For many environmentalists worldwide or just normal citizens probably, it couldn’t be more worrying as the COP15 in Copenhagen is about to deplete its final 24 hrs. Should it be extended so that everybody could hope the deadlock would solve itself like miraculously? It may worth the time, or not -if the leaders continued the fighting like they did the days past. We just know, It really really is the TIME to drop quarrels and show sincerity -it’s about flexibilities and compromises. For China, other then the expected more hard-trying persuasion since the prime minister’s arrival, what options exactly should be considered feasible by the Chinese representatives to help seal the deal ? Here’s my opinion as follows:
1. Setting a target of timeline demarcating China’s emission peak (year 2030/2035?)
We all know that setting an explicit timeline as its emission peak year has been consistently rejected by China, and the numeral “2025″ seen in the leaked Danish paper evoked fierce criticism by the Chinese delegates. However, While the 2025 suggestion (which’s a 15-16 year’s time from now on) may be really too harsh and practically impossible, what about a goal of year 2030 or 2035? An extension of 5-10yrs time by 2020 will much more likely to facilitate a truly green-tech revolution by then to down-turning China’s GHGs emissions than it’ll do now -let’s hope so. Moreover, it’d be of greater significance than capping the overall emission, which’s even more unlikely to happen(even a 50-60% increase’s probably not enough, not to say the numeral looks not good and like the tough-yet-always- face-saving government won’t be doing anything).
2. A more aggressive ” carbon intensity” reduction target (60%?)
China has declared a 40-45% cut of carbon intensity as its national GHGs control target. But as I pointed out earlier, the number 40-40% itself actually indicates that China’s annual emission could reach a 65%-150% increase (depending on its futue GDP growth rate) by the year 2020 from its 2005 level. And China has already “achieved” a 43.1% carbon intensity reduction during the 1990-2005 period, but that does not mean China’s done any well or enough in controlling its emission. Thus, if it has to be a target quantified by “unit GDP carbon intensity”, only a considerably more aggressive goal is meaningful… suggesting a 50-60% cut from 2005 level(60% would result in a no more than 35% overall emission increase based on 8% avg. GDP grrowh rate) .
3. Setting a target delimiting the per capita GHGs emission not to surpass (30-40%?) of that of all other nations’ average
This means China’s domestic per capita emission should Never increase over a certain proportion of the average of other countries’ per capita amounts. By setting this goal China would actually bind its target to the world’s GHGs emission, all countries developed and developing. It’ll render a sort of mechanism, which could stimulate other countries to cut emissions -that is, China will have to be more aggressive in controlling its emission if other countries especially those major emitters will be doing more and greater in reducing theirs. A target like this could seem fairer to the largest developing country.
Last , China should accept the MRV (measurable reportable verifiable) system along with “its own measure comparable”, it’s a matter of credibility of statistics/quantification. If there’s any confidential involved, should be allowed to just inventoried as so.
All of the above would too require developed counties to compromise. Yes, maybe the 1st and 2nd are nothing new, the 3rd just seemed imaginative. But it couldn’t be more better if they’d appear advisable to the politicians and a miracle if anything alike works. Good luck, Copenhagen!
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Terms and conditions beyond the scope of this license may be available at lvyouhuo.com.
哇都是英语
如果可以请订阅及加入friend connect，为弊站加点人气～ ：P