|
 |
 |
|
The U.S. and China: Who will blink?
-
12/09/09 08:30 AM ET
A leading Chinese negotiator spiced up the Copenhagen climate talks Tuesday by declaring U.S. and European emissions targets too weak. The U.S. is offering a provisional cut in the range of 17 percent from 2005 levels in 2020, with much steeper reductions thereafter.
But wait . . . China’s plans have come under attack as well since they were unveiled late last month. China is pledging to cut its emissions intensity – that is, emissions per unit of GDP – by 40-45 percent by 2020.
Critics say this doesn’t add anything to emissions and energy policies the Chinese government is already implementing. Those critics are wrong and need to back off, argues William Chandler of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in a commentary yesterday.
“Their error is no minor academic skirmish: their criticism provides cover for the opponents of climate change action in the United States, and risks blocking effective climate action,” he writes in a commentary posted Tuesday.
Who can solve this? The U.S. Senate, if the Copenhagen negotiators set the table right, argues Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. A U.S. emissions-cutting law is moving slowly in the Senate following House approval in late June.
“Absent U.S. Senate action, China and India are only willing to limit emissions per unit of economic growth. Under that formulation, their total emissions could still increase. It remains to be seen whether the heads of state gathered at Copenhagen will see far enough ahead to create openings in the framework that would enable nations to embrace firmer commitments in the future,” he writes in a Wall Street Journal column.
But wait . . . China’s plans have come under attack as well since they were unveiled late last month. China is pledging to cut its emissions intensity – that is, emissions per unit of GDP – by 40-45 percent by 2020.
Critics say this doesn’t add anything to emissions and energy policies the Chinese government is already implementing. Those critics are wrong and need to back off, argues William Chandler of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in a commentary yesterday.
“Their error is no minor academic skirmish: their criticism provides cover for the opponents of climate change action in the United States, and risks blocking effective climate action,” he writes in a commentary posted Tuesday.
Who can solve this? The U.S. Senate, if the Copenhagen negotiators set the table right, argues Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. A U.S. emissions-cutting law is moving slowly in the Senate following House approval in late June.
“Absent U.S. Senate action, China and India are only willing to limit emissions per unit of economic growth. Under that formulation, their total emissions could still increase. It remains to be seen whether the heads of state gathered at Copenhagen will see far enough ahead to create openings in the framework that would enable nations to embrace firmer commitments in the future,” he writes in a Wall Street Journal column.
