China and Durban

China has indicated that it is willing to commit to binding pollution reduction targets.

I posted this on Facebook a few days ago, but as I was travelling in Cardiff and Bristol, I didn't have time to comment on it. This is huge news, and it's important to understand just what it means for the future of climate negotiations.

In the past, China has demanded "common but differentiated responsibility", which means everyone is responsible for climate change, but developing countries have less responsiblity than richer countries like America and the UK.  Because of that, the Chinese have been very hesitant to accept binding emissions targets (i.e. where they would be penalized if they don't reduce their emissions by a certain amount), and their excuse has been that America and Europe were allowed to emit when they were industrializing, so China should have that luxury, too.

Aside from the fact that we live in a different world where climate science is much clearer and more advanced, this they-did-it-so-we-can-do-it-too rationale is childish and irresponsible.  China has finally realized that. Their 12th Five Year Plan is the most aggressive yet in terms of environmental protection, and their commitment to environmental protection is fortified by a group of very progressive leaders like Xie Zhenhua, Pan Yue and Su Wei.  From an economic point of view, China has incurred exhorbitant costs as a result of climate change and pollution, and taking all of this into consideration, it is very likely that China will develop a meaningful strategy for addressing its environmental challenges over the next few years.

But what does this mean for the US?  Obviously, as the article I linked to in the beginning points out, China's new pro-active stance should pressure the US into accepting binding goals, but it probably won't.  American negotiators often say the US shouldn't be held to different standards as China and other developing countries with high emissions levels.  They call the Kyoto protocol "unfair", but what's really unfair is the fact that American laziness is wreaking havoc on the earth, and the people who should be responsible for it use flimsy economic excuses to justify their inaction.

In Durban this week, Jonathan Pershing said the US would only accept binding limits as long as other big polluters do the same, and although China will probably accept that challenge, I doubt it will do much to change the US attitude (both official and unofficial) toward climate change.  Instead, American hypocrisy will be underscored (once again), and congressional "skeptics" will be given the loudest voice.  Our politicians will point their fingers at India and Brazil, until there's no one left to blame.  As the world's biggest economy, the US has an obligation to be responsible, an obligation that it's shirked most visibly since the failed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.