Comments on Katherine Morton “China and non-traditional security: Toward what end?” 1/04/2011, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/03/31/china-and-non-traditional-security-toward-what-end/
I find the following characterisation of China's position on climate in the context of own development needs and responsible stakeholder interesting and amusing.
"Climate change is the one global concern that has yet to be securitised in the official Chinese discourse. Contrary to the logic of interdependency, while water, food, energy, and natural disasters are all perceived as security issues, climate change is classified solely as a development issue. This is largely a result of the Chinese concern over maintaining leverage in global climate change negotiations. The principle of common but differentiated responsibility relies upon China’s claim to developing country status rather than responsible stakeholder status."
It appears to imply that China is not a responsible stakeholder on the climate change issue. If that is true, it is more likely than not to misrepresent China’s position, or has misinterpreted or misunderstood it.
I think China, by not asking or not strongly asking for equal per capita emission entitlement, indicates that it is a more responsible stakeholder than most if not all industrialised countries on climate change.
There has been an unmentioned underlying and distorted logic internationally on climate change and emissions mitigation, that is, the disregard of the equal rights of everyone irrespective their income living in both developed or developing countries to the atmosphere by high emission countries. Instead of paying appropriate and adequate compensations to citizens/residents in low emission countries for excessive emissions by high emission countries to cause damages to the former’s rights to the atmosphere and cause adverse climate changes, they have dressed up some inadequate and future money as assistance or aid.
Most economics textbook would contain principles on how to deal with negative environment externalities such as pollution. They are not complex and are simple to understand. It should not be a too much stretch to one’s imagination to assume that most leaders and officials in industrialised countries have some knowledge of them.
They should have the courage to live up to their obligations to the human kind and to face their responsibilities in paying for the costs of above average per capita emissions which are currently unaccounted for, as if they make sacrifices. What a joke it is.
They should practise what they talk about universal human rights. Where have their attention been to everyone’s right to the atmosphere?