China should clarfiy its principle in international climate change

Comments on Xiujun Xu “China and climate change in the post-Copenhagen era”, 25/06/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/25/china-and-climate-change-in-the-post-copenhagen-era/
Copenhagen has generated many interesting claims, debates and results.

For example, we all know that Australia has just got a new Prime Minister. Some analysts attribute the starting point of the demise of the previous Prime Minister to Copenhagen.

Clearly the Copenhagen outcome was a blow to the former Prime Minister Mr Kevin Rudd, already struggled and unable to get his domestic CPRS legislation passed the senate.

No wonder it was reported he had foul words for China.

Back to China, what really occurred and what was China's stance then at Copenhagen?

It was reported that China even didn't want the developed world to agree or set reduction targets, why?

If China sets a target or reduction in energy intensity by 40-45% by 2020 from 2005, why did and does it not want or agree that to be verified, if other countries are to be under the same verification regime?

What does the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ really mean and how to implement it in practice?

Why hasn’t China adopted the principle of equal per capita of emission right and a proper international compensation regime based on that principle in its approach in its international climate change policy and negotiations?

Under that regime, the net costs to China may be just its own action to meet its own international obligation, while industrialised countries will need pay most low emission developing countries for emissions above the allowed or agreed per capita average global level.

In that way, a simple, objective and reasonably fair international framework can be achieved for this complex international issue on climate change. That should be consistent to the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, yet it can also easily be implemented and be fair with no or little room for argument.