On Dec. 7, the U.N. Climate Change Conference kicked off in Copenhagen, Denmark. This meeting, which has been called “the last chance for humans to save the Earth,” was marred by finger-pointing and infighting between different interest groups.
The topic of discussion was global warming, which in itself is controversial. Relatively speaking, the Earth has been around much longer than we have as humans. The ways in which it changes are still not fully understood. With their own interests in mind, some people hope to change the Earth’s ecological environment and think that the Earth can get hotter or colder according to human whims.
As someone who is very interested in natural science, this author researched the reports of many different climate experts. Based on these reports, it is clear that the Earth has a pretty stable ecological system. While human activity can alter the Earth on a small scale, it cannot fundamentally change the world’s natural laws.
Some reports claim that carbon dioxide emission from burning fossil fuels is a key cause of global warming. However, when compared to the vastness of the universe and the Earth, human activity can only have a limited effect. The north and south polar ice caps are in the process of gradually melting: Is this happening because of human activity, or is it just a natural process of the Earth?
By examining this issue from a historical perspective, we can see that global warming is occurring exactly when humans are most active. It seems true that this warming has caused disasters for certain island nations in the Pacific Ocean. Yet have people really thought about whether or not these islands formed by coral reefs are truly suitable for habitation?
If we don’t let nature run its course and think that it can be changed based on the little power we have, what will happen?
This author approves of protecting the environment but opposes making climate change an international political topic of discussion. The key to protecting the environment is in responsible industrial production processes that do not create toxic waste and pollution. In this way, industrialization works harmoniously with the environment, while constantly adding benefits to society.
Some Western politicians want to take big action for a small problem and turn the issue of environmental protection into one of global climate change. Their desire for an international agreement is not to truly protect the environment, but to slow the advancement of the world’s developing nations.
As everyone knows, countries that started industrializing the earliest have contributed greatly to greenhouse gas emissions. Developed countries were able to industrialize through the emission of carbon dioxide. However, when other countries start industrializing, leaders of developed nations talk about a so-called climate change problem in order to alter these countries’ pattern of development. In some developed countries, the true purpose of discussing global warming is to impose a special “carbon emissions tax” on developing nations. This is a new type of trade barrier.
The U.N. Climate Change Conference had three main goals: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to compensate developing nations and to build a greenhouse gas emissions trade system.
Developed countries know how much they have contributed to greenhouse gas emissions but don’t want to assume responsibility. So they try to mislead the public and hope that they can make developing countries bear more of the burden. Moreover, developed countries want to build an international greenhouse gas emissions trade mechanism, which would greatly benefit them.* In other words, Western countries are already able to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, but are unwilling to do so. What they hope is that by creating an emissions trade mechanism, they can profit at the expense of China.
Because of this, we should look at the Copenhagen U.N. Climate Conference as a winter fairy tale. The Kyoto Protocol shows quite clearly the duties of developed countries.** America is the most powerful of these countries and yet it has shirked its duties outlined by the Protocol. China is a developing country and therefore its greenhouse gas emissions are rising. If China gives any promise to the international community, the price could be sacrificing its own economic development. Therefore, the Chinese representative at the U.N. Climate Change Conference insisted that China would follow the fundamental principals outlined in the Kyoto Protocol and actively decrease greenhouse gas emissions. However, he made one thing very clear: China will not be controlled.
(The author is a law professor and Director of the Society Development Research Center at China South Central University of Finance, Economics, Politics and Law)
*Editor’s Note: An emissions trade mechanism allows countries to sell their unused emission units to other countries who have gone over their assigned amounts: (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/emissions_trading/items/2731.php)
**Editor’s Note: The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement among industrialized nations to lower the emission of overall greenhouse gases to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels: (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php)
The author raises two separate issues: First, are greenhouse gasses responsible for climate change? While pollution is undesirable, overwhelming evidence indicates it is not driving climate change.
Secondly, what is the role of energy in economic development? While China is growing rapidly, it remains one of the least efficient users of energy. China’s economic growth has come from resource mobilization (putting people to work in more productive endeavors) and subsidizing their production through artificially low energy prices. It wastes tremendous amounts of energy to produce the same amount of goods as other countries.
If China is truly concerned about carbon emissions and pollution, it needs to become dramatically more energy efficient, or production will be moved to more efficient producers. The latter choice could be out of their control if the world decides to tax carbon emissions.
The author also errs when indicating the United States shirks it’s duties under the Kyoto Protocol, as the US has never ratified the Protocol into law, and therefore is not bound under the provisions. The author fears China will have to sacrifice economic growth to comply. With the dramatic investments in pollution control and energy efficiency in Japan, Germany, and the US, these countries have already made tremendous sacrifices of their own economies to achieve these goals, only seen the goals slip away on a global basis as China has refused to make similar investments and subsidized their economy at the world’s expense.