China and U.S. Hit Strident Impasse at Climate Talks

[TomCADem]

Source: NY Times

American officials said that despite nearly a year of negotiations with the Chinese, there were still fundamental problems that may not be fixed here before the meetings end. The United States says it believes that the Chinese emissions target is too low — a top American official called it “disappointing” the day it was announced. Without a stronger emissions commitment and an agreement to international monitoring by China, Congress is unlikely to approve a tough new domestic climate regime for the United States.

“If China or any other country wants to be a full partner in global climate efforts, that country must commit to transparency and review of their emissions-cutting regime,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a co-sponsor of the climate and energy bill that passed the House in June. “Without that commitment, other governments and industries, including those in America, will be hesitant to engage with those countries when they try to partner on global warming.”

And the Chinese refusal to accept verification measures could also lead to calls for punitive tariffs on Chinese goods coming into the United States. The House bill allows for the imposition of tariffs on goods from countries that do not constrain their carbon output. A group of 10 Democratic senators wrote to Mr. Obama two weeks ago warning that the Senate would not ratify any treaty that did not protect American industry from foreign competitors who do not have to meet global warming emissions limits.

That threat could, paradoxically, help drive the Chinese to cement a deal here, an American official said. “Their No. 1 motivation is to avoid border tariffs,” the official said.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/earth/15climate.html?_r=1&hp

---

Who knew that climate change might actually be the engine to force the Obama administration to take a tougher line on Chinese dumping of goods in the U.S.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Last I heard on UK TV news

was that the USA's target of a 17% reduction from 2005 levels was the equivalent of a 4% reduction of 1990 levels so what's the big issue with China ?

[yava]

10. If China or any other country wants to be a full partner in global climate efforts

Again this reference to "if they want to be a full partner" of the so-called international community!
This is stupid and arrogant.
Wake up Mr Markey: Chine, India, Russia, Brazil etc etc ARE the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY both in pollution generation and its possible reduction. and air and water pollution does not recognize frontiers.
Its not just Europe and the US.
OK, you can count Australia and NZ but how many millions of human beings and farting dogs and polluting cars do they represent?

“If China or any other country wants to be a full partner in global climate efforts, that country must commit to transparency and review of their emissions-cutting regime,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and a co-sponsor of the climate and energy bill that passed the House in June.

[bemildred]

2. Oh gosh, now everyone can continue not doing anything much. nt

[WriteDown]

3. Its actually working out perfectly.....

A weaker dollar lowers the trade deficit which enable the US to put tariffs on goods from China which curbs pollution and helps American industry.

[Baclava]

4. Shouldn't we be happy China gets lower pollution standards now that they make all our stuff?

"What's good for the syndicate is good for the country"

[Romulox]

5. Do you see how that sets up a negative incentive as to US jobs?

"Free trade" + no environmental regulations in your impoverished trading partners' countries is a recipe for job obliteration and dramatically worse environmental outcomes.

Which is something Al Gore has never come to terms with--his legacy complicity in increasing global warming through his advocacy for "free trade" with countries like China (#1 emitter of CO2 with no end in sight...)

[pampango]

6. We might actually be in agreement here. If China (or any country) emits a lot of CO2,

their products should have a proportional environmental tax, tariff (whatever you want to call it). If their CO2 emissions continue or increase, the tax/tariff continues or increases. It provides an incentive for the polluting country to clean up its act. When its CO2 emissions decline its environmental tax/tariff declines, too.

Copenhagen should consider something like this. It might even be politically palatable there, too. The developed countries will be happy that China is the country most affected by such a tax. The developing countries will be happy that the US and EU will be the next most affected as the second and third leading emitters of CO2. And it provides an economic incentive for all countries to reduce their emissions.

[Baclava]

9. I still say, follow the money.

It's all about the money.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Oh, that's rich

every other country is using 1990 as their emissions baseline. The US is using 2005 and has pledged reductions that will take US carbon dioxide emissions back to...slightly lower than 1990 levels. So the US emissions target...also too low. And really, does anyone think that the US is going to impose tariffs on Chinese imports anytime soon? Which country is it that's been financing the US budget deficit by buying Treasury bonds, again? Oh, that's right...China.

[GliderGuider]

8. And this is a surprise because????

Anyone who was expecting significant change to come out of this conference hasn't been watching the world since Kyoto. The gray men in dark suits who run this planet are not about to let anything upset their applecart, and they have figured out how to make enough of us think like they want us to.

Estamos tan jodidos.