Now is the time. What is our U.S. strategy?

Yes, absolutely. We as Americans need to keep the focus squarely on the piece of the puzzle that needs us the most – the Senate and the forces that influence it (fossil fuel lobbyists, WH policy, etc.)

It’ll help some of us do that if we can figure out a narrative about China that works for us as activists and for the messaging for a political movement. Understanding what happened is really important here, but not because we should start campaigning around China. I agree 100% that US NGOs are a terrible messenger to make China feel some heat for their actions. And I appreciate your insight into the targets/negotiations – that’s new and very helpful.

I’ve been working a bit to recruit more Chinese writers for IGHIH who are interested in that discussion, but we aren’t there yet. Any Chinese youth you know what would want to put some thoughts out here?

Here are some important points about China:

1. China’s emissions are currently 1/4 those of the U.S. In terms of its historical responsibility for causing climate change, China still ranks well below the U.S., Europe, and others. See:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:USA&q=co2+emissions+per+capita#met=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:USA:CHN

2. What I’m hearing is that China didn’t oppose 2020 and 2050 targets or peak year because they don’t want strong global emission cuts. They opposed them because their primary concern is an equitable burden-sharing framework for the costs of emission reductions. China has said consistently that Annex I countries have to offer emission reductions from 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and significant climate finance for developing nations. When it became clear that Annex I targets were adding up to far below 25% (I’ve heard around 15-18%), China became worried that the costs to them and to developing countries of making up the difference in order to achieve 2020, peak year, and 2050 goals, would be unfairly high. I have heard that China will likely end up doing more than their 45% intensity target, but want to keep their international commitments low because they don’t trust the U.S.

3. Many U.S. NGOs in Copenhagen were afraid to take on Obama. Many more will be afraid to push on stronger targets and international finance in the climate bill this spring. What we learned in Copenhagen is just how much globally is riding on what happens in the Senate this spring. The initial Senate bill had a 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 target – higher than the House bill of 17%. It’s still too low, but does suggest we could get something more than 17% if we pushed. Now is the time. What is our U.S. strategy?

4. On December 14th there was a joint press conference at COP15 between U.S. and China youth where they discussed a shared vision for the future and some points of common ground. Perhaps we could build on this with a youth debate on how to raise ambitions for strong climate targets in the U.S. and China in 2010 here on IGHIH?

otherwise I agree with Morgan’s table of pros & cons

be well.

I’ve been keeping notes of sentiments for and against China’s position, and I’m sure this list will grow, so others’ thoughts are much appreciated.

Anti-China:
    wrecked chance of deal
    manipulating developing nations
    manipulating status as developing nation
    plans to continue using their cheap coal
    huge future emissions, and an unwillingness to commit to any limits
    they knew, correctly, that obama would take the blame for COP15 failure and used that knowledge
    Their wreckage makes it much less likely to pass Senate bill

Pro-China:
    citing investments in renewable energy, producing green tech
    depend on himalayan glaciers for water – hyper aware of the problem
    not stupid or anti-science
    per capita emissions still less than 1/2 US
    bullied by western countries, responding with force
   
Neither pro nor con:
    China is world’s most powerful country, has begun throwing weight around
    analysis makes no distinction between factions of Chinese govt (as opposed to nuance understanding of US politics)

Big political questions:
    per-capita vs. total emissions
    past responsibility vs. current vs. future