Prime Minister Rasmussen, Dear Colleagues,

At this very moment, billions of people across the world are following closely what is happening here in Copenhagen. The will that we express and the commitments that we make here should help push forward mankind’s historical process of combating climate change. Standing at this podium, I am deeply aware of the heavy responsibility.

Climate change is a major global challenge. It is the common mission of the entire mankind to curb global warming and save our planet. It is incumbent upon all of us, each and every country, nation, enterprise and individual to act, and act now in response to this challenge.

The past 30 years have seen remarkable progress in China’s modernization drive. Let me share with you here that China has taken climate change very seriously in the course of its development. Bearing in mind the fundamental interests of the Chinese people and mankind’s long-term development, we have exerted unremitting effort and made positive contribution to the fight against climate change.

China was the first developing country to adopt and implement a National Climate Change Program. We have formulated or revised the Energy Conservation Law, Renewable Energy Law, Circular Economy Promotion Law, Clean Production Promotion Law, Forest Law, Grassland Law and Regulations on Civil Building Efficiency. Laws and regulations have been an important means for us to address climate change.

China has made the most intensive efforts in energy conservation and pollution reduction in recent years. We have improved the taxation system and advanced the pricing reform of resource products with a view to putting in place at an early date a pricing mechanism that is responsive to market supply and demand, resource scarcity level and the cost of environmental damage. We have introduced 10 major energy conservation projects and launched an energy conservation campaign involving 1,000 enterprises, bringing energy-saving action to industry, transportation, construction and other key sectors. We have implemented pilot projects on circular economy, promoted energy-saving and environment-friendly vehicles and supported the use of energy-saving products by ordinary households with government subsidies. We have worked hard to phase out backward production facilities that are energy intensive and heavily polluting. The inefficient production capacity that China eliminated between 2006and 2008 stood at 60.59 million tons for iron, 43.47 million tons of steel, 140 million tons for cement and 64.45 million tons for coke. By the end of the first half of this year, China’s energy consumption per unit of GDP had dropped by 13 percent from the 2005 level, equivalent to reducing 800 million tons of carbon dioxide.

— China has enjoyed the fastest growth of new energy and renewable energy. On the basis of protecting the eco-environment, we have developed hydro power in an orderly way, actively developed nuclear power, and encouraged and supported the development of renewable energy including biomass, solar and geothermal energy and wind power in the countryside, remote areas and other places with the proper conditions. Between 2005 and 2008,renewable energy increased by 51 percent, representing an annual growth rate of 14.7 percent. In 2008, the use of renewable energy reached an equivalent of 250 million tons of standard coal. A total of 30.5 million rural households gained access to bio-gas, equivalent to a reduction of 49 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. China ranked first in the world in terms of installed hydro power capacity, nuclear power capacity under construction, the coverage of solar water heating panels and photovoltaic power capacity.

— China has the largest area of man-made forests in the world. We have continued with the large-scale endeavor to return to farmland to forest and expand a forestation, and made vigorous effort to increase forest carbon sink. Between 2003 and 2008, China’s forest coverage registered a net increase of 20.54 million hectares and forest stock volume rose by 1.123 billion cubic meters. The total area of man-made forests in China has reached 45million hectares, the largest in the world.

China has a 1.3 billion population and its per capita GDP has only exceeded 3,000 U.S. dollars. According to the U.N. standards, we still have 150 million people living below the poverty line and we therefore face the arduous task of developing the economy and improving people’s livelihood. China is now at an important stage of accelerated industrialization and urbanization, and, given the predominant role of coal in our energy mix, we are confronted with special difficulty in emission reduction. However, we have always regarded addressing climate change as an important strategic task. Between 1990 and 2005, China’s carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP were reduced by 46 percent. Building on that, we have set the new target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions on such a large scale and over such an extended period of time will require tremendous efforts on our part. Our target will be incorporated into China’s mid-and-long term plan for national economic and social development as a mandatory one to ensure that its implementation is subject to the supervision by the law and public opinions. We will further enhance the domestic-statistical, monitoring and evaluation methods, improve the way for releasing emission reduction information, increase transparency and actively engage in international exchange, dialogue and cooperation.

Dear Colleagues,

To meet the climate challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build consensus, make vigorous effort and enhance cooperation. And we must always adhere to the following three principles:

First, maintaining the consistency of outcomes:

The campaign against climate change has not just started. In fact, the international community has been engaged in this endeavor for decades. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol are the outcomes of long and hard work by all countries. They reflect the broad consensus among all parties and serve as the legal basis and guide for international cooperation on climate change. And as such, they must be highly valued and further strengthened and developed. The outcome of this conference must stick to rather than obscure the basic principles enshrined in the Convention and the Protocol. It must follow rather than deviate from the mandate of the “Bali Roadmap”. It should lock up rather than deny the consensus and progress already achieved in the negotiations.

Second, upholding the fairness of rules:

The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities “represents the core and bedrock of international cooperation on climate change and it must never be compromised. Developed countries account for 80 percent of the total global carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution over 200 years ago. If we all agree that carbon dioxide emissions are the direct cause for climate change, then it is all too clear who should take the primary responsibility. Developing countries only started industrialization a few decades ago and many of their people still live in abject poverty today. It is totally unjustified to ask them to undertake emission reduction targets beyond their due obligations and capabilities in disregard of historical responsibilities, per capita emissions and different levels of development. Developed countries, which are already leading an affluent life, still maintain a level of per capita emissions that is far higher than that of developing countries, and most of their emissions are attributed to consumption. In comparison, emissions from developing countries are primarily survival emissions and international transfer emissions. Today, 2.4 billion people in the world still rely on coal, charcoal, and stalks as main fuels, and 1.6 billion people have no access to electricity. Action on climate change must be taken within the framework of sustainable development and should by no means compromise the efforts of developing countries to get rid of poverty and backwardness. Developed countries must take the lead in making deep quantified emission cuts and provide financial and technological support to developing countries. This is an unshirkable moral responsibility as well as a legal obligation that they must fulfill. Developing countries should, with the financial and technological support of developed countries, do what they can to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change in the light of their national conditions.

And third, paying attention to the practicality of the targets:

There is a Chinese proverb which goes, “A one-thousand-mile journey starts with the first step.” Similarly, there is a saying in the West which reads, “Rome was not built in one day.” In tackling climate change, we need to take a long-term perspective, but more importantly, we should focus on the present. The Kyoto Protocol has clearly set out the emission reduction targets for developed countries in the first commitment period by 2012. However, a review of implementation shows that the emissions from many developed countries have increased rather than decreased. And the mid-term reduction targets recently announced by developed countries fall considerably short of the requirements of the Convention and the expectations of the international community. Itis necessary to set a direction for our long-term efforts, but it is even more important to focus on achieving near-term and mid-term reduction targets, honoring the commitments already made and taking real action. One action is more useful than a dozen programs. We should give people hope by taking credible actions.

Fourth, ensure the effectiveness of institutions and mechanisms:

Concrete actions and institutional guarantee are essential to our effort on tackling climate change. The international community should make concrete and effective institutional arrangements under the Convention and urge developed countries to honor their commitments, provide sustained and sufficient financial support to developing countries, speed up the transfer of climate-friendly technologies and effectively help developing countries, especially small island states, least developed countries, landlocked countries and African countries, strengthen their capacity in combating climate change.

I wish to conclude by underlining that it is with a sense of responsibility to the Chinese people and the whole mankind that the Chinese government has set the target for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. This is a voluntary action China has taken in the light of its national circumstances. We have not attached any condition to the target, nor have we linked it to the target of any other country. We will honor our word with real action. Whatever outcome this conference may produce, we will be fully committed to achieving and even exceeding the target.

Thank you.

… something that more than a few people have been wondering if we needed more of.

Traveling with my boss from CEIBS, our pitch is titled “Building a Sustainable Curriculum for Sustainable Leadership”, and the core of our message is going to be that curriculum’s that move from leaders focused on pure economic growth to ones which develop engagement, awareness, capacity, and scale  around the issues of sustainability will produce the new brand of leaders.

Won’t say anything more, but look for some live blogging of the event, and for those of you who are headed to the main event.. I help you out with some restaurant tips as well.

Even prior to the recent announcements from Singapore though, many had already begun gaming the outcomes, and hyping the need for China and the US to drive an agreement.  ANY AGREEMENT.

There have been countless articles offering analysis on what may happen.  Articles that are typically (Yes, I am stereotyping) one sided and promote either the views of the West (led by the U.S.) that China needs to step up to the plate or views from the developing world (led by China) that the West needs to own up to their past.

Recently, as part of their effort to help their clients understand the issues, Edelmen’s Shanghai Office developed their own white paper Leading to COP15: Understanding China’s position on climate change.  The goal of the project was to:

I am currently working on a White Paper on China’s climate policy and negotiation stance leading up to the COP15 talks in December. While a lot has been said recently about China’s green leadership, our aim is to provide a more “holistic” picture of what the issues and landscapes are on the ground in China, and how these are likely to influence China’s negotiation position in Copenhagen.

At 8 pages, this paper offers what I feel are some great insights for firms who are operating in China, or who are trying to understand the “China position“.  It is a paper whose bias is very middle ground, and does not look to promote either side (Chinese or West/ Environmentalist or Skeptic), but offers a pragmatic view of the issues that China is facing and how those issues define its approach.

One of my favorite conclusions being:

In short, to better engage stakeholders in China, the climate change debate must be reframed in a way that resonates with individual worldviews.

[..]

For consumers worldwide, ‘green’ works best when it is connected with something more ‘reallife’. In China, this means issues like personal health and product safety, cost-savings and social status. There is great potential to stimulate  grassroots momentum in China if we can link climate change with things people experience every day, such as air pollution. But more than this, the debate needs to empower consumers around the impact that can be achieved if 1.3 billion people make small changes to their everyday lives. Using more energy-efficient light bulbs is but one example of a new action proposition, which appeals to householders’ desire to save money, while also having a measurable environmental impact.

Interviewed as part of the project, and quoted twice, I spent about 30 minutes speaking with them about my own perspectives, and given the recent announcement from Singapore I wanted to elaborate on one portion of the conversation that I feel was most relevant to the apparent back step that was taken.

In the first line of report, I am quoted as saying “Carbon is not the problem per se. Carbon is the by-product of a number of different issues around environmental and economic sustainability”

This is not a new line for me (as regular readers will know), however as I explained in other conversations, it is this point that I feel has not only been lost.. but ultimately is the reason for the collective step back.

In short, why I see this as the key issue is that as the world focuses on “carbon”, the ability to have a tangible conversation, develop tangible goals, create tangible steps forward, and take tangible measurements is largely lost as carbon is not actually the problem.

First, regardless of whether or not you believe “carbon” is the problem that should be focused on, it needs to be said that when we moved from carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, and nitrous oxide to “carbon”, and “carbon” based solutions it had an effect: It has one again removed the public from the conversation;  it has made it easier to refocus discussions to technologies yet to be developed; it has lumped a number of issues together and created a log jam; and more importantly, it has create an intangibility to discussions and reports that have undermined the programming process.  Stymied discussions on CORE issues like Urban Planning, transportation, manufacturing processes, and so on.

Second, regardless of whether or not you believe in global warming, or the effect humans have on this process, the entire process in the West has been driven by intangible emotional connections to polar bears, ice caps, and future scenarios of apocalyptic collapse.  Again, it has isolate citizens from the conversation, even when they are being impacted, It is not about what is happening today, but about what will occur somewhere else, at some time in the future, and being too big to do anything about… without technologies and multilateral agreements.

Finally, and this leads to the core problem, scope shift.  Look at reports from 18 months ago, and then compare those to now.  There has been a shift in the messages.  From messages that were focus on what happens, globally, should we not make structural changes to economies and make the long term investments, to who benefits from those investments.  What was once about common good, has now shifted to who benefits today.

So, to sum up, the process has been focused on the byproduct, is not tangible to the average citizen, is too big for anyone, but has the potential for HUGE local economic benefits that should not be forfeited to others.

No wonder leaders decided to step back and reevaluate.

As I wrote in the comments section in Yale 360′s analysis of the Singapore announcement, there are 5 steps I believe must happen for us to move forward to a point where we can move forward on real programs that yield real solutions

1) stop using climate change as if that is the CORE PROBLEM.
2) stop using distant emotional appeals for change.
3) stop using catch phrases and technologies of the future as the only options.
4) negative externalities need to begin being priced into the system.
5)  We need to decide what is the goal.
6) We need to stop telling citizens that they can go about their day, and their government will take care of it.

If we take these steps, and take the time to reframe not only the problems we face (and how to address those problems), then I think you will see progress in the right direction.  Governments will come together to develop targeted agreements, corporations will work to invest in solutions that offer maximum benefit vs. maximum financial return, and CITIZENS will be in a position to where they can effectively rejoiin the conversation.

Then, and only then, do I feel forums like COP15 will be their most effective.

U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders have agreed that they have run out of time to forge a treaty on greenhouse gas reductions at next month’s global warming summit in Copenhagen. The summit’s chairman, Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen, is now pushing instead for a “politically binding” agreement.

Is Copenhagen a bust? Where does the world—and China—go from here? What CO2 emissions targets are reasonable and acceptable to the Chinese government? How might climate change affect China and what kinds of impacts could be expected if nations fail to seriously rein in carbon emissions? A panel of experts will address these and other questions. The panel is being finalized and details will be confirmed later.

Panel
1. Wu Changhua, director, Climate Group Greater China
2. Hu Angang, Tsinghua University economist and leader of a climate policy thinktank
3. Leszek Sobkowiak, water expert and visiting scholar at Chinese Academy of Sciences
4. US embassy – to be confirmed

Opening remarks
Danish Ambassador Jeppe Tranholm-Mikkelsen

DATE (changed): Tuesday, November 24
TIME: 1.30pm
VENUE: Danish embassy (address below)
ENTRANCE: free to FCCC members, 50 rmb on the door to non-members
REGISTRATION: email fcccadmin@gmail.com to reserve your place and for security clearance

…. the COP15 talks, which will try to establish a global action plan for mitigating carbon emissions, are expected to have a positive impact on the global clean technology sector even without a comprehensive global agreement necessarily being reached

A few issues with the above quote, from a recent Cleantech Press Release:
1) Are we now focused on reducing carbon emissions? I thought it was carbon dioxide that was the problem… or is the word dioxide now adding too much complexity to messages?

2) What is the goal of COP15? Is it, as I would hope, supposed to be a forum where issues surrounding the mitigation of negative human influences are to take place? Or are we just going to scrap the idea that this is a wider issue than “carbon” and it will require more than “cleantech”

Don’t get me wrong. I am a fan of new technologies, hybrid cars, and solar panels as products that are certainly improvements over previous options, but I think we are one again positioning the issues in the wrong direction.

We are moving away from having deep discussions towards topical items with fancy names that will bring little real benefit to the masses.

Discussions I seem to have locally, but I have yet to see occur on the global stage, and given the fact that there are environmental failures occurring now more frequently and in larger scales, I think we really need to begin working on what the real goals of forums like COP15 are.

…and how it has come to be that we are no longer talking about issues wider than carbon.

Carbon is not the problem. Carbon Dioxide is a byproduct of problems.

Perhaps one of the most experienced persons on the issues, in China, his background lends his thoughts significant weight:

For more than two decades, Dr. Yang Fuqiang has been a participant in the energy and climate change discussion in and around China. His career began as a researcher at the National Development and Reform Commission, the Chinese government’s main economic planner, and continued for three decades in the realm of energy and the environment. Formerly head of the Energy Foundation’s China office, he is now director of global climate solutions at the World Wildlife Foundation.

In short, he comes from one of the most powerful agencies in China, and is now working on the other side of the aisle trying to get his former colleagues to embrace and engage on the issues that will be front and center in Copenhagen.

And of all the questions asked and answered as part of his interview, the ones that should garner the most attention are:

Even with a successful Obama-Hu meeting, do you expect any substantive agreement at Copenhagen between countries?
This time, no. Even though the WWF position is positive, and still says we’d like to find something, but the reality is I don’t think it’s going to happen.

What’s the best thing that could happen at the conference?
The best thing is if all the countries’ leaders or some ministers are open, and they find a final decision and say the UN has the authority to carry out these [emissions] reductions for the coming years. They have to have something, some political declaration saying they will move. Otherwise the UN cannot do it. They can say, next year, the next five years, we will get a new deal. The US is not ready yet. The Congress has too many differences with other countries.

Now, without saying anything more on the inteview -except that you should read it – I wuld like to say that this interview for me is a lens into the problems that we face going forward.  That while there is clearly an environmental case fofr change, the topic of conversation is still solely focused on carbon.

As if carbon is THE problem itself.

.. and it is this focus on CARBON that I personally believe is the core reason why little has been accomplished, and why I fear little will be accomplished at COP15.

It is not that negotiators don’t want to do a deal, or that they cannot agree that there is a pressing problem.  It is that the problems that each side of the table faces – the US (representing developed nations) and China (representing undeveloped nations.

That, if we are to make progress, COP 15 needs to be about something more than carbon.  About the core issues that are actually responsible for creating the emissions in the first place, and while there certainly should be a portion of the event devloted to mitigating the effects of carbon through CCS, cap & trade, etc, the core focus should be on creating economies that do not emit carbon in the first place.

Were the conversations to change focus, and I am not the only one hoping this change is made, then I would be more optimistic.  However, I am not going to hold my breath that this change will be made.