term. This policy signal has long been awaited and widely welcomed, and is expected to create financial incentives for energy-efficiency and emissions-cutting tasks at provincial levels in China, contributing to the country's overall carbon intensity reduction target by 40-45% by
2020. 

Carbon markets, especially its progress in China, have created heated discussions at several side events during the Tianjin UN conference.

pictured: L-R Nick Berning, Director of Public Advocacy and Communications from the Friends of the Earth, James Harkness: President of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and Kate Dooley from the EU Forest Campaign

UNFCCC side event spotlights China carbon market

Top officials of China's three climate and environmental exchanges have shown up at two UNFCCC side events held two days in a row in Tianjin, stealing the limelight of other activities at the climate change talks.

China has yet to implement a national cap on emissions and currently all carbon credits are being traded voluntarily. Even so, the prospects of China's carbon market have become a hot issue due to the huge market potential and lucrative opportunities for business people beyond national boundaries.

In China's latest national drive to pursue a low-carbon experiment in five provinces and eight cities, the country intends to trial a carbon market within
the low-carbon pilot areas and only for some certain economic sectors. The power industry is one potential sector where the pilot initiatives will be employed. The power industry often has a better record and availability of economic data and is better prepared to demonstrate carbon trading.

However, Yi Gang Wang, Deputy General Manage of China Beijing Environmental Exchange said, "in my own opinion, I cannot understand the (geo-economic) logic of operating a carbon market within the low-carbon pilot areas."

Mr. Wang gave a detailed presentation on October 7th on the key factors in deciding on the carbon price in China, and the implications of government policies such as subsidies and free credit allocation.

Asked whether improved performance of the three climate exchanges in Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai would send a signal demanding the government to cap emissions in the near term, Ms. Mu Lingling, Vice President of Tianjin Climate Exchange, responded from a different perspective. The key issue was not whether an emissions cap should be imposed or not, she said. It was instead, important to build a mature carbon market on the ground.

Ms. Mu said she was confident that experience and lessons drawn from China's CDM projects will give a boost to the country's ability in operating a carbon market in the near term.

Meanwhile, Miss Li Jin, Business Supervisor, Research and Development Department of the Shanghai Environment and Energy Exchange said China still needs to learn from overseas practices, such as EU ETS and RGGI, a power sector-focus carbon market covering 11 states in northeast United States, for trading standards and business-engaging mechanisms.

Will Tianjin climate talks build on COP15?

At the ongoing UNFCCC conference in the coastal city of Tianjin in northern China, negotiating parties are expected to use this last opportunity prior to their Cancun gathering to establish common ground for producing a climate agreement in Mexico in two months' time.  

Some progress has been made after the first three-days of negotiations, especially in shared visions and adaptation framework. Much of the talks focused on finance, technology and capacity building, making the Tianjin event appear pragmatic and productive. Less progress has been seen in the mitigation front, meanwhile loud calls for more balanced mitigation commitments have been aired.  

On the finance issue, doubts and uncertainty still remain about effective delivery of the support pledged by the developed world in Copenhagen to assist the developing world in combating climate change.

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord outlined two significant funding commitments from developed countries to finance adaptation, REDD + and technology transfer in the developing world. The first is a "Fast Start" investment of US$30 billion over three years. The other is a long-term commitment of US$100 billion per year by 2020. 

Contributing countries of the "Fast Start Finance" agreed that the funding would be "new and additional." However, there is a lack of a standard for the definition of "additional", and each donor nation has proposed its own definition.

Addressing this issue, China has pointed out that some committed finance stem from overseas development assistance of donor nations and thus does not meet the criteria of "new and additional".

At the same time, some less developed countries also challenged the scope and equity of the outflow of the Fast Start finance. They argued that those middle-income developing countries, which are not large enough like China and Brazil to have attractive climate projects, and meanwhile are not poor enough like Ethiopia to be given enough attention, fail to benefit from the Fast Start finance.

China was even cited to support this argument as 80 percent of CDM funding goes to five countries, 60 percent of which alone goes to China. 

In response, some experts from donor nations said that lack of capacity in some countries to deliver climate projects cannot justify the receipt of financial support. Though it has been said Fast Start finance will mainly support countries which are making efforts in low-carbon transition and those which are planning to pursue similar paths. But transparency and lack of criteria in finance allocation make many countries doubt its effectiveness, and whether it be properly supported by developed nations.

The fourteenth session of the AWG-KP and the twelfth session of the AWG-LCA are taking place from Monday 4th to Saturday 9th October 2010 at the Tianjin Meijiang Convention and Exhibition Center (MJCEC), Tianjin, China.

Can Google break China's censorship?

The strong Haiti earthquake and other events of similar weight might have stolen the limelight of Google China, which has decided not to filter its search engine results as required by the Chinese government, and prepared, as a consequence, to close its business in the world's leading internet market.

Google has been applauded by many Chinese people for its long-awaited courage to challenge the information censorship China relies on to tighten its control of people, allegedly for the sake of internal unification and domestic stability.

Chinese lay people have never been trusted by their government with the capability to make good judgements and tell right from wrong about what they read on the internet.

For thousands of years, people in this country seem to be told, and guided by the authorities as to what they should hear, see and read. 

As China becomes stronger, many people worry that the control over the flow of information will tighten too. And there are mixed reactions among Chinese people to the possible departure of Google. Some believe it may lead to increased government censorship while others argue that the potential departure may encourage the government to lessen its grip on the Internet.

There is no doubt that its leaving will be a great loss not only for Google's long-term business returns, but also for China's Internet industry and users. For many those who have used the variety of Google tools in their daily life and even work, it would not only mean a change of working habit, but also lead to a decrease of understanding of information technology.

This will bar Chinese netizens from accessing new technology and information development in an effective and efficient way. Whether this will enable the government to increase its control of this populous country is open to question.

Whatever decision Google China makes, it has already made its mark in the history of the Chinese Internet industry.