The Melt - Asia Society

The Asia Society's "China Green" project has a new video out on their website called "The Melt" that gives a very quick, but important overview on how the glaciers in the Himalayas are changing, and the impacts that are being felt by the people who live in that area.

The video is clearly of very high production quality, and relies not only on interviews of western researchers, as sometimes happen in these sort of productions, but they also sent a film crew to Tibet to chronicle the changes in glaciers.

Source: Asia Society

I've written about this on our blog several times.  Its important to remember that, although the IPCC report was wrong to say that all the glaciers may be gone by 2035, they are melting - at an increasing pace.

Some quick quotes from the video: "It's mostly about water"  "If this keeps going, people and animals will no longer be able to get enough water".  The focus on water as the first, and most important impact of climate change on human society tracks exactly with the findings of the IISS.

Videos and projects like this are extremely important, because they are not only aimed at western audiences.  By traveling over to China and interviewing people in Tibet, videos like this can raise awareness within China too about the impacts of climate change. As the two largest emitters of carbon, the US and China are the key players in acting to reduce their emissions - and nations act only when it is in their interest to act.  This video makes it clear that China, and Tibet, are already paying the costs for climate change.

I tried to have the video embedded here, but they have not released the code.  Head over to their website, and  watch the whole 10 minute video.  It is well worth your time.

New Options For Kyrgyz Engagement on Energy Security in Central Asia

Below is a guest-post from IISS Intern Madeliene Foley, looking at the Energy Security and geopolitical implications of the coup in Kyrgyzstan.

The recent coup in Kyrgyzstan came on the heels of the completion of the Asia Gas Pipeline in December 2009, a project that is unprecedented in scale and extent of collaboration among regional powers. The coup is still causing reverberations throughout Central Asia -- a region increasingly dependent upon uninterrupted energy transit routes to China, Russia, and the West. Though it has no oil or natural gas, the now deposed President Bakiyev would have done well to leverage Kyrgyzstan’s strategic location to frame itself as a critically important transit route between oil-rich Kazakhstan and gas-rich Uzbekistan and their fastest growing customer- China.

Instead, the pipeline, which traverses Turkmen, Uzbek, Kazakh and Chinese territory, noticeably bypasses Kyrgyzstan. This can be attributed to early difficulties and missteps in negotiating favourable contract terms. However, Kyrgyzstan’s failure to market itself as a desirable transit route means that is has not cashed in on the recent growth in Central Asia’s energy sector, even though a glance at a map would show that it should be particularly well placed to receive some of China’s increased investment.

China’s interests in the region are an attempt to secure oil and gas supplies to continue and sustain its steady economic growth. It currently depends on sea access for 90% of its imports, which presents a critical threat to its energy security. The Asia Gas Pipeline and a second Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline will expand inland fuel transport capacity well beyond the current 10%. Securing crude oil is a top priority in Chinese energy policy as daily imports have grown from 2005 levels of 3.5 million barrels-per-day to 9 million bpd today.

Though they share a common border, Kyrgyzstan has no foreseeable plans to deepen its economic and infrastructural ties with China. Given that Kyrgyztsan has had difficulty meeting its own domestic power needs in the past, it would seriously behove the interim government to reach out to China on pipeline construction as they have to the US on automatically extending the Manas air base contract. The new Kyrgyz regime has thus far promised to cooperate with the US government in securing Manas, but there has been little speculation of how the coup will affect Central Asia’s energy industry.

Moreover, as Central Asian and Chinese leaders have grown closer and established deeper diplomatic and economic ties, Kyrgyzstan has remained isolated (note that Bakiyev is the notable Central Asian leader not pictured with Chinese President Hu Jintao). Skilful manoeuvring on Kyrgyzstan’s part now could secure its place as an integral transit route as Georgia has in the recent past. Kyrgyzstan’s best option at present is to reinvigorate its relationship with neighbouring states. Establishing a friendlier and more pragmatic regional outlook will both reassure neighbouring governments and lay the foundations for meaningful progress on energy infrastructure development in the future.

Stimson Center Video on the Mekong

Via the New Security Beat, I cam across this excellent video from the Stimson Center about the implications of building new dams across the Mekong River.

Mekong Tipping Point from Henry L. Stimson Center on Vimeo.

Richard Cronin, who has a starring role in the video, is the author of a new article in Survival: Mekong Dams and the Perils of Peace (sub. required). While the video focuses more on the implications of the dams for fisheries, the aticle focuses on the debates between the nations that share the Mekong. There is an important climate component to this as well. Although the river is not dependent upon glacial melt for the majority of its flow (6% according to the WWF), during the dry season, this glacial runoff is important.

China says, that Tibet is warming, and its time to do something about it

The Chinese government seems to be putting greater and greater emphasis on both the effects of climate change and how to mitigate it. Two articles from China Daily within the last week point to the new emphasis that the Chinese government is placing on this issue.

First, an August 18 article about the Tibeten Plateau says that Warming of Plateau is 'threatening all Asia'. The article goes on to detail how much Tibet has warmed, and that Tibet is warmer, on average than it has been for 2,000 years.

"The Qinghai-Tibet Plateau is among the regions worst hit by global warming,"
said Qin Dahe, of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). "In turn, this will
have a deleterious effect on the global climate and also the livelihood of Asian
people."

As the source of many of Asia's largest rivers, including the Yellow and Yangtze in China, warming, along with a retreat of the glaciers, poses a significant danger to water supplies throughout East and South Asia.

Secondly, and article, Climate change law to bring teeth to emissions mandates, from today (August 26), reports that the National Peoples' Congress has placed climate change on the legislative agenda. The key phrase in this article is: "China will have "legally binding actions" to fight the illegal emissions." Though the quote is from a leader of an NGO, not from the Chinese government, the fact that anyone in China is talking about 'legally binding' anything regarding climate change is a major change in policy. Does this mean a mandatory cap on emissions? Probably not in the short-term, but perhaps in the longer term.

It is important that these articles come from China Daily, because this newspaper is widely seen as the English-language mouthpiece of the central government. Several articles recently have pointed out that China may be moving ahead of the US on climate action, and these articles show that new focus.

Copenhagen starting points

The most recent round of climate change talks ended Friday in Bonn, Germany with UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer saying "selective progress had been made to consolidate the huge texts on the table...at this rate, we will not make it." A key area of contention is if the climate change treaty will govern intellectual property.

Developing countries demand more adaptation financing funded by the developed world and relaxed intellectual property laws for clean technologies. However, the US has refused to negotiate intellectual property laws at Copenhagen, especially since China fails to consistently enforce patents within its jurisdiction. The Times of India quotes an unamed official saying 'But they [referring to developed countries] want to create business out of the situation and ask us to trust the very markets they are right now propping out of the credit crisis."

These countries fear that developed nations will profit from exporting climate change technologies. Developed nations fear that they will not recoup their investments in renewable energy technology if they're exported to China, a country that will not begin reducing emissions until 2050. Would China be willing to commit to an earlier emissions reduction peak date in exchange for relaxed intellectual property laws? However, even if China agrees, US domestic politics may tie the hands of US negotiators to agree for any technology sharing agreement. A strong agreement will not likely be reached at Copenhagen unless developing countries extract financial or technological help from the developed world.

Signs of International Cooperation

Large emitters are showing greater international cooperation on climate change. The US, Mexico and Canada announced three ways to cooperate on climate change. Yesterday's Shanghai Daily ran an article headlined, ' China,U.S. must "seize the day" in climate change battle' calling for technology transfers and joint r&d funding. India and China now plan to not just study the Himalayan glaciers but to work on solutions. The Business Standard reports:

While the Indian scientists will study the glaciers on the Indian part of the Himalayas, their Chinese counterparts will undertake a similar exercise. Following this, both sides will exchange their findings and try to chalk out a comprehensive solution.

Does this 'comprehensive solution' mean there could an international agreement between China, an upstream country, and India, a downstream country to regulate water flow from the melting Himalayan glaciers? India is strategically vulnerable to China and would benefit from a legal agreement with China on water flow originating from the Himalayas.

The Strategic Importance of Water: India-China

India and China have begun discussions to jointly monitor the Himalayan glaciers that supply water to both the Ganges, Indus and Yangtze rivers. This is a promising sign of cooperation and mutual recognition of the importance of water in a region of the world with heightened risk of climate induced conflict. This will be one of the topics bound to come up at the conference in Nepal in a mouth on climate change. On August 28 China and India are both emerging powers who have fought over border disputes, and China, a key ally of Pakistan, supplies Pakistan with advanced military equipment and weaponry.

The terms of proposed cooperation between the two countries extend only to scientific monitoring of glacial melting in the Himalayas. Hopefully, this can broaden into a more comprehensive dialogue between the two countries over water management instead of mere monitoring because many of India's major rivers originate from the Tibetan plateau controlled by China. Brahma Chellaney, one of India's leading strategic thinkers on arms control and climate security, believes:

...China is now pursuing major inter-basin and inter-river water transfer projects on the Tibetan plateau, which threatens to diminish international-river flows into India and other co-riparian states. Before such hydro-engineering projects sow the seeds of water conflict, China ought to build institutionalized, cooperative river-basin arrangements with downstream states.

India's government recognizes its strategic situation and Indian minister Jairam Ramesh's recent trip to Beijing reflects that. Ramesh called China a "countervailing power" in efforts to resist pressure from Western nations for hard emission caps in this December's Copenhagen negotiations. Ramesh also said "India considers China to be its most important ally in the Copenhagen negotiation process." By stressing commonalities between India and China have on climate and trade, India can begin to engage China on a broader set of environmental issues, such as water management because climate change could lead to drought in India.

India and China face enormous population pressures and the demand for water in both countries will grow for the foreseeable future as each develops especially since India's population growth rate is higher than China's. Climate change is altering the balance of power between the two countries by increasing the importance of water, a variable that China controls.

Infrastructure at Risk

Climate change is clearly impacting the security of military and industrial infrastructure. Yesterday, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on climate change and security, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn described how rising sea levels could permanently damage low lying US naval bases at Norfolk, Virginia and on the island of Diego Garcia, strategically located in the India Ocean near Pakistan, and Iraq.

Scientific American also has an article outlining how melting permafrost could weaken the foundation of the 4$ billion dollar China-Tibet railway. Glaciers on the Tibetan plateau are among the fastest melting. Similarly, gas pipelines and other types of infrastructure built over permafrost could face severe design challenges as the ground beneath melts.

At the hearing, all of the testifiers emphasized that climate change's complex and interconnected impacts make it more paramount to examining its security implications. Even the outgoing head of NATO, Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said yesterday "You cannot deny that the melting of the polar cap, the ice cap on the North Pole is having a lot of security consequences".

EU-China Climate Change Cooperation

A few weeks ago, at a Senate Foreign Relations hearing, Ken Lieberthal, an expert on China's domestic policy, cited demonstration projects on carbon capture and sequestration(CCS) as a way for the US and China to develop a stronger bilateral relationship on climate change.

Well, the EU beat the US to the punch. The AFP reports:

“The European Commission announced Wednesday that it would provide financing up to 50 million euros (70 million dollars) to help China build a coal-fired power plant equipped with new technology to give it near-zero emissions”

The total cost of a single plant to be built and operated over 25 years is estimated by the European Commission to be between 330-550 million euros. This €50 million investment is a substantial investment. The European Commission's press release even announces that:

“The Commission will work closely with China, Member States, other European Economic Area (EEA) countries and industry to secure the additional financing required...This investment scheme could serve as a model for other technology cooperation activities between developed countries and emerging/developing countries in the context of a post-2012 climate change agreement.” (italics mine)

Clearly, the EU is seeking to take a leadership role in developing CCS technology internationally giving it greater power to shape international norms as well as provide a breakthroughs into a new potential market. The US Department of Commerce has a report back in 2007 that says:

“In light of predicted increases in coal use for electricity production worldwide between 2003 and 2030, as well as overall U.S. competitiveness in emissions abatement equipment and advanced coal-fired power plants, China, India, and South Korea present the greatest value of U.S. exports of CCT in this study, representing approximately $26 billion, $3.5 billion, and $3.2 billion, respectively.”

In an effort to halt climate change as well as improve economic relations, the EU, China and India are all taking advantage of climate change as an economic and political opportunity to make profit developing and eventually exporting green technology. This agreement is just another example of states looking at climate change as an incentive for new economic growth and cooperation rather than a zero sum game.

Geo-engineering: Implications for International Stability

The security and climate community must plan for the prospect of unilateral geo-engineering. As the consensus that climate change is real grows, geo-engineering has recently emerged as a possible policy option. Foreign Affairs last month has an excellent article detailing the projected costs of geo-engineering that states:

“…just one kilogram of sulfur well placed in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide…there is general agreement that the strategies are cheap; the total expense of the most cost-effective options would amount to perhaps as little as a few billion dollars, just one percent (or less) of the cost of dramatically cutting emissions.”

From the view of that state, geo-engineering could be the rational and affordable choice if global carbon emissions continue to grow. Countries like the US have the infrastructure to withstand severe storm damage or disease outbreak. Most of Africa does not. Last year, the Council on Foreign Relations published a report discussing this scenario. Key passage:

“A nation that has not done much to prepare, either in reducing its contributions to global emissions or in building adaptive capacity, might conclude that the consequences of climate change had become sufficiently severe that it was going to unilaterally engage in geoengineering – imposing large negative externalities on the rest of the world in order to reduce its own impacts.”

If climate change continues largely unabated, what’s to stop a country facing monsoon after monsoon from unilaterally trying to cool the Earth? For “$25 billion and $50 billion a year” a country could repeatedly emit sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to keep reflecting solar radiation despite the acid rain and unpredictable effects on plant growth for the rest of the world

The disparity between which states have the highest emissions and are the most able to adapt to climate change and the states who have low emissions but are the most vulnerable raises the prospect of rogue geo-engineering or attempts by states vulnerable to climate change to persuade more developed states who can afford it.

China or Russia are better equipped to develop geo-engineering technology and could do it with less fear of international sanction. Coincidentally, these countries have been resistant to cut back their emissions. Russia’s vulnerable economy benefits from high demand for natural gas and oil; China’s government has experimented with geo-engineering for decades. Cooling the planet is also much cheaper than cutting carbon emissions, which require large scale changes in transportation, energy and manufacturing. Regardless of which country is geo-engineering, there is no way for geo-engineering’s effects to be restricted. There are inevitable externalities that may cause global conflict and tension.

Hence, large scale research and development of geo-engineering technologies must coincide with effective international governance to prevent the possibility of “rogue” geo-engineering. Even better, making necessary cuts in carbon emissions would preclude the need to riskily geo-engineer.

What China Really Wants - Technology

The US delegation that recently visited China failed to return with any substantive concessions on the part of either country. Despite its rhetoric that developed countries should cut emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2020, in the course of negotiations, it’s clear that China wants easier access to high level US technology. That’s the key demand, an issue of technology and development rather than a claim of fairness based on history.

But the US is hesitant to acquiesce over concerns of intellectual property violations for fear investors would be skittish over pouring money into technology that would be cheaply copied. Specifically, currently non-commercial cleaner energy sources like clean-coal, geothermal, and deep sea floating wind-turbines, all require large upfront capital and R&D costs. These sunk costs would not be borne by a country that copies the technology. It would be difficult, both economically and politically, to give China this kind of technology for free. It could undercut US competitiveness. China – though unlikely to spend them – holds over a trillion dollars worth of US Treasury Bills already; its hard to argue that they can’t afford to invest in this technology themselves.

What China might be trying to do is use climate change as leverage to gain easier access to some of these technologies so they develop faster and at the same time mitigate emissions. Today, US lead negotiator on climate change Todd Stern clarified the US position on China’s obligations stating that “We are expecting China to reduce emissions very considerably compared to where they would otherwise be...[in] a business-as-usual trajectory”. He also said China should establish a timetable for peak years of emissions.

Good idea, but in clarifying these expectations months ahead of the Copenhagen negotiations, is the US weakening its bargaining position? As the Guardian article says “Observers see the 40% demand as unrealistic, suggesting the US move amounts to blinking first in the negotiations”.

China US Climate Change Cooperation Part 1

China expert Orvell Schell has an article on YaleEnvironment 360 about the US-China conflict over climate policy; its worth reading. He contends that key actors in the US and Chinese government view climate change as an economic and political opportunity for the world.

Developing nations like China and India are seeking to modernize their economies for a green future. Realizing that it’s impossible economically and ecologically to develop just as the United States did, both countries are trying to leap ahead by becoming dominant players in emerging technology markets like solar and clean coal. As last week’s Foreign Relations Hearing demonstrated, China’s government has passed substantial legislation aimed at modernizing its electricity grid, promoting renewable energy, manufacturing electric cars, and building energy efficient buildings.

Now, the United States’ relationship with China is changing in light of the threat of climate change. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a delegation of Members of Congress, visited China two weeks ago to see China’s efforts first hand. Pelosi, who in 1991 unfurled a banner in Tiananmen Square recognizing the massacre in 1989, wrote an Op-ed today calling the climate change crisis “a game-changer in the U.S.-China relationship.” Because the US and China collectively contribute to about 40% of current greenhouse gas emissions, any international treaty on climate change will need both countries on board.

China’s government could have trouble meeting its ambitious goals. at all levels is notoriously plagued with corruption and a lack of transparency at all levels: both symptoms of a totalitarian state. Pelosi thinks China’s attempts at combating climate change will necessitate political, not just economic, liberalization:

“Our governments will have to make difficult decisions that must be based in
science. The challenge of the global climate crisis must be met with openness,
transparency, respect for the rule of law, and the government must be
accountable to the people. The principle of environmental justice must be
upheld, especially when poor people are more adversely affected by drastic
environmental changes than others.”

Elizabeth Economy, at last week’s hearing said the same thing. Unless local officials in China start actually following the environmental policies the national government sets out and stops falsifying data or ignoring the law, China’s emissions will never be reportable, measurable or verifiable and thus it’ll be unable to meet any of its international obligations or actually improve its climate. That’ll only happen if the Chinese government makes itself more accountable and transparent at all levels.

Hearing on US-China Climate Change Cooperation

Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing entitled "Challenges and Opportunities for U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate". The committee heard testimony from Ken Lieberthal, from the Brookings Institute; Elizabeth Economy, from the Council on Foreign Relations; and William Chandler, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Senator Kerry, fresh from a trip to China, stressed how seriously China's government takes climate change and how the United States and China, being responsible for around half of the world's emissions, must cooperate to tackle climate change.

Ken Lieberthal discussed China's current economic and environmental state. The country will continue to increase its carbon emissions in the coming decades because tens of millions of Chinese citizens are rapidly migrating each year from the poorer countryside to the more affluent cities. This migration causes an enormous demand for raw materials like timber, concrete and aluminum that are very carbon intensive. China must continue to expand its urban infrastructure to support approximately 1.25 million people each month. Coal provides about 70% of China's energy, so the US and China can cooperate on developing clean coal technology because both countries have relatively large amounts of it.

Elizabeth Economy emphasized the importance of assisting China in measuring, reporting and verifying its carbon emissions, and its efforts to reduce those. Because many leaders in China's provinces don't know or don’t have the technological training or expertise to implement the central government's environmental goals, often China's laws don't get enforced or data is falsified. For example, the United States can help train Chinese companies and officials to conduct energy audits.

Bill Chandler spoke about how China's government is frustrated that foreign countries don't give the Chinese government credit for its stringent environmental laws and substantial investments into clean energy technology. For example, the US last year invested $88 billion into green technology, jobs, and research but China invested $200 billion in its stimulus package. China seeks to become the leading manufacturer of electric cars and is putting billions into developing smartgrid technology. He believes China wants to work with the US especially in using markets to reach environmental goals.

All three experts emphasized that China takes climate change seriously as an opportunity for economic growth, but also as a threat to its stability. With much of its economic activity on low lying lands like the Yangtze River Delta or the Pearl River Delta, sea level rise poses a real risk to China’s stability. Similarly, glacial melting throughout the Himalayas and the Tibeten plateau would dramatically impact water availability throughout much of China. China's government is faced with the task of maintaining high rates of economic growth because of massive urban migration while at the same time cutting its carbon emissions to prevent even environmental catastrophe. Right now, with a new administration and the Copenhagen conference coming up, all three experts agreed that the US and China have many areas for cooperation. The United States can successfully persuade China to cooperate in international agreements, but it should not be perceived as attempting to limit China’s economic growth under the pretext of fighting climate change.

China Increasing Spending on Agriculture

The Guardian has an article saying that the Chinese government is expanding spending on agriculture in its annual budget by 121 billion yuan (about $17.8 billion). This marks a 20% increase this year. However, what is interesting about this spending increase is not the numbers, but the justification: short-term alleviation of the financial crisis, but long-term expansion of resilience to climate change.

With China, though, its often important to hear what is said about the government from the inside, as well as the outside. While the Guardian's article focuses on climate change as the main reason for the 20% spending increase, Xinhua, the official press agency of the Chinese Government, barely mentions climate change in its article. Instead, the focus is on expanding agricultural subsidies, increasing the price of grain, and investment in rural infrastructure. Clearly much of this is short-term oriented spending that has little to do with climate change.

So, in this case, it would appear that the Chinese government is spending money on their priorities, but claiming (at least internationally) that they are doing it in the name of climate change. As Orwell said, though, "Language can corrupt thought." While the Chinese government may be disingenuous about using this money specifically to deal with climate change, if they continue to talk about investing in climate change-related issues, they may eventually start to take the threat of climate change seriously.

Note: The graphics come from the Chinese Government. Aren't they great?