Cleaner Greener China: Clean Technology, Green Products, New Ideas, Clean China

Given the number of post-COP commentaries that are taking place right now, I decided to scrap my own “I am disappointed, but not surprised piece” and move on to the post-COP snowball fight which is now taking place.

It is was one that Ed Miliband so thoughtfully started when he said that China ‘hijacked’ climate summit by blocking a legally-binding treaty

The procedural wrangling was, in fact, a cover for points of serious, substantive disagreement.

“The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that we will only construct a lasting accord that protects the planet if all countries’ commitments or actions are legally binding.

“But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this. That is why we did not secure an agreement that the political accord struck in Copenhagen should lead to a legally binding outcome.

“We did not get an agreement on 50 percent reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80 percent reductions by developed countries.

“Both were vetoed by China, despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries.”

He added: “The last two weeks at times have presented a farcical picture to the public. We cannot again allow negotiations on real points of substance to be hijacked in this way.”

A fierce volley that caught some in China off guard, but the valiant Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu quickly loaded up two of her own as the Chinese Counterattack:

She said the comments by an individual British politician — not mentioning Miliband by name — were an attempt to “shirk the obligations of developed countries to their developing counterparts and foment discord among developing countries, but the attempt was doomed to fail.”

Jiang said those responsible for the editorial should “correct their mistakes, fulfill their obligations to developing countries in an earnest way, and stay away from activities that hinder the international community’s cooperation in coping with climate change.”

er.. I think those failed to connect..

Go back a few months to my post about what I felt would happen at COP15, and then compare what actually did happen at COP15, and I think we could have all seen this coming… The Developed nations largely failed to understand, or work with, and the primary economic and environmental concerns of the developing nations.. and the developing nations naively believed that the developed nations would cut enough themselves that it would allow them the ability to develop in the same manner as everyone else had…

the recent FP Piece How China Stiffed the World in Copenhagen I think puts it best:

As Mark Twain reportedly said, there are three kinds of deceptions: lies, damned lies, and statistics. China has long been engaging in a dangerous game of manipulating important economic numbers and concealing domestic commercial realities. Despite all its progress over 30 years, Beijing is afraid to shine too bright a light in dark places, and even more afraid that outsiders might be allowed to do so. In important respects, the government actually embraces opaqueness as a perceived advantage. The thought of “transparent verification” was seen as the thin end of the wedge, allowing outside experts broad authority to peer into the workings of middle China. It would have caused Wen to feel the distinct pang of panic that guilty men feel when they realize the jig might soon be up.

The line that highlighted I think is the most critical piece as (1) this is a game that China has been playing for a LONG TIME.. and not just on climate change and (2) NO ONE took that into account. a point that FP covered in the paragraph previous:

The onus was now on Beijing to agree to standards of “transparent verification.” If it did not, poorer countries standing to benefit from the fund would blame China for breaking the deal. Clinton’s proposal had cunningly undermined Beijing’s leadership over the developing bloc of countries.

The entire “negotiation” itself was misguided insofar as it was clear in the run up, and during the event, that there was no common focus.  Core groups were clearly not working together as a team, but rather were throwing paper at each other from across the conference table.. and so, as a result, look for more volleys like this in the weeks to come (Even Cuba has managed to let one off at Obama).

Had they, and maybe I am being naive here myself, then perhaps the US and China could have worked out a new set of parameters that China could have worked with.  I am not talking about throwing out binding numbers (were that the real goal), but to help develop a system whereby China could effectively measure in a way that balanced their needs and capability (because we all know that local implementation/ monitoring/ reporting is tricky in China), and worked as a team.

It was a snowball that, while “cunning” and meant to draw their counterpart out from their Great Wall, was destined to fail before it was even delivered. It was a strategy that failed inside the hall, but is strangely hailed as a success in the media.

Next time, perhaps they will have the snowball fight ahead of time, and use that as an opportunity to (1) get all their hostilities towards each out of their system (2) release a bunch of pent up energy so that they can focus later in the afternoon and (3) use it as an excuse to cozy up to the fireplace afterwards and bond over some hot coco.