India and China need desparately to secure a decent climate change agreement in Copenhagen. Yet they have – up to now - stated firmly that they will not agree to restrictions on their emissions. They are poor and all that. Now this Guardian report says that they will take the lead! It seems they are trying to pressure Obama to deliver greater cuts in US emissions by making a big deal about their own policies. What is going on?
My guess is that for all the posturing about refusing to enter into a program for agreed-on-cuts that China and India’s strategic position on climate change is very weak. These countries will suffer far more serious costs as a consequence of global heating than will the US or Europe. Maybe they see the prospect/possibility of the Waxman-Markey Bill being defeated in the US Senate and are terrified. They would then receive almost no rich country charity (sorry, ‘compensations’) and would bear the worst effects of climate change. Presumably the US is stressing these obvious facts to large developing countries right now. All the skillful bargaining in the world cannot change the structure of the strategic payoffs in this countdown to Copenhagen
Both India and China will make ‘voluntary’ cuts that are backed by law (not very voluntary!) to try to force the hand of the US. Many of these ‘voluntary’ cuts are dressed-up ‘no regrets’ options (improving energy efficiencies, new building codes, renewable energy targets). In the end this will not convince anyone. Serious steps must be undertaken to trim their long-term – and increasing – dependence on coal. The details of the specific Chinese/Indian and the consequent US response will be interesting to observe over the next few days.
hc, your guess seems to be wrong. I am afraid to say.
You argue that “India and China will suffer far more serious costs as a consequence of global heating than will the US or Europe.”
What is your basis of that argument? Why will they suffer more? Do you assume that a life in India and China is more precious than that in the US and Europe?
Do you really believe that they are terrified? Can you believe yourself, honoestly?
Do you think they are after charity or compensations? It is now that developing countries have been giving charity and free compensations to the developed countries, because the latter emit more than their rightful “permits” to do so on the per capita basis.
Why do you call it charity or compensations for developing countries? Is that the best logic you can come up?
You argue that their voluntary cuts not convincing. What do you expect them to do? Have the developed countries reduced their emissions to the levels in either India or China on the per capita basis?
I simply fail to understand your logic.
Yes they will suffer more because iof their greater dependence on agriculture, looming immense water supply problems andd smaller financial capacity to adapt. i don’t think you have a lot of logic to understand.
China has a lot larger finance than you can probably imagine.Both Australia and the US are capital importers.
So which don’t have the daiancial capacity to adapt?