Role of China in Fighting Against Climate Change - Research Proposal Example

 Role of China in Fighting Against Climate Change 1. Introduction The climate change and its consequences as well as the policy responses have been the focus of attention for the global community in the recent years. The issue of global climate change addresses the ability of economies to reduce the emission of Greenhouse gases (GHG) in industrial production. Burning of fossil fuels, agriculture and deforestation may produce emission of Greenhouse Gases, which in turn, can be the reason for climate change. In response to this climate change, global economy seeks to implement this objective through voluntary GHG emission reduction targets. In order to obtain this target of reduction in the emission of Greenhouse gases, a developed country can look for consuming products and processes with high carbon intensities by importing the same from developing countries. As a result, the developing country has to increase its production of the product without having to worry about binding climate compliance (Helm, 2005). Since the developing nations have per capita energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission, which is only one sixth of the developed nations, they are argued to be not the main contributors of climate change problems (Reddy and Asenza, 2009). Figure 1 in appendix shows the emission of carbon dioxide by both high income and low-income countries which show that the developed nations are the main contributors of the emission of carbon dioxide. At the same time, the developing nations are the most vulnerable ones to the climate change consequences with the limited availability of resources for adaptation to climate change (IPCC climate change, 2007).Given this background, this essay discusses the role of developing nations particularly China in fighting against the climate change. 2. Kyoto Protocol The issue of effectively resolving the threat of climate change has been a major concern among the global economy for a long time. In 1992, the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro produced a historic treaty on climate change (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) that promised to reduce the concentrations of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Hass et al, 1992). The position regarding the reduction of greenhouse gases was that in spite of the cost involved, the emission of greenhouse gases would be reduced to deal with the risks caused by climate change. The agreement, signed by more than 186 countries, promised numerous subsequent rounds of climate negotiations aimed at keeping the emissions from industrialized countries back to the levels that prevailed in 1990.In 1997,the treaty’s implementing protocol, the Kyoto agreement, has delayed after the dilutions at negotiations in Bonn and Marrakesh(Biermann and Brohm,2005). However, the Kyoto Protocol, in its existing form, restricts only industrial countries except US for emitting greenhouse gases whereas developing countries like China and India have not taken any major responsibilities for reducing these emissions (Toman et al, 2003). In developing both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol, European Union has a major role (European Commission, 2008). India has been practising Green House Gas friendly policies for quite some time in her own interest. This was mainly due to India’s obligation to minimise the consumption of energy particularly oil consumption and to handle the problems associated with environment. Both the government and people either directly or indirectly, make these efforts to reduce the consumption of energy. The following are some of the efforts(Kumar etal,2001a) a) Greater importance given to conservation of energy b) Renewable sources of energy promoted. c) Reducing air pollution. d) Planting more trees and developing wasteland. e) Reform measures for economy, removal of subsidies in various items and joint ventures in capital goods. f) Fuel substitution policies. These efforts were continuing for a long period. Many policies were formulated and several programmes and institutions were created for institutionalizing these efforts(Kumar et al, 2001a, 2001b).India conceptualizes climate change as a development issue levels of economic growth, unless the current generation generates and sustains high future generations will inherit an earth that is highly vulnerable to climate change (Toman et al, 2003). Contrary to the developed nations, China and India joined to oppose the climate change mitigation commitments. They together opposed a discussion of climate change at the UN Security Council. They opposed the argument completely that climate change may have security implications. This stand can be argued as legitimate on the one hand based on the burden sharing architecture of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol which predicts about the growth of the share of global emissions originating in developing countries to meet their social and development needs’ (Toman et al, 2003). In these developing nations, many people are below the poverty line. Hence they are in the fight against poverty and to enhance economic growth and development is argued as the main priority for these nations (Reddy and Asenza, 2009). Based on the differences in the emission of CO2 between developed and developing nations, the UNFCCC has put forward the principle of common but differential responsibility in their policy instruments against climate change. Based on this principle, “developed countries are obliged to lead climate mitigation through national policies, make financial resources available to developing countries to meet the cost incurred in complying with the convention, and promote technology transfer to developing countries to implement the measures under the Convention” (Reddy and Asenza, 2009, p52). On the other hand, this stand taken can be argued as debatable since climate change will affect the poor nations the most. Moreover, in the developing nations, since majority of poor are in rural areas and are dependent on climate sensitive resources, climate change can affect these people badly (Kumar et al, 2001b). According to many reports , between 2004 and 2030 the CO2 emission by the developing nations will increase significantly so that they will be responsible for three quarters of the rise in global emissions and hence they will be ahead of the OECD nations in the emission by 2010 (UNFCCC,2007; Reddy and Asenza, 2009). The projected emissions given in figure 2 illustrate this. Reports show that the biggest emitter of CO2 overtaking USA will be China and India will be the third largest emitter overtaking Russia between 2003 and 2030(IEA,2005). Thus, the climate change policy has been a challenge to the developing nations. 3. China and Climate Change Policy In 2007, Chins became the largest emitter of CO2 in the world overtaking USA (ACCA, 2009). At the same time, in terms of per capita pollution, the amount is relatively low in China (ACCA, 2009). The argument of China is that since the nation has only low income compared to the wealthier developed nations and has low per capita emissions and low energy use per capita, they need to attain its objective of fighting poverty and needs to be in the path of industrialization. Moreover, according to their argument, the developed nations historically were the main contributors of the green house gas emissions and hence they have the historical responsibility for the climate change consequences due to the emissions rather than the developing nations like China (ACCA, 2009). Hence the developing nations and China in particular argues for public funds like Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Adaptation Fund, the Climate Investment Fund (CIF) and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) to support them in implementing climate friendly technologies and climate change adaptation measures((ACCA, 2009). Moreover, China sticks to the principle of sustainable development and hence demands the need for addressing climate change together with developmental objectives (Govt White Paper China, 2009). The Chinese government in 2007 released the Chinese National Plan for addressing climate change. The main objectives to be achieved by 2010 according to this plan are “Policies and measures concerning control of greenhouse gas emissions should achieve significant results, the capability of adaptation to climate change should be relentlessly enhanced, climate-change-related research should be promoted and new development should be made in scientific research related to climate change”( Govt White Paper China, 2009,p 3). Based on this plan, the Chinese government implemented several measures to control greenhouse gas emissions, increase climate change adaptation capacity, to promote R&D and to increase the awareness among public against climate change (Govt White Paper China, 2009). China has been actively participating in both bilateral and multilateral cooperation programmes to enhance international cooperation regarding climate change. For example, China has memberships in Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, Methane-to-Market Partner-ship and Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and active participant in meetings like Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, East Asia Summit (EAS) and Boao Forum for Asia (Govt White Paper China, 2009a). In cooperation with other developing nations like India and African nations, China sponsors many programmes like Clean Development Mechanisms to address climate change (Govt White Paper China, 2009a). The main climate change concern in China especially Beijing is reported as the local air pollution (Anas etal, 2009).Anas et al (2009) based on a nested multinomial logit model of car ownership and personal travel in Beijing in 2005 examined the effectiveness of different environmental pollution reducing policy instruments. The study obtained congestion toll and fuel tax as the most effective instruments for reducing air pollution and green house gas emissions . 4. India and Climate Change Policy According to the latest reports, India is one of the rapidly growing emitters of Greenhouse gases next to USA and China (PEW Centre on Global Climate Change, 2008). At the same time, India falls under the non Annexe 1 countries or developing countries group in the Kyoto Protocol. Hence, being a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, India does not have any binding commitment to reduce the carbon emissions under the Protocol. However, India is under international pressure for agreeing to some binding commitments or targets for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. The Ministry of Environment and Forests is in charge of coordinating climate change policy and activities as well as all activities related to environment. An Expert Committee on the impacts of climate change set up by Government of India headed by a scientist and 12 diplomats as well as the Council on Climate Change set up by the Prime Minister of India are the two special bodies, which deal specifically with climate change in India(Parikh and Parikh,2002). In addition, the National Action Plan on Climate Change has been released by the Indian Prime Minister on 2008, which concentrates on eight national missions for dealing with climate change related issues (Government of India, 2008). The Ministry of External Affairs is in charge of the international negotiations on climate change. This ministry headed by the External Affairs Minister represents India in most international negotiations on climate change. One of the main resources for energy in India is coal and next comes petroleum (Parikh and Parikh, 2002). Around 48 percent of the emissions are contributed by power sector followed by steel and transport. Moreover, estimates show that the richest 10 percent of Indian urban population emitted 12 times as much as 656kgC person per year. However, this is less than the world average and very below than the average of the developed nations (Parikh and Parikh, 2002). Studies show that India is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change particularly to three main consequences. They are the effects on agriculture, rising sea level and the natural disasters. Hence, climate change needs to be a serious issue for concern to us along with the other major social problems. Reports show that greenhouse gas emissions are going on rising with the ongoing economic reforms that aim at improving economic growth (Mc Kibbin, 2004). Studies have shown that the permit system for emission rights in India will result in a rise in costs in terms of sacrificing economic growth since most economic activities rely on energy here. The shift from cheap fossil fuels to expensive non-carbon energy will adversely affect economic growth and development (Prasad and Kochher, 2009). Recent estimates show that the cost for investment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 550 MtCO2 in the major energy emitting sectors cost S$25billion, which is equivalent to the amount needed for the development goals here(Prasad and Kochher,2009). The next possible option is carbon taxing. Taxing can be practically problematic since the taxes will be imposed on not only the emissions that are removed on the margin but on all emissions. Consequently, the income transfers from the firms to government will be very much larger than the costs of greenhouse gas emission abatements (McKibbin, 2004). Thus it can be shown that any form of abatement measure will impose significant costs in terms of sacrificing economic growth and development in India. This will not be a problem for developed nations, which have already achieved a high level of development in terms of all the indicators while in India, where most people live below the poverty line, sacrificing development means a lot. The position of India is that instead of agreeing to any legally binding commitment or stand will be to obtain a fair and equitable outcome based on common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities instructed in UNFCC. Further, the mitigation and adaptation measures need to be supported by finance and technology transfers from developed nations (Government of India, 2009). It is internationally recognized, however, that investing in climate change mitigation measures is a necessity rather than a luxury now and developing nations like India have to contribute their part in this global action. Hence, India needs to contribute in this regard and at the same time minimize the costs arising from this so that the development need not be affected considerably. The position of India therefore is instead of agreeing to any legally binding commitment or stand will be to obtain a fair and equitable outcome based on common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities instructed in UNFCC Further, the mitigation and adaptation measures need to be supported by finance and technology transfers from developed nations (Government of India, 2009). India has decided to join hands with China, which is another major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and its G7 partners. Both India and China refuse to accept any legally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since it will adversely affect economic growth in these countries (MySinchew, 2009). 5. Copenhangen Conference Since the 1991 Earth Summit at Rio De Genero and the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, the Copenhagen conference has been the latest of the UN conferences to achieve an international consensus in dealing with climate change (ACCA, 2009). In 2012, the first commitment under Kyoto Protocol ends and in this context, the aim of the Copenhagen conference was to prepare a global climate change agreement from 2012(ACCA, 2009). Before the Copenhagen conference, five negotiating sessions were conducted by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC (AWG-LCA) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) (IISD, 2009). However, only little progress was made in the AWG-KP since developing nations wanted reduction of greenhouse gas emissions due to their historical responsibilities while the developed nations wanted reduction in this regard by developing nations also to a great extent. Consensus was not achieved under the AWG LCA also though progress was obtained in this regard. One main feature of the Copenhagen conference was that it happened along with the global financial crisis, which is seriously restricting the competitiveness of domestic industries. Moreover, it has resulted in slowing down the investment in low carbon technologies and has delayed the plans for low carbon economy. Hence, the main challenge of the conference was to deal with the financial crisis and climate change at the same time (ACCA, 2009). The principle of common but differential responsibilities was again upheld by the developing nations in the conference especially in the light of the recent financial crisis. The Copenhagen agreement is not considered as a perfect one though it is considered as an important way to go ahead. The agreement suggested a bottom up approach where there is no quantified emission reduction targets for developing nations or no compromise between US and China((IISD, 2009). Instead, it only suggested need for developed and developing nations to submit their commitments together (IISD, 2009).Moreover the mitigation provisions for developed nations are also relatively weak compared to the Kyoto Protocol in the Copenhagen accord. The most significant feature of the Copenhagen accord however is the provision for short term and long term financing to developing nations by the developed nations through funds like the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund and a Technology Mechanism (IISD, 2009). Different nations adopted different positions in the conference. While EU and US want the issue to be integrated in the broader framework of international economic agenda, UK ignored the problems like cooperation between nations, cost benefit analysis, attempt for a global agreement etc. Their policy framework was based on low mitigation costs, which was actually obtained to be high in the economic studies. The proposed reduction in GHG emission by US is argued to be very low. The developing nations wanted the developed nations to commit for significant reduction in the greenhouse gas emissions based on their historical responsibilities while they were not willing to sign to any binded commitments. Thus, all the countries discussed above adopted different stands with regard to climate policy change. Hence, the Copenhagen agreement is reported as far from perfect(Dvorsky,2010). 6. Conclusion The discussion above shows that while developed countries mainly concentrate on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the developing nations especially China and India oppose the climate change mitigation commitments. This stand is mainly taken to deal with environmental problems as well as the developing nations’ obligation to minimize energy consumption along with the need to achieve developmental objectives. The developing nations see the climate change as a development issue. However, the stand taken by developing nations is still a debatable issue. This is because many studies have shown that developing nations are the nations to be worst hit by climate change. Moreover, the discussion shows that the developing nations especially China and India have become the biggest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions now overtaking the developed nations. Hence, after the rejection of Kyoto Protocol by US in 2001, the developing nations were under severe pressure to policy actions in this regard. Though many initiatives had been taken by the developing nations to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, even in the latest Copenhagen Conference they were not ready to sign any binded commitments based on the common but differential responsibilities. The developing nations demand the need for financing in relation to the investment in low carbon economy especially in the light of the recent financial crisis. Due to the failure in obtaining a global consensus regarding the agreement on greenhouse gas emissions, the Copenhagen conference is reported as far from perfect. Since climate change is going to be a serious issue affecting global economy as a whole, particularly the poor countries, an internationally integrated approach need to be taken in this regard. Appendices Appendix 1 Figure 1: CO2 Emission by Different Nations Source: Reddy and Asenza, 2009 Appendix 2 Figure 2: Emissions of CO2 by OECD and Non OECD Nations Source: Reddy and Asenza( 2009) References ACCA(2009): “ACCA Position Paper: The UN Climate Change Conference 2009(COP 15)”, August . Alex A, G R. Timilsina and S Zheng(2009): “An Analysis of Various Policy Instruments to Reduce Congestion, Fuel Consumption and CO2 Emissions in Beijing”, The World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5068. Biermann, F. and R. Brohm. (2005). “Implementing the Kyoto Protocol without the USA: The Strategic Role of Energy Tax Adjustments at the Border.” Climate Policy 4: 289-302. Dvorsky G(2010) : “Five Reasons the Copenhagen Climate Conference Failed”, http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20100110/, Accessed April 27 2010. European Commission. (2008). “2020 by 2020: Europe’s Climate Change Opportunity”. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2008) 30. Brussels, EC. Government of India(2008). “National Action Plan on Climate Change”. Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change. Government of India (2009): “The Road to Copenhagen: India’s Position on Climate Change Issues”, Public Diplomacy Division, Ministry of External Affairs, February 27. Govt White Papers China(2009): “Strategies and Objectives for Addressing Climate Change”, http://www.china.org.cn/government/whitepaper/2008-10/29/content_16682609.htm, Accessed April 27 2010. Govt White Paper China (2009a): “Enhancing international Cooperation on Climate Change”, http://www.china.org.cn/government/whitepaper/2008-10/29/content_16682609.htm, Accessed April 27 2010. Hass, P.M., Levy, M.A. and Parson, E.A., (1992) Appraising the Earth Summit: How should we judge UNCED’s success, Environment, 34(8):12–36. Helm,D Ed(2005) “Climate Change Policy”, UK, Oxford University Press. International Energy Agency (2005):”World energy outlook”. OECD/IEA, Paris, France. IISD(2009): “A Brief Analysis of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference-An IISD Commentary”, December , International Institute for Sustainable Development. IPCC, Climate Change (2007): “Mitigation”. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Kandilkar M and A Sagar(1997): “Climate Change Science and Policy: Lessons from India.” ENRP Discussion Paper E-97-08, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, August. Kumar, K.S. Kavi, Parikh, J ( 2001a). “Socio-economic Impacts of Climate Change on Indian Agriculture”, International Review for Environmental Strategies, 2(2). Kumar, K.S. Kavi, Parikh, J( 2001b) “Indian Agriculture and Climate Sensitivity”, Global Environmental Change, 11, pp. 147-154. Parikh J. and K Parikh (2002) “Climate Change: India’s Perceptions, Positions, Policies and Possibilities”, OECD seminar paper , OECD Paris, 30 pages. McKibbin WJ (2004): “Climate Change Policy for India”, Washington: The Brookings Institution. MySinchew(2009): “China extends hand to India on climate change”, Foreign  2009-12-03 17:12 , PEW Centre on Global Climate Change (2008): “Climate Change Mitigation Measures in India”, International Brief 2, September 2008. Prasad and Kochher, (2009): “Climate Change and India- Some Major Issues and Policy Implications”, Working Paper No.2/2009, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Reddy B S and Assenza G B(2009): “Climate change – a developing country perspective”, Current Science , VOL. 97, NO. 1, 10. Toman M., U Chakravorty and S. Gupta (eds) (2003) “India and Global Climate Change: Perspectives on Economics and Policy from a Developing Country”, UK, Oxford University Press. UNFCCC(2007): “Climate change: impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptation in developing countries”. Climate Change Secretariat, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2007. Read More