Enter the dragon

“One or twice a year we are invited to attend an important climate change event such as this one,” Mohammed Naseed, president of the Maldives, told a United Nations climate change summit in New York last week. “Deep down, we know you are not really listening.”

With every inconsequential summit on climate change, the chance of avoiding a potentially catastrophic rise in global temperatures, and of saving vulnerable countries like the Maldives from devastation, becomes slimmer. The world’s two biggest emitters of carbon, the United States and China—together responsible for 40 per cent of world emissions—are due to meet together with other UN member states in Copenhagen this December. It is becoming increasingly clear that the outcome of this climate conference is vital to the long-term prospects of mankind. Global carbon emissions have not gone down since the Kyoto protocol came into force in 2001; in fact since 1997 they have increased by 25 percent. The question is: how can global warming be counteracted if the two largest emitters cannot find a way of working together to combat it?

In April, the London G20 summit demonstrated that it is in fact possible for world leaders to work together to deliver a cohesive solution to a major global problem. But whereas the prospect of economic collapse had an immediate sobering effect on world leaders, climate change seems to have ended up on the bottom of the ‘to do’ list. The worst effects of global warming will be endured by our children and the next generation, and not the voters who decide the political fate of leaders such as Gordon Brown in forthcoming general elections. Expensive measures to combat climate change, potentially at the cost of jobs and services and with little immediately visible impact, are inevitably seen as a political risk.

It’s here that the Chinese government have a freer hand than their Western counterparts. An oft-quoted estimate has it that the Chinese economy needs to maintain an annual growth rate of eight percent to ward off large-scale civil unrest, and political tensions continue to bubble in many parts of the country. But Hu Jintao’s government, freed from the need to win re-election in an open vote, are able to pursue long-term goals with relative impunity.

The ambitions of China’s leaders extend far beyond rocketing economic growth and raising living standards to western levels. As proved by the enormous importance attached to last year’s Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government is intent on securing international prestige and authority to match the country’s economic might. This might be a reason why their leader has pledged to reduce China’s carbon intensity and emissions by “a notable margin” by 2020, and to focus more on renewable and nuclear energy. The last point is vital, as China’s GDP is growing at a fast pace, its emissions and energy needs are likely to continue to grow for the foreseeable future.

However, the recent details of the country’s plans lead to hopes that their government might take a serious stance on one of the most pressing issues of the 21st century. Yvo de Boer, the UN’s leading climate official said he expected Beijing to become the “world leader“ when it came to dealing with climate change.

Whether the United States, who failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, will have anything to bring to the table will be dependant on the passage through Congress of the Waxman-Markey bill, which pledges a cut in emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. Since its approval by the House of Representatives, the bill has stalled in Washington’s upper chamber, where bills on climate change tend to be regarded with less concern for the latest scientific evidence than for the powerful political interests vested in industrial and financial institutions. It looks increasingly unlikely that any legislation will be in place before Copenhagen, leaving Barack Obama unable to commit to firm targets on emissions cuts, and making the US a threat to the passing of a multilateral treaty.

China’s refusal to commit to any reduction in carbon emissions in 2001 served as an excuse for the American Senate not to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Ironically, we might end up seeing a second failure by the Americans to pledge anything of substance in Copenhagen providing the Chinese with a lead role on international climate change.