This September, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon convened a special conference in New York City. Its purpose was to strengthen international agreement over climate change in light of the climate summit to be held in Copenhagen, Denmark this coming December. One of the conference’s highlights was China’s announcement of a new national campaign of action on climate change. According to a report from the British Broadcasting Corporation (22 September 2009), Chinese president Hu Jintao pledged that the People’s Republic of China would “curb its...carbon intensity by a notable margin by 2020 from the 2005 level” (BBC News, 22 September 2009). It comes as joyful news that China, the world’s top producer of greenhouse gases, has finally begun to consider climate change a serious issue. However, President Hu’s statement was vague and unclear in its meaning, and it requires conceptual analysis for a fuller understanding, lest his words be misinterpreted.
The phrase of greatest concern in Hu’s announcement is his commitment to reduce China’s carbon intensity by a “notable margin” by 2020 from 2005 levels. In this instance, a proper conceptual analysis would require specific figures to give the audience an indication of what Hu means when he says “notable margin”. Without figures, the idea of a notable margin is left open to interpretation. What the Chinese government considers a notable decrease in carbon intensity may be very different from what the United Nations or the European Union considers a notable decrease. Without a specific goal, China’s efforts to combat climate change will be less concentrated, and it will be less able to work together with other countries and their clear-cut emissions targets.
Another source of confusion in Hu’s pledge is the very concept of carbon intensity. Carbon intensity, as defined by BBC News, is a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide produced within a country per unit of that country’s gross domestic product (GDP). The fact that carbon intensity is measured as a quotient means that as a nation’s GDP increases, overall carbon intensity will decrease. Thus, while reducing carbon emissions will of course reduce carbon intensity, carbon intensity may also be reduced by simply allowing the economy to grow. To give his statement more weight, Hu should have made it clear how carbon intensity would be decreased, to avoid misunderstanding and, perhaps, accusations of simply appeasing the UN while allowing the Chinese economy to grow unrestricted.
As the Copenhagen summit approaches, it is inspiring to see nations like China – those not under the governance of the Kyoto protocol – taking the initiative against climate change. However, if progress is to be made, vague statements like that recently given by Hu Jintao will not suffice. The key to international cooperation and success lies in clear and effective communication.
REFERENCES
"China vows action on climate change". BBC News Online: Science and Environment. 22 September 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8268077.stm. Accessed 26 October 2009.
Vague terms and phrases and euphemism seem to be most common whenever politics is involved. Broad phrases open to interpretation are of course advantageous, since commitment to said phrases can be avoided. The use of such phrases from the Chinese president Hu Jintao is indeed worrisome. Perhaps this phrase is taken light-heartedly and pressure on China for increased action against global warming is lifted, and China does not make a significant change in their efforts due to lack of pressure and lack of commitment. One can only hope there will be some enforcement in having China keep its word, though it in itself is noncommittal.
ReplyDeleteYou are right in saying that the statement made by Hu Jintao is very vague which leads me believe that his commitment to curbing carbon intensity in China is not very serious. Like you mentioned the word notable margin is up for interpretation and can mean different things to different people. With a country like China having the third largest economy and their main source for energy being coal I would think that their attempt to cut carbon intensity would be insignificant.
ReplyDelete