Search
Environment
What’s more important: poverty or global warming?
(Photo via WorldRevolution.org)
Chinese officials are attempting to relieve themselves of responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, blaming developed countries, such as the United States, for global warming, instead.
Developing countries (i.e. India and China) must focus on reducing poverty as their primary objective, according to Chinese state official Zhang Yesui.
Guess you can’t really argue with that - who can tell China to ignore poverty?
But to reject the idea that China contributes to climate change, and to demand a grace period to raise greenhouse gas emissions, well, that’s just irresponsible.
By Joe McDonald
Associated Press via Wired News
BEIJING (AP) — A Chinese official gave the clearest sign yet that Beijing will reject binding caps on greenhouse gas emissions at a global meeting next month, saying Friday developing countries must be allowed to raise emissions to fight poverty.
“Climate change is caused mainly by developed countries,” Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui said. “They should have the main responsibility for climate change and to reduce emissions.”
Beijing is about to overtake the United States as the world’s top greenhouse-gas producer. It is under pressure from Washington to accept binding limits at a meeting in Indonesia of environment ministers from 80 nations to discuss a possible replacement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on emission reductions.
“Most developing countries are in the process of industrialization and urbanization, and they face the arduous task of poverty reduction,” Zhang said. “So they need a large period of time for continuous energy demand growth with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Read the items below to get a sense of China’s role in climate change:
Discussion
6 comments for “What’s more important: poverty or global warming?”
Post a comment
Support
Responsible Events
Erica
Well, Zhang is half right. The developed countries are responsible for climate change and they should lead the way in cutting emissions, developing new technology, and making all the adjustments we need to make.
But why are poverty reduction and emissions reduction diametrically opposed? It’s a false argument. China’s energy inefficiency costs China money that should be used for poverty reduction, and the environment is already starting to bite back- and that will ultimately undo all the development that China has achieved unless China starts adapting now.
This is, of course, often a loaded question. Climate ’skeptics’ like Bjorn Lomborg love to use it as a way to divide those concerned with both. [To be fair, he has come around recently from pure "skeptic" status to one where he just feels " there are far more pressing / cost effective problems to address"]
The answer is it ain’t a zero sum game (you can and should do both).
China is now a society with millions of middle class and weathy citizens who CAN afford to make changes while still giving opportunities to poverty stricken regions for “dirty” development.Rich CEOs of course will complain bitterly that they can’t and will weep accordingly for the poor migrant worker that he’ll be forced to lay off, but I think it’s fair to say a segment of Chinese society (you know, the one with multiple luxury cars and the like?) should be “encouraged” to lead by example.
In addition, Kyoto’s fixation on the nation state is a big part of the problem. We acknowledge climate change is a global problem needing global solutions, let our action towards it continues to be firmly mired in a Westphalian “us” vs “them” scenario that simply doesn’t exist except in the myopic world of geo-politics. The reality is much of China’s emissions is directly tied to Western consumptive habits, yet politicans on both sides fail to acknowledge this.
In my opinion, applying Western carbon standards applied for export bound manufactured goods made in China will do much good - assuming the needed 3rd party verification is done and legitimized. The question then is who gets those emissions re: UNFCCC targets. Personally, I’d like to see the onus be shifted away from nation states and onto the multinationals engaged in most of the emission making, but I’m not sure how this would operate practically on a global scale where MNCs roam like pirates searching for safe harbour.
Here’s a useful link on the topic:
Development and Climate project:
http://www.developmentfirst.org/
I totally agree with you, Chris. It doesn’t seem reasonable to sacrifice one thing (the environment) for another (poverty reduction.) China should work hard to prioritize both.
China would be a vastly different place were it to truly prioritize poverty reduction. The current priority is to bring further wealth and power to the ruling elite, at the expense of all else. Zhang’s spin helps neither the less fortunate, nor the environment.
Hi Erica,
I’ve continued to think about this question and I think in terms of long term equity concerns - this is THE question for “responsible China”. How to shift away from a carbon-based economy while still growing the economy so many more millions can be lifted out of poverty.
Cheers,
Tom