Copenhagen Summit, America, And China

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 2

Published Date: Dec 26, 2009

The landmark United Nations summit on climate change that took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, earlier this month is still causing conversation and debate.  Much of this debate was around the conflict between two major players; the United States of America and China.  In a nutshell, the discussion centered around the two countries with the highest per-capita carbon emissions on the planet.  At the core of the debate was the insistence that all countries submit to outside verification, or external monitoring, total emissions.  Still, China is hesitating over this part of the agreement.

What led up to this part of the summit?  Many blame the fact that the United States, up until this summit, had universally rejected many of the climate change accords that had been previously negotiated (at the Kyoto agreements, for example).  Despite the changing attitude toward the United States, in general, toward a more open approach, there is still a bit of ‘bully’ mentality perspective; for example, surveys taken world wide have indicated a more positive view of U.S. Politics and world stance.  But, even so, the U.S. tends to come across as an overbearing force by telling other countries, new to the worldwide power stage (aka China) what to do.

This, of course, set up some interesting discussions.  It can be argued that China has, in some way, surpassed the United States in an economic sense.  China’s economy has been growing, while the United States economy is still in recovery from what some describe as a light depression.  Considered a ‘developing’ country by some standards, China argues that in order to sustain their economic growth and position, they must be given some flexibility when it comes to emissions.  The United States, long the biggest user (per capita) of natural resources, is in no position (paraphrases China) to dictate a reduction in emissions.

In the end, the United States made a situation during the Copenhagen summit that forced China’s hand.  It was, some say, a strategic move by the U.S.  And, others say that it is a bit of manipulation.  Either way, the result was that the U.S. would contribute more than $100 billion to poor countries, via an international fund.  But, there was a catch (here’s where the manipulation might have been involved) in that any major countries signing onto this assistance would be required to to commit to a reduction in carbon emissions by signing a binding agreement and submit to verification by external means or so-called ‘transparent verification.’

The assistance ‘catch’ specifically mentioned “all major nations,” and all who were involved in the discussions, and close observers knew that “all major nations” really meant China.  From the beginning of the summit, China steadfastly refused ‘transparent verification,’ and so this deal was a way to put to rest some of China’s stubbornness on this part of the agreement.  Nevertheless, the end result was what most saw as an important facet to the entire Copenhagen summit.

But, there’s some bad news.  Reports are that China is quite angry over having been ‘forced’ into this particular agreement.  Some Chinese officials made statements that these demands were, in fact, an ‘insult’ to China and might even be considered a violation of China’s sovereignty and national security interests. Another report states that China, more or less, snubbed bilateral discussions that had been previously arranged with President Barack Obama. 

Only time will tell if China and the United States will be able to find some common ground on the talks that started at the Copenhagen summit.  Needless to say, decades may pass before we know the ultimate result of these accords; both environmentally and politically.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Dec 26, 2009.