Today’s guest reposting is by CAP’s Julian L. Wong author of “Peaking Duck: Beijing’s Growing Appetite for Climate Action.” In the photo, Chinese workers prepare decorations ahead of the 60th National Day celebrations in Beijing, China.
This week marks the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. The first 30-year phase was one of revolution, marked by one bloody internal purge after another, but the next 30-year phase was one of pragmatism, which underpinned economic and social reform leading to unrivaled rates of economic growth.
China now finds itself at a crossroads. As the country struggles to come to terms with its imminent status as a global superpower, it is staring in the face of vast, systemic resource challenges. China faces a triple threat to its energy, water, and food security, and there is one common thread: climate change.
In the case of energy, an overexploitation of coal””and increasingly oil””to fuel its economic expansion is the root cause of rapid growth of greenhouse gas emissions. The resulting change in climate is in turn altering precipitation patterns, leading to flash floods in some areas but exacerbating droughts in large parts of others, an urgent predicament for a many land-locked regions that are already water-scarce. Such water scarcity, together with noxious acid rain caused by fossil fuel combustions, will in turn choke off agricultural productivity, threatening future food supplies.
This food-water-energy “trilemma” will threaten physical security and disrupt economic and social stability, which is the very foundation of the China Communist Party’s authority. Beijing fully grasps these implications and has turned its stance from one of climate denier to that of an emerging frontrunner in climate action in just a few years. Few noticed in 2007 when President Hu Jintao espoused the goal of creating an “ecological civilization” that strikes harmony between man and nature. It would be easy to chalk this up as just another example of the central government’s colorful slogans. Yet, action has followed rhetoric.
China has embarked on some of the world’s most aggressive energy efficiency, renewable energy development and reforestation programs through its landmark National Climate Change Program of 2007. Over the five-year period ending 2010, it plans to reduce its energy consumption per unit of its gross domestic product by 20 percent, obtain 10 percent of its primary energy from non-fossil fuel sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower, and bulk up its carbon sinks by increasing forest cover to 20 percent.
What’s more, President Hu has just announced intentions for China to reduce carbon emissions per unit of GDP from 2005 levels by a “notable margin” by 2020. Recognizing the strategic job-creating opportunities of innovating, manufacturing, deploying and disseminating the clean-energy technologies of the future, President Hu also pledged to transform China into a “green economy, low-carbon economy and circular economy.”
China’s tide of Western-style development will still be difficult to stem. When I visited Beijing earlier this month with a delegation from the Center for American Progress, both State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Vice Chairman Xie Zhenhua of the National Reform and Development Commission assured us that China would not take the traditional energy-intensive development path. Yet even with its lofty green goals, it is difficult to imagine how it has not already.
China is already the world’s biggest market for building construction and automobile sales. This situation is unlikely to change. China is witnessing the largest scale of human migration in the history of civilization, with 350 million rural residents moving to the city by 2030. And this urbanization is coming with a shift in emphasis from exports to domestic consumption as an engine of future economic growth.
China will have to take at least three major steps to truly develop a green, low-carbon and circular economy:
1. Show bold, visionary leadership to set China on a long-term path to reduce absolute emissions, not just emissions per unit of GDP.
China believes that the West needs to take the lead to solve the problem that it created when it comes to climate change and emissions reductions. This position is understandable, but China must acknowledge that in reality it cannot wait for others to look out for what is in its own interests. World leaders continue to work out the complex structures for international climate financing and technology transfer, while the science urgently requires a collective reduction in emissions as soon as possible. If China is serious about its July commitment to limit global temperature rise to 2°C, it has to follow up on recent indications of willingness to act by accordingly fixing a future date and level at which its carbon emissions peak and subsequently decline.
2. Develop tools to help the country achieve this bold new vision.
China needs to continue to strengthen its accountability mechanisms and create channels for increased information flow to ensure that its national plans are implemented locally. The government can meaningfully engage and mobilize civil society groups as partners, rather than treat them as annoyances, to facilitate the measurable, reportable, and verifiable implementation of government actions. Such partnerships might include crafting purposeful campaigns targeted at the business community and citizens to educate them about the comprehensive benefits of creating a clean energy economy. The central government has already demonstrated progress in these areas by, for instance, increasing penalties for false statistical reporting and enacting a law on open government information, but it can do more.
3. Collaborate with the international community in a comprehensive manner.
Cooperation with the international community should not focus merely on joint research, development, and deployment on important carbon abatement technologies. China and the United States, for instance, can enhance trading relationships and unlock vast, lucrative markets for technology commercialization in both countries by coordinating on reducing barriers to market access, such as high tariffs on clean-energy technologies and restrictive foreign investment policies. Jointly building capacity for real-time emissions, monitoring and reporting, and enhancing efforts in energy modeling and simulation can greatly inform energy and climate policymakers. Climate collaboration opportunities exist even on the military-to-military level””coordination in disaster relief activities and in addressing other non-traditional security threats posed by climate change can yield mutually beneficial learning and capacity-building results.
Addressing climate change will be the fundamental challenge for China over its next 60 years. It will give China an opportunity to combine central elements of its historical development””a new low-carbon vision that is revolutionary in its transformation, but also pragmatic in its approach to enable a real and measurable low-carbon reform. The best birthday gift the international community can give to China is to walk with it hand-in-hand down this low-carbon path through the adoption of robust domestic climate measures and by forging ahead to build consensus on a sound global climate deal at the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen and beyond.
For more information, see:
- China Begins Its Transition to a Clean-Energy Economy China’s Climate Progress by the Numbers
- Climate Progress in China: A Primer on Recent Developments
This article was originally published in China Dialogue.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
I am glad Joe that you pointed out the real desire of the leadership of China to curb GW. Your suggestions of doing more are good. But we must realize that China already cut GW more than any other country in the world, and we may even say from all the rest of the world combined!
Their one child policy already reduced the population by some 400 million people and all their potential consumption and the generation of GHG.
Following the actions of China for decades I also believe that their leadership does want to improve the lot of the Chinese people and also become a better world citizen. I am not so sure other leaderships are as concerned about their own people. Please don’t misunderstand, their self interest still impact negatively and cause a lot of the tragedies in Africa and other places, and their support of Iran is bad for world security. But with more cooperation on GW between the US and China the world would benefit.
Joe, there is not enough emphasis on population impact on GW. It is a huge factor and we must put it front and center in our global effort against GW. Shutting our eyes because it is a touchy subject does not eliminate this huge problem. We should encourage and support aggressively education and availability of the birth controll technologies to cut population growth especially in Africa and India. India is a major source, and uncontrolled source of GHG and will be more so with time. Unlike China,India have little control or influence of their population and energy usage.Their Democracy is inferior to the modified communism of China as far as their own people and GW are concerned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/01/india-us-climate-change
Whilst the USA does nothing much, I mean this is a new bill as well asking for a 20% cut from 2005 levels which equates to 5% from 1990 levels. The existing bill awaiting to be passed only offer 2.5%. Your 20 Tonnes of CO2 per head of the population and thats just home consumption and does not take into account all of the energy you have imported. Here in the UK we have done little more as we have demanded that talks measure production and not consumption and hence the UK appears to have mitigated its carbon emissions but its an illusion for weh we have really increased our emissions from 10 tonnes per head (if only the USA only used that) to 15.
Its time for the USA to offer to do more in less time surely. 20% of 1990 levels must be the reality.
JR: What about the EXPLOSIVE increment of Chinese carbon emissions in recent years, the DOZENS of new coal plants per week,the FACT that Chinese cities are among the most polluted in the world, dimming sunlight more than 30%?
It seems to me that China modern development could be Great Leap Forward Nº2.
In 1958, Mao Zedong began a five-year plan, called “Great Leap Forward” to become the top industrial nation of the world. Agriculture was collectivized into giant “People’s Communes” that should duplicate production anually. Stalinist agricultural practices (i.e the pseudo-scientific methods of Trofim Lysenko)were imposed there. A lot of pesants were forced to work in new steel factories, and agricultural instruments were melted to obtain the iron needed.
Ultimately, the result was a total disaster. The iron produced was useless “pig iron”. The agricultural production fell because of lysenkoist practices and loss of peasant workpower that went to steel factories. A massive famine followed.
The situation was worsened by the managers of communes , who wanted to show they succeded in applying Mao’s plan, declaring record production when really it was decreasing. So the 50% cuote to cities was really 100%, and peasants starved below filled grain tanks. As the situation was not worse enough, there was a series of floods followed by drought(indeed China government call the period “Three years of natural disasters”).
By 1961, between 15 and 40 million people died of starvation. Mao was forced to quit the government and Party leadership(it remained Chairman of the CCP ,that is, just a powerless historic leader), and more moderate elements of CCP take government and ended the failed plan.
Just as Mao wanted a super-fast industrial development, the current leadership does, but with the difference that use a western capitalist method instead of the failed Stalinist one. If China continues it path of beciming the world driver of climate change, then history will repeat itself.
The difference is explained by the boiled frog methaphor. In 1960 China was suddenly trown in boiling water, and the CCP leadership jumped away from Stalinism. Now is slowly (literally) heating in the oven of high-carbon Capitalist development.
JR,do you think the CCP will be wise enough to jump out of the carbon-economy oven rapidly enough, that is, before Climate Change cause a Second Great Chinese Famine(that is what will happen with floods and droughts collapsing agricultural production, and sea level rise submerging Beiging and Shangai)?
I forgot to say it’s not just a matter of the Chinese People.
If China government fails to do that low-carbon revolution rapidly enough, the entire world is doomed. It is, as you say, Hell and High Water, under a Five Star shine in a Red sky.
Sounds like mean greens prefer communism and tyranny.