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?
Greenpeace China photo of action for #COP in Beijing
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:
A highly-industrialized China is going to need to emit carbon. Regulation of carbon emissions will mean regulation of industrial development, a road China will not choose on its own. This article is too one-sided, not much worth in the long run. It makes Obama out to be a messiah or something. Maybe in America he is, but for the rest of the world, not even.
At Baidu, user zhangyanwu007 finds some common ground in criticism being made of China:
China has been accused of “hijacking” negotiations at the Copenhagen climate change summit, and I can completely understand why some countries would see it that way. Even though China is still a developing country, it can't use that as an excuse to disregard the objectives set for the Copenhagen climate change summit. China is a developing country, but it's not a superpower, and with the world's greatest population, its pollution levels are quite serious. So the reasons for it to be responsible also surpass those of any other country on earth. The Copenhagen climate change summit was not meant for haggling a bargain, but a meeting for taking responsibility for the existence of humanity. People should not be shirking their responsibility or looking for excuses, instead they should be brave and accept their responsibility!
More typical this week is the kind of articulate retort given by Wykehamist blogger Jiong:
My view is simple and straightforward: say whatever you want, China wasn't sincere about attending Copenhagen, so what? Was America? Didn't America openly refuse to take part in the Kyoto Protocol or any agreement like it? As a developing country with a fourth of the CO2 emissions per person of America, and half that of the ever green-talking Europe, why on earth should China commit itself to reducing emissions? Or do white people have the right to emit twice or four times as much carbon dioxide as yellow people?
[…]
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:
ayuze:
哥本哈根是谁的胜利?我想肯定不是全人类的胜利。
Just who was the winner coming out of Copenhagen? I think it definitely wasn't a victory for humankind.
kevin:
就算达成协议又如何?有无认真执行有系另一回事!呢d系天朝系人所皆知家啦!
So what if they had reached an agreement? Whether or not it would be strictly implemented is a completely different story. This is something that all Chinese understand very well.
answer:
这篇文章是想说,全是中国的错?
So this article just wants to say that everything is China's fault?
海天四望/Gazing across the ocean:
这篇文章告诉人们,中国要走向强国,道路曲折。
This article tells us that China needs to move to become a stronger nation, it's time to change direction.
Even though the Copenhagen summit wrapped up a few days ago, different countries have now begun playing the blame game, criticizing each other, quite a contrast if all you've been reading have been Chinese media reports, [which have been reporting that] this agreement, albeit legally non-binding, was the option which best aligned with every country's national interest.
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.
Then Obama squirmed a lot, admitting in interviews with American media, that while the accord left him disappointed, but the main point of it being its political significance. Of course, while he didn't come out and criticize China, nor did he forget to remind everyone that China didn't take part in the negotiation process.
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.
Environmentalist Mark Lynas describes another scenario, a negotiation session in which this environmental consultant to the Maldives listened in. He says that at the time, leaders from 50+ nations were engaged in negotiations, but China alone sent only a foreign ministry official to take part, and in doing so, forced all leaders to wait while this official kept making phone calls to his superiors to give feedback and ask for instructions. And it was China who would not consent to be listed in the agreement as one of the developed countries with a target to reduce emissions by 80% before 2050. He described Obama's forlorn appearance, and the harsh reaction from German President Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, demanding to know why developed countries shouldn't be allowed to publicize their own reduction targets. In the words of this environmentalist, what followed proved that China acted correctly, because everyone on the outside then aimed their condemnations at the USA; by not declaring its share of the responsibility, it was in effect shirking it.
Commenter on Luqiu's piece Guo Jun responded with:
This government of ours is used to the empty rhetoric of big government and to seeking to maximize interests, being unwilling to take on responsibility, corrupt habits formed over the years…it's a pity that we here on earth long ago forgot the meaning of the word ‘dignity’. Whatever your reasons are, distancing yourself from universal values in the end will only make your rivals and other countries despise you even more!