The past week of events – from a U.S. Senate hearing, to remarks by China’s State Council, to high-level talks in Beijing – have scattered a layer of rich soil from which robust US-China cooperation on climate change might spring forth.
However, that soil is not uniform in content. The issue of quantifiable emissions reductions, central to continued bilateral discussions leading up to Copenhagen, is anything but homogeneously understood, as recent events demonstrate. Read the rest of this entry »
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.
The Waxman-Markey bill signals Washington’s intentions to pony up to fund deforestation prevention as part of overall climate legislation. But will climate scientists, C-15 negotiators, developing countries and environmental groups agree on an international forest protection program that everyone, including the trees, can live with?
One day after China’s top climate official, Li Gao, requested that his country’s export sector be exempt from greenhouse gas emissions reductions, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the possibility of levying a carbon tariff on countries that do not match US greenhouse gas emissions restrictions.
China appears to be backing out of global efforts to address climate change, intensifying pre-Copenhagen debate.
The G20 Global Summit, which will take place in the UK in April, stands to be an important factor in determining China’s stance on climate change commitments as Copenhagen draws near.