Chinese walker

South Africa and China are a long way apart and face very different challenges; China, a huge world power with the fastest growing economy in the world; South Africa, a small country with a population the size of an average Chinese province, growing slowly.

In water matters, they appear just as different. China has twice as much water per person and boasts the world`s fourth biggest river although it faces huge water challenges in the dry north of the country. Meanwhile, the water of South Africa`s largest river, the Orange, has only 1% the flow of the Yangtze but has to be shared between four neighbouring countries.

Yet, judging from the number of exchange visits of ministers and officials, China and South Africa believe that they share some common problems. Indeed, after visiting China, former South African minister of water affairs and forestry Ronnie Kasrils wrote an article praising the Three Gorges Dam which was published in China`s People`s Daily.

In it, he considered the message of Emperor Qin`s famous Terra Cotta Army for the Three Gorges Dam project: “You can build a masterful infrastructure but if it does not form part of a broader strategy for the future, it is but a matter of time before it turns to dust … this vast infrastructure project only makes sense in the context of a country`s overarching social and economic development policy.”

He noted the intention of the project to contribute to the transport and energy needs of the country as well as to providing flood protection and water supplies. And while he recognized the social and environmental challenges it presented, he concluded by wishing the project well.

In these comments, the mutual interest of South Africa and China in water become clear. South Africa is interested in how China has integrated water into its development policy. Meanwhile China looks to South Africa for experience on dealing with the social and environmental challenges of water management.

The way that South Africa has dealt with water makes it a valuable case study for China. Because of South Africa`s political transition to democracy in 1994, a major reform of water management was introduced in a “big bang” approach. Many innovations were introduced around the same time, set out in the 1997 National Water Policy and codified in 1998 in the National Water Act.

South Africa`s challenge is not just water scarcity but the fact that its water is poorly distributed. The main economic activities and much of the population are high up in the centre of the country, away from main rivers. Therefore, water for people and industry has to be brought from far away while their waste water pollutes local streams and affects downstream water users.

The need to protect the river environment while meeting growing needs makes South Africa interesting for China because it has already implemented key water management innovations – such as rigorous standards for the treatment of urban waste water – that China is now considering on a larger scale. It also has a long-established Water Research Commission, funded by water users, to ensure a flow of the knowledge needed for such activities.

South Africa has also come to terms with the need to protect the river environment. Its water law makes a unique provision for an “environmental reserve”, water that has to be left in the river to maintain its ecology and cannot be allocated for use. This provision for environmental flows is also something that China is considering as it confronts the challenge of ensuring that its rivers do not dry up or become sewers. South Africa can offer extensive practical experience into the methods used to determine how much water is required to sustain the environment.

South Africa also has experience in the controversial business of transferring water from one river basin to another. It takes water from the Orange River at its source in the highlands of Lesotho to Johannesburg from where, after use, it is discharged northwards, flowing down the Limpopo River into the Indian Ocean instead of into the Atlantic. Indeed, many of South Africa`s rivers are interconnected in order to bring water to where it is needed.

But there are other important lessons.

While South Africa has shunned pressure from Western governments and businesses to privatize its water supply services, it has nonetheless made extensive use of the private sector to finance and build its water infrastructure. So China must be interested in the way that it was able to finance its Lesotho Highlands Water Project (at US$3billion, its equivalent of the Three Gorges project) without using the government`s budget.

Mohale dam in Lesotho, photo by Paul Novosad

This was possible because water users – both domestic and commercial – have to pay for their water and the utilities responsible are expected to charge the full cost of water supply. With this policy in place, local and foreign banks queued up to finance the project, an approach that has been followed in a number of other large and medium-sized water developments.

Funding from capital markets may not presently be important for China with its huge cash surpluses. But where the South African experience is relevant is the impact of making users pay the true cost of their water.

In the 1970s, doomsayers were already warning that South Africa would run out of water within 25 years, by 2000. But in that year, they were still making the same prediction, now saying that South Africa would run out of water by 2025. Consumption has slowed significantly and is continuing to increase only modestly despite rapid urbanisation. In part, this is because water users know that they have to pay the costs of increasing their supplies and, since they could see that costs would rise in the future, they acted to limit consumption.

As a result, the national electricity generator switched to dry cooled power stations, saving a substantial amount of water. Industrial firms such as Mittal Steel have moved to 100% recycling to reduce water consumption and control pollution. Even the size of city plots on which South Africans` houses are built has been reducing rapidly – and smaller gardens have seen reduced water consumption. Now South Africa is considering implementing pollution charges, to further encourage clean production and reduced water use by industry.

Another area in which South Africa faces acute challenges are in the social domain, a consequence of the apartheid policy which kept most black South Africans unskilled and out of the economy until 1994.

An important objective of the new democratic government has been to ensure that social needs for basic water supply and sanitation are met. This is particularly important in a country which, as a result of its divided history, is amongst the most unequal in the world.

Here again, post-1994 South Africa was in the vanguard. After studies had found that people in poor communities were turning to unsafe water sources rather than pay even a dollar a month for clean water, the South African government introduced changed its policy of requiring some payment from all users. Local municipalities are now subsidised to provide a free basic water supply, currently 25 litres – one large bucket-full – per person per day. To support this policy, innovations in pre-paid water metering are being made in some cities which automatically provide the first six kilolitres free, although this is still controversial.

In all of this, an important lesson that has been learnt is that the most effective water management measures are those that send the right signals rather than trying to control all behaviour administratively.

Hartbeespoort Dam, photo by Leo

But another controversial social dimension of water policy is the approach to people affected by water resource development. South Africa`s first minister of water affairs, Professor Kader Asmal, was chairman of the World Commission on Dams, which was widely believed to have opposed the construction of new large dams. However, South Africa is committed to building more dams to provide the storage it needs to deal with its variable rainfall and river flow and is pressing for other African countries to be helped to do the same.

South Africa accepted, however, that there had been problems in the past. Clear policy was established in 1994 that people affected by major infrastructure development should not be worse off afterwards. To ensure this, they should be given cash compensation for lost income, new houses to replace dwellings lost or new farm land where land is lost to project development.

This was of course relatively easy to do in Lesotho, where fewer than 10,000 people were directly affected, while China`s Three Gorges dam has displaced more than a million. But the principles – and the approaches they lead to – remain the same. And indeed it was the visit to the areas along the Yangtze where entire new towns had been built for those displaced that led minister Ronnie Kasrils to express his support for the way the project was being handled.

Looking forward into the future, many areas in South Africa are moving to a situation where all their water resources are fully developed and new water needs can only be met if old activities change the way they use what they have. This situation has already arisen in parts of China.

Similarly, both China and South Africa are vulnerable to the potential impact of climate change on their water resources – the western parts of South Africa are expecting significant reduction in rainfall and river flows over the next few decades.

South Africa has addressed these challenges by introducing flexibility into its National Water Act; as water availability changes, allocations can be changed. A National Water Strategy, reviewed every five years, sets out priorities for management action and water allocation as well as for infrastructure development.

But as important, South Africa has not accepted the international recommendation that responsibility for water management should be devolved to the river basin and local government level. While legislation allows for functions to be delegated to regional water agencies, the government retains control over water as a vital national asset – and its legislation requires is to maintain a national water resource strategy to ensure that water contributes optimally to sustainable social and economic development.

In that last provision lies another shared lesson. Water is a strategic resource for a modern society, an indivisible national asset that must be used wisely if the society is to prosper.

The author: Mike Muller, a civil engineer by training, was Director General of Water Affairs and Forestry from 1997 to 2005. He is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at the Graduate School of Public and Development Management of Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg.

Homepage photo of Blyde River Canyon, by Cynthia Cavalcanti

When I asked one of my Chinese hosts to give me a tour of his city`s best new housing project, I never imagined it would inspire a University of California, Berkeley, team to propose revolutionising how the Chinese develop their new communities.

We set out from the Urban Planning and Design Institute`s offices in a black diplomatic car, with a siren I quickly learned allowed us to exercise authoritative traffic privileges. Our route out of metropolitan Tianjin, China`s third-largest city, took us along a major arterial corridor to the northwest, which was clogged with traffic of a chaotic type unmatched in the U.S.

Intersections, even though signalised, presented a terrifying game of “chicken”. Cars, trucks, and buses wove through an equal number of bicyclists (often with multiple passengers or goods) and pedestrians. The dust and pollution were so intense that most bicyclists wore face masks. With siren blaring, we sped along the shoulder, past what appeared to be an unending series of developments, including a new college campus, high-tech office parks and multiple high-density housing developments. As far as the eye could see, the entire landscape seemed under construction.

The scale of infrastructure construction to support this kind of hyper-development in China is hard to imagine. It is estimated that China builds more than fifty 300-megawatt coal-fired power plants per year. California has only built 36 in the last five years. China is undertaking the largest road construction program in the world, equivalent to the US Interstate highway system begun in the 1950s. The capital and material costs of this effort are increased by the fact that, in most areas of infrastructure, China is playing catch-up.

For example, an estimated 60% of existing sewage is dumped into rivers, untreated. Not only is the cost of building sewer mains and centralised treatment plants for new development staggering, but also, without cleaning up the existing sewers, the polluted rivers magnify the challenge of delivering sanitary drinking water. Some urban planning scholars question whether the current rate of development is economically sustainable, but if it is, it is estimated that China will double the size of its built environment in the next 20 to 30 years — the equivalent of building two new Britains.

When the pollution and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the congested arteries are combined with that from the power plants required to meet the energy demands of new development, the impact on both China`s public health and on global climate change presents major challenges for the years ahead. Four-fifths of China`s largest cities have unacceptable air quality, resulting in more than 600,000 premature deaths from asthma, emphysema and lung cancer. Currently, it is estimated that China is responsible for 25% of the world`s CO2 emissions (the United States is at 30%). At its current rate of development, China is projected to surpass the US in the next few years.

Mounting scientific evidence has shown conclusively that the current cycle of global warming is not natural, but attributable directly to man-made CO2 emissions; and while the projections vary in magnitude (from 2 C to 10%26frac34; C), the projected impact of global warming on the earth`s natural systems is catastrophic. On balance, the question becomes: Can the world dramatically cut back its CO2 emissions to avoid these catastrophic scenarios? The responsibility falls on the US and China to show the way.

Fortunately, China has recognised this challenge and it has been seeking the best urban planning and design advice and concepts from around the world. Our Berkeley team was invited by the Tianjin Urban Planning and Design Institute to assist the city of ten million residents in developing principles and prototypes for compact, transit-oriented, commuter gateway neighbourhoods promoting efficient land use, and relying more on public transportation and bicycles and less on cars. With half the population living outside Tianjin proper, the city recognised that it was necessary to build a public-transit system of underground (subway) trains, light rail and connecting buses in order to avoid the traffic congestion afflicting Beijing and Shanghai.

Having completed two of seven planned light-rail lines, the city sought advice on how to guide development around the station stops. Berkeley`s College of Environmental Design responded by forming an interdisciplinary team of faculty and students from each of its three departments — Architecture, City and Regional Planning, and Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning — to come up with design proposals that address critical real-world problems. The Tianjin Urban Planning and Design Institute funded the semester-long project, which included a week-long visit to the Chinese city followed by analysis and preliminary designs. In Berkeley, three Chinese scholars joined the 15-member team to help inculcate the project with the nation`s cultural and practical realities. But what unfolded during the semester was largely due to the impact of what we found during our Chinese tour.

At our destination, we passed through an entry gate, where we were saluted by two uniformed guards, and proceeded to an elegant marketing showroom complete with a scale model of the entire development and elaborate models of each unit type for sale. The plan was based on repetitive blocks of townhouses and flats; their designs were of high quality, similar to what might be seen in the Netherlands, Germany or Scandinavia.

Riverside apartments in Tianjin, photo by David Wilmot

Vehicular and pedestrian access to the housing units was provided by uniform street grids with limited parking at the units and overflow parking along a fence forming the community`s perimeter. Much attention had been paid to landscape design. Streets, sidewalks and pathways of various paving materials were shaded by an array of trees. The project also featured several small parks, schools, a small central commercial area, recreation facilities, and a lake with multiple high-rise residential towers overlooking it.

I quickly estimated the density at approximately 75 to 100 units per acre. As I explored the project with my Chinese host, who was justifiably proud of its design quality, it dawned on me that what was being sold was a gated, privatised urbanity — a carefully controlled development with an urban theme but without any of the nitty-gritty reality of the city. Moreover, the gated entry gave residents a sense of belonging to a privileged community. It was hard not to interpret this as a form of social segregation.

Our hosts showed us multiple examples of the same model throughout the city — gated superblocks within a grid of new arterial streets at approximately one-mile or 1.2-mile intervals. One opportunistic developer was already in the process of building a gated superblock on the site where we were asked to explore transit-oriented development. Immediately, we became concerned. The project under construction effectively served only the residents within the gated community, blocking pedestrian and bike access to the light-rail station for anyone else. Residents of other developments would be forced to walk or bike a mile or more to get around the first development.

I wondered: Did our Chinese hosts not see this contradiction? Were they looking for alternatives?

NEXT: What the Berkeley team proposed

Isabel Hilton: This is the first ministerial meeting in the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue. What do you hope to get out of it?

Ian Pearson: We hope to get an agreement on the strategy for the UK-China Sustainable Development Dialogue for the next couple of years. This will include joint work in sustainable consumption and production. When you look at the embedded carbon in the products that we buy and the fact that China manufactures most of them these days, it`s clear that we have a common agenda here. It will also include, amongst other areas, natural resource management. Under this theme, some work has also been done on forestry policy and we hope to take that forward as well – global deforestation is a huge issue that we need to tackle. The Chinese have been particularly keen to talk about urban development and of course the biggest issue today is climate change – the science and some of the daily reports we are now seeing are very worrying.

IH: Your department has given some support to www.chinadialogue.net. Is the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue between governments and experts or do you envisage a wider dialogue?

IP: I would like it to be all of those. I think government to government dialogue is important but there is another element to the Dialogue – it includes the engagement of a range of stakeholders – we`ve been pleased how much of the latter we`ve seen so far under the dialogue. China`s 11th Five Year Plan has sustainability written into it and I think it`s a remarkably impressive document.

IH: Although China`s last Five Year Plan missed several of its environmental targets. Is it your impression that the 11th Plan will hit them?

IP: I get the sense that they are taking it more seriously this time. There`s nothing like talking to people to really get an assessment of how important it is to them. I know the priority has been growth – and trying to ensure balanced growth, but sustainability has risen up the agenda in China.

IH: After twenty years of growth in China, there has certainly been a change of tone and a shift in official statements from the top. How much of a priority is it now for China to balance the economy and the environment?

IP: I think the environment is being given a higher priority under the 11th Five Year Plan and in the way that it will be implemented. I don`t think there`s any doubting that. The Chinese government has recognised the severe pollution problems that have been created as a result of its rapid industrial development and is taking practical measures to deal with that.

IH: How far do you think it goes?

IP: China is such vast country this can`t just be driven from the centre. It requires people in towns and cities to develop policies and to work on environmental issues. In such a vast country, performance is bound to be patchy. But I think a lot has happened in Shanghai. Shanghai wants to set higher standards environmentally and in terms of its economy and skills base. And if you talk to the mayors of Shenzhen or Guangzhou, they want to do something about it too. They still want to grow, but they are committed to doing something about the environment as well.

Zhou Jigang: We all know the global environmental crisis is worsening. What is the cause of this change?

Pan Yue: The fundamental cause is the capitalist system. The environmental crisis has become a new means of transferring the economic crisis.

ZJ: You met with representatives of the German Green Party in April and discussed, among other things, ecological socialism and sustainable development. What is the purpose of studying eco-socialism?

PY: Actually, the Green Party does not represent eco-socialism.

Caspar Henderson: What is your recent book about and why did you write it?

George Monbiot: Last year I was at a political meeting in London where I said that in order to prevent runaway climate change we need a cut of 80% in greenhouse gas emissions in the rich nations. I later found out it was 90%, but that [80%] was what the information said at the time. Someone in the audience said, “well when that happens what will this country look like?” I didn’t know the answer so I asked Mayer Hillman, a well known campaigner on climate change in the UK who was also there, to tell us the answer. He said “a very poor third world country”.

I thought if that’s the case we’re doomed. So I set out to see whether it was possible to achieve a 90% cut, without turning Britain into a very poor third world country. And I found that it is possible: we can introduce the changes at some economic cost but without a major reduction in our freedom and our lives except in one respect which is flying. There are not good technological substitutes for aviation. We just have to fly a lot less

CH: Many people will agree with you about the necessity of a cut of this size, at least in the long run. So what is different about your book?

GM: I argue that the cut has to be achieved by 2030. What we are talking about is reducing carbon emissions to the point at which the manmade production of carbon dioxide is in balance with the biosphere’s ability to absorb it. But there are two problems. Number one: the human population is rising. Number two: that the biosphere’s ability to absorb carbon is declining.

So in order to be in balance with the biosphere by 2030, we have to cut the amount of carbon every human produces to 0.33 tonnes by that date (assuming total global population is 8.2bn people, the UN mid range projection). That means a total world wide reduction of 60%. This cut should be distributed fairly so that everybody by that date is entitled to the same right to emit. And that means a cut of roughly 90% in rich nations – 87% in the UK, for example, and 94% in the US.

CH: Most accepted research to date suggests that such cuts are out of reach. How do you find differently?

GM: I find in the book that the necessary cuts in the UK are technologically and economically possible. The difficulty is political: it is in convincing governments that it can be done.

But so far as the health of our economy and our quality of life is concerned, we are not talking about major changes expect in terms of aviation. We are, however, talking about a massive technological transformation coupled with some brave political moves, including the introduction of carbon rationing.

CH: It’s often claimed that free markets, when properly regulated, help contribute to the sum of human freedom. Once you start to talk about rationing, though, aren’t you likely to lose support in a country like the UK?

GM: I choose rationing because, within the limits it sets, there can be much more freedom as to how to spend your carbon allowance than any other system will allow you. If instead you were to make laws controlling human behaviour – for example, laws preventing you from installing inefficient light bulbs, laws preventing you from flying or laws obliging you to turn off your television at the wall – you would be restricting freedom far more.

Rationing is an intrusion on human freedom but people must accept we cannot live with the total freedom of an unlimited carbon allowance such as we have today. Rationing is a small price to pay for the survival of the biosphere and most beings in the world.

CH: How, if at all, is your manifesto relevant to China where hundreds of millions of people want to improve their life chances and lifestyle, and where all that is likely to mean greatly increased energy consumption?

GM: At the moment in the UK, we use China as an excuse for inaction. We say “look at all those Chinese: they will swamp any effort we might make to cut our carbon dioxide emissions”. The truth is that emissions per head in China are far smaller than those in the UK. I believe the figure for the UK is about 2.6 tonnes per person, while for China it is about 0.74 tonnes.

So when we point to China or other developing countries as being the cause of the problem it is simply hypocritical. This is particularly bad in the case of the US and Australian administrations who have recruited China and India to the Asia Pacific Partnership as a means to undermine the Kyoto Protocol. And having done so they then turn round and say China and India are not signing up to the Kyoto Protocol therefore we can’t. They create a perfect excuse for themselves.

All that being said, it is true that carbon emissions for every individual must be limited wherever they live. Some country’s emissions are already below the final sustainable level and some are a long way below. In a fair world they can afford to raise their carbon emission. China’s emissions will have to peak soon, otherwise they will become a big global problem. But we in Britain are in not position to tell China to do that until we have sorted out our own emissions.

China’ great advantage is its excellence in engineering and technological innovation. It has already shown more enthusiasm for developing alternative energy sources than we have in the UK or indeed the US. But China has its share of challenges too. It is generating more and more power from coal fired power stations. Car ownership is increasingly rapidly. In some cities here we are trying to go in the opposite direction although without much success.

Even despite those problems, China offers us all a great deal of hope because of its ability to change quickly, to develop new technologies and get them onto market very quickly in deed. If left unchecked Chinese emissions will continue to rise and can do a great deal of damage. But China has the potential to change that and become a low carbon economy. It is already developing a low carbon city which sounds very interesting indeed.

CH: What have you and others researching and campaigning for a low carbon economy in the UK learned that you would like people concerned about these issues in China to be particularly aware of?

GM: One of the things to be aware of is the very effective network of corporate funded campaigners who don’t identify themselves as such. They take money from companies like Exxon in order to change the agenda. We have been very na%26iuml;ve in that we haven’t realised the extent to which this goes on. I would say, be very wary of these people. Look very hard at the scientific and technical claims they are making, because the ones I have investigated have turned out to be completely bogus.

CH: You have set up a web site called “Turn up the heat.” What are you trying to do there?

GM: I regard climate change as having the potential to turn into the great crime of the 21st century. While all of us who live high carbon lifestyles are guilty to a degree, some are more guilty than others. If those people were planning to use other (I presume he means illegal or less socially acceptable) means to kill what could turn out to be many people they would be objects of hatred and derision and – by rights – in prison by now. But because they are killing by means of climate change they are looked up to as leaders of society. I want to make it unacceptable for people to produce huge amounts of carbon and to remain respected figures in our society. This is one way to help change the debate.

The people I am targeting on the web site have a particular responsibility for large, very large carbon emissions. They are people who run airlines. They are people who run companies that claim to be reducing emission but aren’t doing so. They are people who run political parties which have made misleading statements about their commitment to cut carbon machines. And in one case, for someone who has become a one man planet killing machine in his own right. I’m talking about the rock star Chris Martin who claims to be very concerned about the environment but flies everywhere in his private jet. I have calculated that he uses at least 250 times his sustainable carbon emission every year. I feel they need to be named and shamed. This is one method to change the debate.

CH: Under what conditions, if any, will you fly?

GM: I have stopped for tourism and normal business. But I face a dilemma in that I have been asked to go to several parts of the world to talk about climate change! I feel if by doing so I can make a difference then in some cases it is worth doing, but not in all cases by any means.

A particular problem is that the people who work for the other side have no difficulty in flying all round the world to spread their message. And now what I have seen Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” in which he shows a map of all the places he has flow round the world to lecture on climate change I feel a little better!

Recently there have been frequent newspaper references to the interest shown by individuals, institutions and even governments in foreign initiatives aimed at acquiring land in the Amazon region for conservation purposes. Such initiatives arise from concerns regarding the possible role of deforestation in climate change. However, they are also based on a lack of information regarding the Amazon rainforest, and ignore important scientific data.

Climate change is a genuine problem, and one to which Brazil attaches great importance. There is a global consensus that the phenomenon is being accelerated by human actions. It is a cumulative process, resulting from the progressive concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. To focus attention primarily on countries’ current emissions is therefore wrong and unfair. Some of the countries currently responsible for emissions – particularly developing countries – have little or no historical responsibility for the global warming, the effects of which we are now beginning to feel.

The main cause of climate change is well known: at least 80% of the problem is a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels – especially coal and oil – from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. It is due only in small part to changes in land use, including deforestation.

There are many reasons why current levels of deforestation around the world are a cause for concern, but in combating climate change the focus should be on altering energy matrixes and promoting more intensive use of clean energy. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol are quite clear on this point: those who caused the problem – the industrialised countries – must meet mandatory reduction targets and have the obligation to act first.

Although not obliged to meet any mandatory reduction targets, since it bears little responsibility for the problem, Brazil is doing its part. We have one of the cleanest energy matrixes in the world. Our bio-fuels programmes are often quoted as an example to be followed by other countries. We are therefore contributing to sustainable development and to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Brazil is also fighting deforestation by implementing policies aimed at promoting the value of our native forest and supporting the socio-economic development of communities that depend on it. Over recent years we have achieved significant reductions in the rate of deforestation in the Amazon. Total deforestation in 2005 was 32% lower than in 2004, and preliminary data suggests there will have been a further fall of 11% over the course of 2006. These are important results, but the efforts towards a permanent decrease in deforestation must continue.

Sustainable forest-management is an area with a great deal of potential for international cooperation through the exchange of experiences and support for technical capacity-building. We welcome such cooperation, as long as it is based on respect for our laws and our sovereignty.

Brazil is an active participant in the international debate regarding forests. At the UN Climate Change Conference in Nairobi in November, we will be putting forward a proposal aimed at creating incentives for countries to reduce rates of deforestation voluntarily, which we believe would also be an appropriate way for developed countries to support the conservation of tropical rainforests.

The proposal constitutes just one aspect of Brazil`s contribution to the shared efforts aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil is firmly opposed to the unsustainable development patterns that have led to irreparable environmental damage all over the world. Brazil expects the industrialised countries, which are responsible for these development patterns, to comply with their obligations for reducing emissions.

In the developed world, well-meaning individuals who are concerned about climate change, with good reason, should dedicate themselves to influencing their own governments with a view to altering unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and to utilising renewable energy resources. The latter is an area in which Brazil has much to offer in terms of expertise and technology.

We are taking care of the Amazon in accordance with development models based on principles of sustainability defined by Brazilian society. The Amazon is part of the heritage of the Brazilian people, and it is not for sale.

Article written jointly by Brazil’s foreign, environment, and science %26amp; technology ministers, published in Folha de S%26atilde;o Paulo on 17 October 2006.

Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister

Sergio Rezende, Minister for Science and Technology

Marina Silva, Environment Minister

Homepage photo by welsh boy

China has long enjoyed good relations with the southern African state of Angola, during the Cold War the two regimes shared ideological sympathies. But the relationship has taken on a new closeness in recent years, as China`s economy has expanded and Beijing has encouraged its companies to scour the world for natural resources. From being a blip on China`s strategic map, Angola is now central to China`s strategic plans – a country to be flattered and indulged through a mix of military support, aid, and cheap loans.

Earlier this year, Angola – Africa`s second largest oil producer – became China`s number one source of crude oil, overtaking Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. In May, Sinopec, one of China`s three leading oil companies, struck a US$2.2 billion deal with Sonangol, Angola’s state-owned oil company, to develop two new blocks with estimated reserves of 4.5 billion barrels, adding to its previous concessions. By 2008, Angola will supply the People`s Republic with up to two million barrels a day. And, by all accounts, the plan is for more.

Accompanying its investments in oil, China has extended a series of low-interest loans, pledged investments in Angola`s telecoms sector, railways, and military communications network. Chinese companies have also been active in various infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, schools, shopping centers, office buildings and low-cost housing. Most dramatically, Chinese firms are heavily involved in building a new city south of Luanda, which the government hopes will house up to four million people and help to alleviate extreme overcrowding in the capital.

China`s largesse – while beneficial to Angola`s post-war reconstruction – has not come without criticism. A US$2 billion loan, signed with China`s export credit agency in 2004, was especially controversial, with NGOs and others complaining that China had helped Angola to renege a putative deal with the IMF, which came with conditions to cut corruption and improve transparency surrounding the country`s oil revenues. Global Witness, a British NGO, has lambasted China for eschewing governance in the negotiation of such financing, while Western oil companies have said Chinese companies have effectively hampered efforts to introduce anti-corruption schemes like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative – which Angola has signed but has yet to implement. At the same time, development experts have questioned whether China`s money, while helping to build hospitals, will actually start the country on the road to self-sufficiency. A feature of much of China`s investment in Africa, they say, is the use of Chinese, rather than local workers.

China`s involvement in Angola is hardly unique. Over the past few years, Beijing has been extending soft credit to numerous countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia, as part of its push to secure energy supplies and develop its companies` interests overseas. The “big three” of Chinese energy companies – CNPC, Sinopec, and CNOOC – have been buying up dozens of oil and gas blocks, and as in Angola, Chinese construction firms have been busy building major infrastructure all over Africa and Latin America. China`s aim, observers say, isn`t necessarily profits – at least in the short term – but rather to build influence in the developing world, undercutting western governments and companies.

This model of development, which forgoes any “interference” in the internal affairs of foreign states, is of increasing concern to NGOs, international financial institutions, and western companies trying to improve transparency, human rights, and develop “capacity” in poor countries. The worry is that Beijing will let nothing get in the way of its “go global” policy, turning a blind eye to the activities of its companies overseas, even as it tightens corporate responsibility standards at home (as it has done on issues of corruption, worker safety and the environment). In turn, there are those who fear what this will mean for western companies trying to compete with their Chinese counterparts; whether – backed by cheap loans, diplomatic pressure, and military assistance – China`s companies will lower the bar for all comers.

On the other hand, many African leaders point out that, far from corrupting the development process, China is presenting Africa with opportunities. They argue that it was precisely the meddling of western powers – such France, Portugal and Britain – that contributed to the extreme poverty on the continent. By contrast, China`s approach, focusing less on governance and more on getting things done, stands more chance of success than endless foreign interference.

China and corporate responsibility

Nonetheless, the activities of Chinese companies in Africa have raised eyebrows. Experts say that, compared to western companies, Chinese multinationals are only beginning to understand corporate responsibility. Some believe greater engagement with institutions like the World Bank, the need for western capital (including stock-market filing requirements), as well as the reputational benefits of corporate responsibility, will all encourage Chinese companies to begin to take the area more seriously – at least at home. More worry surrounds the companies` behaviour abroad. On transparency, China has yet to sign up to international anti-bribery initiatives like the OECD`s anti-bribery convention, and the EITI. Says Peter Rooke, director of the Asia department at Transparency International: “As Chinese companies expand their investment into other countries, there is a need for better international standards.”

The weaknesses of Chinese corporate-responsibility standards are most evident in developing world – where the majority of Chinese investment is now focused – and are frequently oil-related. Most egregious is the relationship with the regime in Sudan – where China has ignored US sanctions, the genocide in Darfur, and a full-scale divestment campaign from NGOs. Burma and Zimbabwe have also benefited from numerous Chinese loans.

NGOs and other observers are also very concerned about China`s international environmental impact. A report from the International Rivers Network and Friends of the Earth last year criticised Exim Bank, China`s export credit agency, for funding projects such as the Yeywa Dam in Burma, Merowe Dam in Sudan, and the Nam Mang 3 Dam in Laos. It says Exim has failed to sign up to the environment guidelines adopted by many export-credit agencies from OECD countries, including Korea and Turkey. These guidelines, known as the “common approaches”, compel export-credit agencies to subject projects to environmental review, as well as relevant host country and international standards. In late 2004, Exim adopted environmental guidelines of its own; but NGOs point out that they are not available to the public, or to commercial banks that arrange funding on Exim`s behalf. The report notes that Exim also has no apparent policy on human rights, despite loaning to countries with poor human-rights records, such as Burma and Sudan. Meanwhile, concerns have been raised over the environmental impact of various Chinese-run mining operations in Africa, including copper mines in Zambia and Congo, and titanium sands projects in ecologically sensitive parts of Mozambique, Kenya, Tanzania, and Madagascar. Chinese miners have also come under fire in South Africa.

Moreover, China is a major importer of illegal timber from forests in places like Burma, Indonesia, Cameroon, Congo, and Equatorial Guinea. Last year, Global Witness said that China`s imported timber – most of it illegal – was worth some US$350 million annually. Up to 70% of that ended up being re-exported abroad as furniture, plywood and other processed products, according to a report this year by Centre for International Forestry Research.

Elizabeth Economy, director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington and author of The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future, says there are two ways of understanding China`s impact on the global environment. One, is what she calls the “unintended consequences” of China`s rapid economic advance: its impact, for example, on ozone depletion and climate change, and its pollution of the Pacific Ocean.

The second phenomenon, she says, is more recent and concerns its multinationals working abroad. “If you can accept that Chinese companies engaged domestically are some of the most egregious in the world in terms of labour and safety standards and environmental standards, then there is very little reason to anticipate that what they are doing abroad is any better,” she says.

There are signs, however, that Chinese companies and the Chinese government are beginning to take concerns over corporate responsibility more seriously. For example, following Global Witness`s report on Burmese logging, the Yunnan Provincial Government closed its border to illegal imports from that country. In Peru, where CNPC`s subsidiary SAPET has come under fire for impinging on the habitats of indigenous peoples in the Amazon, the company recently requested that the government remove an affected area from their oil concession. Such examples may be the first evidence that Chinese companies understand that to operate over the long-term they need to adjust to the concerns of local people.

Economy says some government agencies is beginning to wake up to the potential for difficulties. She says: “I think there is some concern within the Foreign Affairs ministry about how to keep track of China`s growing presence abroad. I think the idea of corporate responsibility among Chinese companies is just beginning to take hold. But it`s going to take some time, because the companies haven`t felt these concerns domestically.”

Ben Schiller is a freelance journalist based in London. He specialises in US politics, eastern Europe and corporate responsibility issues.

chinadialogue: How has the political attitude to climate change evolved since 1997?

Elliot Diringer: In many countries, political support for addressing climate change has grown significantly since 1997. A principal reason is that the scientific consensus on climate change has grown stronger. Scientists are now agreed that the earth is warming, in large because of the dramatic increase in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Also, there is growing evidence that global warming impacts, such as melting of glaciers and changes in ecosystems, are occurring faster than predicted. Economists also have developed a better understanding of the economic risks of climate change. A recent review by Sir Nicholas Stern, the United Kingdom`s chief economist, concluded that strong action to reduce emissions would cost approximately 1% of global GDP by 2050, but if action is not taken, the impacts of climate change could reduce global GDP by 5% to 20%. While political support for action is growing, it must become much stronger, particularly in the United States and in the major emerging economies, in order for governments to undertake the actions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

cd: What has the Kyoto Protocol achieved?

The twelfth conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC COP 12) is being held in Kenya`s capital, Nairobi, from 6-17 November 2006. Delegates from more than 180 nations are gathering to discuss climate change – one of the biggest challenges facing the human race. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Africa will be the continent most impacted by global warming – and human activity is largely responsible. But what role will Africa play in the talks?

Almost all African countries have signed and ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. But the continent is still poised to suffer worst from the impacts of climate change. Campaigners are holding world governments responsible for not taking adequate measures to reduce their levels of greenhouse-gas emissions. A failure to act on emissions is already adversely affecting many countries in Africa, resulting in water scarcity, drought, persistent floods and other terrible consequences.

This year, Kenya experienced a period of extreme drought. Thousands of people lost their property and some lost their lives. The country has barely recovered from the terrible floods of 1997, but meteorologists say that El Ni%26ntilde;o floods may hit in the New Year. The snowcaps of Mount Kenya and Mount Kilimanjaro are melting at a rate unprecedented in history, leading to local water shortages. Malaria has also increased in highland areas, where it was not prevalent before.

The Turkana region of northwest Kenya – some of the most dry and inhospitable territory on earth – has felt the brunt of climate change`s effects on Kenya. The Turkana people are pastoralists whose way of life is adapted to the harsh environment. They are constantly on the move in search of waterholes and available pasture on which to graze their animals during the dusty nine months between one rainy season and the next. The rainy season, known as the akipiro, may arrive any time between the months of March and June. But this year, the akipiro has not been sufficient to allow for the full regeneration of pasture and the replenishment of waterholes. Gzahegn Kebede, Oxfam`s chief programmes manager in Kenya, says most communities in northern Kenya do not have the capacity to cope with abnormal weather conditions. “Drought has been more damaging to households in northern parts of Kenya than any form of protracted conflict,” says Kebede. When it rains, serious flooding can be disastrous for people living on drought-parched land.

photo by Mike

A recent forum of Kenyan civil society groups argued that African countries are suffering the consequences of “luxury emissions” from industrialised countries, while they are still far from achieving industrialisation themselves. Grace Akumu, from Climate Network Africa, says: “At the [UNFCC] conference we do not want diversionary measures. When Africans are dying because of luxury emissions emanating from industrialised countries, we want serious business.” She adds: “It is a question of life and death.”

There is much to be done to make a more equitable agreement on climate change. Discussing the implementation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to advance sustainable development and equality for poor countries, Akumu feels Africa has been let down. “Africa had only five [CDM] projects by September this year, while the remaining 500 projects are in Europe and the other developing countries in Latin America and Asia,” she says. Akumu argues that African governments should take the lead in opposing similarly inequitable development programmes.

One of the key UN Millennium Development Goals is to halve the world`s population of people living in hunger by 2015. But there are fears that this could be made impossible by climate change. Global warming`s main culprits should provide resources to help the societies that will suffer the most to adapt. But the responsibility should not just lie in the hands of rich nations. As Jesse Mugambi of the World Council of Churches argues: “Our climate is in crisis; it is our survival but also our responsibility. Despite the role that should be played by industrialised countries, it is our responsibility to deal with the problem of global warming that is with us.” Mugambi says that any agreement following 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol`s term is up, should involve special funds to help vulnerable communities adapt to climate change. He says that helping with adaptation is not a question of charity but one of equity. Since developed countries have been able to achieve growth at the expense of others, it is only fair to compensate the poorest who are suffering as a result.

Andrew Pendleton of Christian Aid told me that British campaigners are putting pressure on the UK government to compensate poor countries for the damage done by greenhouse gas emissions in industrialised countries. “Tony Blair needs to put his money and policies where his mouth is,” says Pendleton. He adds that industrialised nations should support the development of clean, low-carbon technologies in poor countries.

Despite efforts made to engage Africa in climate politics, there is little in terms of implementation of climate-change measures on the continent. African countries should now take the lead in according climate change its rightful importance in the public sphere.

Rachel Odengo is a reporter for the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation

It is sometimes said that, given the track record of the richest industrialised nations in failing to reduce their greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, westerners are in no position to tell China what to do, still less other countries rising from poverty. I argue that it is time to move on from such a polarised position, and to think in new ways about the technical and political challenges ahead. The argument comes in three parts:

- The “safe” level of atmospheric GHG concentrations is probably much lower than is generally understood.

- China is close to, and will soon exceed, its fair share of what is already an unsustainable burden of pollution.

- This situation presents enormous political challenges, requiring extraordinary creativity and leadership at many levels within China and by the Chinese people internationally.

“Safe” levels of greenhouse gas

Unless there is radical change in the way the world produces the energy it needs and how land and other resources are used, mankind is likely to change the global climate in ways that will impose big dangers and high costs on people and nations worldwide.

China will not be exempt from the changes. Three key impacts are described by Stephan Harrison in his contribution to chinadialogue. Higher temperatures will shrink the glaciers in the Tibetan plateau, disrupting the water supply of many hundreds of millions of people and the agriculture on which they depend. Climate change, allied to unsustainable land-use practices, will increase the number and size of dust storms from China`s deserts. And the thawing of previously frozen soils would both increase the scale of desertification and contribute to “positive feedback” to global warming. This “positive” mechanism refers to any change in the environment that leads to additional or enhanced changes. So, put simply, when frozen soils thaw, they release GHGs such as methane and carbon dioxide (CO2)%26mdash;and those released gases, in turn, contribute to further warming.

Other effects of global warming would include more storms of the kind that displaced millions of people and caused $15 billion in damage to coastal provinces (according to reports from Xinhua in August 2006). And if, as former US vice president Al Gore points out in his film An Inconvenient Truth, global warming causes a substantial part of land-based ice in the west Antarctic ice sheet and in Greenland to melt, then sea-level rise will displace tens of millions of people from the regions of Shanghai, Beijing and elsewhere.

To avoid, or at least reduce, the risk of dangerous climate change with impacts such as these, it is necessary to:

- sharply reduce and then stop the increasing rate of emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and

- reduce total annual global emissions.

To date, much international discussion at the interface of science and politics has taken as a rule of thumb that — as a first step — global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide should not exceed approximately twice the concentrations which existed before the modern industrial era. A typical range used is 500 to 560 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere (see, for example, Socolow et al, Science 2004, and Scientific American, September 2006).

Each part per million of CO2 corresponds to about 2.1 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon. The current level – about 380ppm – is 800 billion tonnes; 560ppm would mean about 1.2 trillion tonnes. On this reckoning, the world adds 400 billion tonnes of carbon to the global atmosphere, but no more, and does not exceed this target.

It is sometimes argued that total global emissions of up to twice this amount, or 800 billion tonnes, would be all right because vegetation, soils and the oceans will soak up half. But this argument is open to challenge. A warmer climate is likely to mean that vegetation and soils would become a net source rather than a sink of carbon, leading to a positive feedback (warmer soils mean more CO2 and methane, more greenhouse gases mean warmer soils, and so on).

And using the oceans as a sink causes acidification that scientists now think may cause the most rapid and disruptive change to life in the seas since catastrophic events tens of millions of years ago (see Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, Royal Society, August 2005 and The other CO2 problem, New Scientist, August 2006).

So, it is far from sure that atmospheric concentrations of around 560ppm will be “safe” in the sense that this level will keep the risk of disastrous impacts, including those described for China, within acceptable limits.

Advisors to the British government and others have suggested that 450 or even 400ppm of CO2 may be nearer the mark (see, for example, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Schellnhuber et al, and Can 2C warming be avoided? at RealClimate),with a 2% to 20% chance of a temperature increase of 5 degrees centigrade (Meinhausen 2006, cited in the Stern Review, page 9) if global greenhouse-gas concentrations were stabilised at the equivalent of 430ppm CO2.

Virtually every advance in climate science points to bigger impacts and more serious consequences from human emissions of greenhouse gases than previously predicted. That being the case, caution is wise. And the time available to act is much shorter than is often thought. Currently, the combustion of coal, oil and gas, together with other activities, add approximately 7 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere every year. At the present rate, with no acceleration, it probably would take about 12 years for atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to reach 400ppm.

[The calculation here is that at a rate of 7 billion tonnes a year, it takes 12 years to produce 84 billion tonnes; 84 billion tonnes translates to an additional 40ppm in the atmosphere, but half of this is soaked up by vegetation, soils and the oceans, meaning the net addition to the atmosphere over 12 years is 20ppm.]

Other stocks of GHG added to the atmosphere by human action, including methane and nitrous oxide, have the effect of an additional 15% of CO2, so the actual human forcing — or effect exerted — on the atmosphere when CO2 levels are 400ppm actually will be equivalent to 460ppm.

If, at such a time, it became clear that a higher concentration would cause catastrophic damage, then to avoid those impacts all emissions would have to cease immediately. Since this is virtually unthinkable, there may well be much less than 12 years for the world to begin a rapid, rational and effective transition to a very low-carbon economy.

It is likely that the risk of catastrophic climate change is already as much as one in five. The risk is increasing with every passing month in which the world fails to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. It`s like a game of Russian roulette: there is a bullet in one of the chambers of the revolver, and we are in the process of putting in a second bullet. The gun is pointed at the head of everyone in the world.

China`s fair share

China is the second-largest single polluter, although the European Union as a whole emits more tonnes of carbon annually. Estimates of China`s total emissions vary, but one that has been widely cited puts China`s proportion of total world emissions of CO2 in 2003 at 14.1%. This accounts only for emissions from fossil-fuel combustion and does not take into account other sources of greenhouse gases. It indicates that the Chinese contribution in that year was, at a minimum, just under one billion tonnes of carbon.

But whatever the exact figures on Chinese emissions and those of other countries, there is some simple arithmetic from which we cannot escape – assuming, that is, that we want to start by stabilising global emissions at around today`s levels of 7 billion tonnes. If present-day global emissions were allocated equally to every person in the world, China – with about 22% of the global population – would be entitled to about 1.5 billion tonnes.

Energy consumption in China is currently growing at nearly 6% per year. If 10% of that additional demand is met by so-called zero-carbon sources such as wind and nuclear power (which may be controversial for other reasons), carbon emissions will still increase by more than 5% a year. At this rate, it would take about eight years from 2003 for China to be emitting 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon. And that means that by 2011 – little more than four years away – China could be exceeding its “fair” global share. Several scenarios indicate that by 2020 China will be contributing around 2 billion tonnes of carbon per year to earth`s atmosphere.

Political challenges

One of the first things that come up when China and climate change are mentioned together is that the richest countries, historically and today, are by far the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases per head of population, and have the responsibility to act first. This is certainly true. And it is often stressed, for example by Yu Hongyuan of the Shanghai Institute for International Studies.

The responsibility of the rich industrialised nations to act first was recognised in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. China is a signatory to the protocol, and benefits from some investment in clean and renewable energy projects under its clean development mechanism (see, for example, World`s Biggest Greenhouse Gas Deal Takes Effect in Win-Win Situation for China, Industrialized Nations).

The EU is also offering some additional assistance with projects such as carbon capture and storage for one coal-fired plant by 2020 (see the article by Jon Gibbins on chinadialogue). The US, which has not ratified the protocol, says it will assist through something called the Asia-Pacific Partnership, which does not set targets to reduce emissions. The majority of American businesses leaders expect the US to join some form of cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases within a few years.

Current actions in the richest countries are hugely, even grotesquely, inadequate given the need for cuts. So far, very few have reduced their emissions at all, except as fortuitous by-products of other measures. For example, in Britain, emissions have been rising continuously for more than 10 years, following a “dash for gas” in the 1990s which replaced much coal-fired generation with cleaner, natural-gas-powered turbines. Unified Germany was allowed to take carbon credits from the collapse of the economy of the former East Germany, which had been powered largely on lignite, one of the dirtiest forms of coal.

The richest countries need to massively ratchet up their commitment to policies that deliver greater benefits with sharply reduced energy consumption, both at home and abroad. China and other countries should press them to act faster and more effectively. But neither China nor anyone else can afford to wait for them to fail.

Recall that China will soon exceed its “fair” share of total global emissions. Once China does so, it will no longer have the luxury of pointing the finger at other countries merely because they are even-worse greenhouse-gas polluters. Other, poorer, countries want their place in the sun, too – and, for them, China will have become a member of the club of global “bad guys”.

Hundreds of millions of people have risen from poverty since China began reforms about a quarter of a century ago. More live in hope of a similar transformation. But unless future development is undertaken with substantially lower emissions, the foundations of China`s prosperity and its future potential will be in jeopardy. The same is true of the wider world with which China is ever more interlinked.

The political challenges to achieving greener growth and distributing its benefits widely and equitably are enormous. Support and advocacy by some at high levels of government, which occurs both in the west and China, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. Powerful interests which profit from environmental destruction stand in the way of progress. This means that the challenges are political as well as technological.

Government and civil society in China can learn something from the manifold failures and limited successes in western countries. On the plus side, countries like Britain now have something like a “mainstream” politics of climate – mainstream in the sense that the major political parties compete in pledging their commitment to green growth, and the issue is extensively debated in the news media. Even in the US – often considered the greatest obstacle to progress – the majority of citizens support action and some politicians are beginning to articulate the need for change. For example, Senator Jim Jeffords and Congressman Henry Waxman, who have introduced climate-change legislation, have said that the US needs to cut its emissions by at least 80% by 2050.

On 30 October 2006, the British government published a detailed assessment of the economic impacts of climate change. A team led by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern concluded that the need for action was urgent, that acting now will be much cheaper than not acting, and that it is the only way to protect future economic growth in all countries. Crucially, the Stern Review said, “strong deliberate policies by goverments are essential to motivate change”. The British government has said it will introduce a bill in the next parliamentary session to address the challenge.

Many civil-society groups in Britain welcome such rhetoric, but are not convinced the words will be translated into effective action because so many existing policies, from transport through regulation of the building industry, point in the opposite direction.

On 4 November, tens of thousands of delegates from some of these groups (environment and conservation organisations, churches, unions, and women`s and others organisations, with a combined membership of many millions), took part in one of a series of demonstrations in over 50 countries. In some of the poorest and most vulnerable nations, such as Bangladesh, they called for faster action by the rich countries to reduce emissions. In Britain, the environmental group Greenpeace took more radical action by occupying and partly shutting down a coal-fired power station.

The path to a politics of climate change may be very different in China to that in the west. Certainly, westerners are in no position to tell Chinese people what they should do. But because this problem concerns all of us, it will help to share our experience – both failures and successes. China has great resources to draw on, including traditional values described by Martin Palmer, some contemporary ideas discussed by Pan Yue and campaigning such as that pursued by Ma Jun and his colleagues (all described here on chinadialogue).

At the recent summit in Beijing with 40 African leaders, vice premier Wu Yi said, “We take great pride in China`s strong and warm friendship with Africa.” If this friendship is to be genuine and durable, China needs to get serious about climate change, which, if unchecked, is likely to affect the peoples of Africa even more severely than those of China. At the just-concluded UN climate conference in Nairobi, secretary-general Kofi Annan announced a six-agency plan to help poor countries to “climate-proof” their crops and infrastructure and to obtain funds for clean energies.

Annan criticised a “frightening lack of leadership” in fighting global warming, noting that — like the US — India and China “also have to begin to take this seriously, because they are at the stage where they are also beginning to produce greenhouse gases and emissions”. It is time for the Chinese government and people to step forward and begin to play their full part in one of the greatest challenges ever faced by humanity.

Caspar Henderson is associate editor of chinadialogue.