facebook twitter subscribe

ColumbiaJournalismReview Article

InsideClimate Oil Sands

See Our Stories on Reuters

Donate to SolveClimate News

Once a day
Get Articles by e-mail:

or subscribe by RSS

Also
Get Today's Climate by e-mail:

or subscribe by RSS

view counter

Guardian Article on China Emissions Plan Amounts to Wishful Thinking

Forbidden City Pollution

Those who stumbled across the recent Guardian article "China Considers Setting Targets for Carbon Emissions" probably did not fall off of their seats like I did. But at the very least you might have involuntarily raised an eyebrow, or two, and thought "huh, now that's a game changer."

For people who monitor developments in climate negotiations religiously, this article was practically heaven sent. But, upon closer examination, it proved little more than a manipulated quote and a very sexy, if misleading argument.

Beijing-based Jonathan Watts does not normally produce rubbish. He is an insightful, verging on conservative, journalist whose China stories tend to report developments which many on the ground or those familiar with China know of, but outsiders do not.

For those of us who, like Watts, depend on China-side developments in climate negotiations and other environmental news for our livelihood, the last three weeks have been a time of hunger. Ever since Chinese leader Hu and President Obama met in London during the G20, China has made nary a peep about the 500 pound white elephant that lives in Scandinavia, also known as Copenhagen.

What better way to wake people up Sunday morning than with the news that "China considers setting targets for emissions"?

However, the devil is in the details, as they say, so let's take a look at this article.

The Chinese government is for the first time considering setting targets for carbon emissions, a significant development that could help negotiations on a Kyoto successor treaty at Copenhagen later this year, the Guardian has learned.

Intriguing news. But, unless things have changed dramatically since the beginning of Communist China, if not earlier, the government typically does not rely on foreign newspapers to carry internal party changes on specific political positions. That's the role of China's state-run media, and only after the news has been sufficiently sanitized of detail and intrigue to warrant it all but completely pedestrian, rather than newsworthy.

Watts goes on to say:

Su Wei, a leading figure in China's climate change negotiating team, said that officials were considering introducing a national target that would limit emissions relative to economic growth in the country's next five-year plan from 2011.

That sentence starts factually enough. Su Wei is, indeed, a "leading figure in China's climate change negotiating team." His attendance in Bonn and various comments made on the public record (which we’ve written about before) attest to Su's importance in the negotiation process.

But did he tell Watts "officials were considering introducing a national target that would limit emissions" in the next five-year plan?

Maybe. But, the key is deciphering the intended meaning from what is implied.

China’s current five-year plan will conclude in 2010. Officials from the NDRC will meet well in advance to decide the policies that will guide the 12th five-year plan, from 2011-2015, suggesting that the timing is not totally unaligned with the Copenhagen schedule.

However, considering how previous five-year plans have been formulated, it would be very unusual to announce plans and features of the next five-year plan externally. Moreover, to do so even as early as December be premature by Chinese government standards, as details of new five-year plans typically do not surface more than a year prior to implementation, at the annual legislative NPC session.

Finally, we have the piece de resistance, a direct quote from Su Wei. He says, referring to emissions targets:

"It is an option. We can very easily translate our [existing] energy reduction targets to carbon dioxide limitation. China hasn't reached the stage where we can reduce overall emissions, but we can reduce energy intensity and carbon intensity."

(No subject)

from a doubtful conservative

Elizabeth
Thanks for your comments.
It is the first time in my life I have been called a conservative. I can just about live with that, but I question your claim of inaccuracy.
I don't think I went beyond saying that the setting of a carbon target in the next five-year plan is under consideration by the government. I make it clear that the target is likely to be one of intensity (emissions-relative-to-GDP) rather than an overall reduction.
Su Wei (who is a man by the way) was more positive about this than I expected, though, as you note, discussions have a long way to run.
The proposal to include a carbon target for the first time has been formally tabled by Hu Angang. While Hu is definitely not a mainstream voice in the government, he was one of the prime minister's advisers during the drawing up the current five-year-plan.
I thought this topic was interesting precisely because deliberations are usually conducted behind closed doors and because a reduction of carbon emissions relative to GDP is a possible area of compromise in Copenhagen.
Jon

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <h1> <h2> <h3> <ul> <li> <ol> <b> <i> <p> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Youtube and google video links are automatically converted into embedded videos.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options