London: Although there are many explanations for the reason that the Copenhagen summit in December failed to reach agreement on targets, one stands out as particularly remarkable. According to Mark Lynas, who served as part of the UK delegation, Chinese officials consistently and systematically objected every time specific binding targets were proposed – even if those targets were for countries other than itself.
Writing in the Manchester Guardian, Mr. Lynas says “China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful ‘deal’ so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen. China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the West had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait.”
Lynas says he “saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying ‘no,’ over and over again.”
He explains the process this way: “What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his ‘superiors.’
“To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. ‘Why can’t we even mention our own targets?’ demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.
“China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak ‘as soon as possible.’ The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen.”
Near the end of the process, “the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by (Gordon) Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. ‘How can you ask my country to go extinct?’ demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language that makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.”
He concludes: “Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action.”
For further information on this report by Mark Lynas, and a related one by Ed Milliband, the UK Labour Party’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, who accuses China, Sudan, Bolivia and other Latin American countries of trying to hijack Copenhagen, please refer to the Manchester Guardian website.