Before Chinese coal dust had time to settle on the snow in Denmark, China had been accused of hijacking negotiations at the Copenhagen climate change summit last month in an aim to protect its own economic interests.
Is China a convenient scapegoat for other major polluting economies? In an interview with Danwei, The Guardian Asia Environment Correspondent Jonathan Watts states: “China and the US, the world's two biggest emitters, came away happier as they can now continue emitting without legal constraints for a longer period of time, perhaps indefinitely.”
A number of articles in Watts’ newspaper this past week have held China chiefly responsible for what many see as the failure in Copenhagen to reach a more progressive agreement. But doesn't America's economic stability now rely on China's continued high-polluting economic growth? More interestingly, why is Beijing so touchy on the issue of foreign monitoring on Chinese soil of the country's progress in reducing emissions?
For a summary of some of the accusations against China, scroll down to veteran journalist's Rose Luqiu's December 25 blog post on the subject. The Guardian article accusing China of hijacking negotiations at Copenhagen was quickly translated and has been posted in a many number of online spaces; at FreeMoreNews.com, Nick Tung makes the comment that:
At Baidu, user zhangyanwu007 finds some common ground in criticism being made of China:
More typical this week is the kind of articulate retort given by Wykehamist blogger Jiong:
I think Chinese officials acted splendidly at the Copenhagen summit; this was the first time for me to see China be bold like Americans in standing up tough for its own interests. As old as Wen Jiabao is, he flew all the way to that crappy little backwater city for the meeting, and attended in full sincerity, knowing that it wouldn't have mattered if he attended all the meetings or just hid in a back room and slept through it all, that the outcome would have been the same, that being not much at all. All we need now is to get thicker skin and just ignore it when newspapers in second-tier countries like England publish idiotic reports that come out shouting and cursing.
Comments on the translated Lynas piece at the GZNF bbs read:
海天四望/Gazing across the ocean:
Journalist and Twitter user Rose Luqiu, in her post yesterday, ‘The post-Copenhagen era‘, writes:
虽然哥本哈根峰会已经结束了好几天,但是各国之间似乎又开始了blame game, 也就相互指摘,这让人的感觉反差很大,因为如果光看中国媒体的报导的话,这次的协议,虽然没有法律效率,但是却是最符合各国利益的唯一选择.
Though actually, it's not just England who has been pointing fingers at China; if you've been following English-language media reports since the climate change summit, you'll have seen that the Swedish Minister for the Environment also feels that China was the main factor which resulted in this legally non-binding agreement with no carbon emission reduction targets. English Climate Secretary Ed Miliband, writing in the British Guardian newspaper, flat-out used the word “hijack” to describe China, resulting in China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson to, without naming names, criticize him for stirring up trouble in relations between China and other developing nations. This has been seen as the first diplomatic squabble to come out of Copenhagen.
A statement like that is the complete opposite to information we've been getting from domestic media, with official media saying that clearly because America was not being insincere, would China repeatedly refuse to engage in direct talks with Obama, that it was Obama who forced his way into developing countries’ own process for negotiation, and that in the end it was only through China's mediation that such an agreement was ever born in the first place.
Commenter on Luqiu's piece Guo Jun responded with:
While I am used to see the Chinese government being insecure but the British/Euro reporters blaming China for the agreement reached at the Copenhagen is just shows how insecure the Europeans are.
Nevermind the developing nation’s argument that it was the developed nations which are responsible for majority of the eco-disasters we have today (that is if you believe global warming at all). Any real Environmentalist who actually followed the history of these summits can tell you that US wasn’t exactly sincere in its negotiations either. In fact, most of the big first world nations all don’t want the extra burden which would certainly make them less competitive, they were just too politically correct to say it.
Personally I feel it’s yellow peril all over again. The Brits are known for its past racism and its reporting on China manifests this:For the last two decades, when the US/European nation fights for its own interest and stalls the climate talks the Brit media didn’t behave like this. When developing nations try to look after themselves suddenly China is responsible for the tsunamis and destruction of the planet. China is but one nation in this world, since the Europeans love to view themselves as the more sophisticated leaders of the world, maybe the Europeans should ask themselves why can’t they lead this whole movement by restricting their own climates without forcing the developing nations to do the same first. Maybe the developing nations will follow their footsteps when they get wealthier.
While our carbon emission per capita is very low and we are doing great effort to reduce it,we never say that we have done good enough,we still have a lot to do to protect our glob and ourselves. Someboday addict to peeping us and sometimes crashed our filight and fell into our courtyard,how can we have them do the srutiny at random.No debate any more,let’s work together to save the glob you destroyed.