“The West Is Full of Hot Air; Asia is Saving the World from Climate Policy Disaster”

SPEAKERS FOR THE MOTION:  Sunita Narain (Director,Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi)  / Gwyn Prins (Professor, London School of Economics)

SPEAKERS AGAINST THE MOTION: Christine Loh (Chief Executive of Civic Exchange) / Eric Bettleheim (Founder and former Executive Chairman of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd.)

MODERATED BY:  Deborah Kan, Presenter, Reuters Insider.

“The West Is Full of Hot Air; Asia is Saving the World from Climate Policy Disaster”

"Victory for Christine Loh’s Team in Last Night’s Intelligence Squared Debate in Asia."

IQ2, the leading global forum for intellectual and cultural debate, held its second event in Asia on 12th November 2009.  The debate, which was a collaboration between Intelligence Squared and Civic Exchange, the leading public policy think tank in Hong Kong, took place before a live audience of nearly 300 people at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre and tackled the contentious issue of climate change including thorny questions such as: Will US inaction condemn Copenhagen talks to failure? Is China really leading the global transition to a low-carbon economy? Is the Western lifestyle more damaging to environment than Asian economic growth? As the main polluter, should the West foot the bill for tackling climate change? Is Asia neglecting Green for Growth?  

Speakers for the motion: “The West is full of hot air. Asia is saving the world from climate policy disaster” were Sunita Narain, Director, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, and Gwyn Prins, Professor, London School of Economics. Christine Loh, Chief Executive of Civic Exchange, and Eric Bettleheim, Founder and former Executive Chairman of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd., spoke against it. The debate was moderated by Deborah Kan, Presenter, Reuters Television.

The pre-debate vote showed that 28% of the audience were for the motion, 50% were against and 22% were undecided. Following the debate, 19% people were for the motion while an overwhelming 80% voted against and 1% were undecided.

IQ2 Asia co-founder, Yana Peel, said: "We were delighted by the turn-out for last night’s event  and the quality of the contributions both from the stage and from the floor. The feedback suggests that Hong Kong has embraced Intelligence Squared as a platform for stimulating critical thought and impassioned discussion of the most important issues of the day, and we plan to continue bringing the best and the boldest to the podium on topics of global and local political, economic and social relevance.

Last night’s Intelligence Squared climate change debate was sponsored by Deutsche Bank. Other event supporting partners included Ogilvy, Cathay Pacific, Shama, the Financial Times and Time Out. The debate was followed by a dinner in honour of the speakers hosted by John Hardy and attended by 50 guests comprising local climate change experts, leading media, and friends and supporters of Intelligence Squared Asia.

Since their UK launch in 2002, Intelligence Squared debates have attracted the world's leading thinkers, writers and activists, drawing crowds of up to 2,500 in London's most historic venues. Now reaching up to 70 million people through its partnership with BBC World as well as millions of online viewers, Intelligence2 host discussions and debates globally. The group’s first debate in Hong Kong in May this year on the ownership of cultural treasures drew a sell-out crowd of 500 people and featured Sir David Tang, Simon Jenkins and Lord Colin Renfrew amongst others.  Future debates in Asia are planned for February and May 2010 on a range of topics including the economy, culture and politics.

IQ2 Asia was established in 2009 by Yana Peel, co-founder of Outset Contemporary Art Fund, a non-profit organisation that supports public education, production and display within the arena of contemporary visual art; Amelie von Wedel, art consultant and founder of Wedel Fine Art; and Su-Mei Thompson, Executive Director of The Women’s Foundation in Hong Kong. 

Notable Quotes

Prof. Gwyn Prins

Some may argue at Copenhagen that the West’s climate policy disaster – for that is what it is – can be made to work if only we have enough goodwill and if only we try hard enough. This is a head-banger’s argument. This says, “We’re trying to knock down a brick wall with our heads banging our heads. It hurt a lot the first time. It didn’t work but now let’s try a little bit harder”. 

The empirical evidence on decarbonisation: On the trajectory for the last 20 years, there is no discernible difference whatsoever in the rates of decarbonisation between the United States (which has not been a part of the Western policy of the Kyoto Protocol) and the European Union 15. “Do as I say, not as I do” has been the European Union’s policy to the rest of the world.

Climate policy as we have it at the moment is the Titanic. It has hit the iceberg. It is sinking and there really is no point to rearranging the deck chairs as it goes down or complaining that the Iceberg of Facts wasn’t playing fair by being in the way when the Titanic ran into it. 

China aims soon to be largest green energy economy … China today has already wiped out the German solar cell industry and is intent on becoming the world’s major supplier of wind turbines. 

The [Japanese ‘Blue Water’ strategy] is actually the only credible strategy produced in any major economy which if put into effect would have the effect of actually reducing emissions, instead of simply shifting them around, which is the obnoxious froth of purchasing offset agreements, which is what we do under the disaster of the West’s current policy. 

On 5th November 2009, Yvo de Boer, the Chairman of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said that the Copenhagen meeting would not produce an agreement. He said that he’d known this for over a year. [US President] Mr Obama has spoken rather carefully about the forthcoming Copenhagen conference. He said that he would go to Copenhagen if he thought it would make a difference in obtaining agreement … which it won’t because Yvo de Boer has already said it’s dead.

If climate policy disaster is the issue, then the Japanese policy is one that is full of hope. And the evidence behind that are the successes which the Japanese have had as a result of improving radically the efficiency in the use of energy in primary sectors – the power sector, and steel, and so on – the places where 40% of energy gets used. And reducing emissions as a result. And that’s benchmarked. We can demonstrate that. It’s the only economy where we can do that successfully. The Japanese have got a blueprint.

Rahm Emanuel who helps run Mr Obama’s White House is famous for observing that we shouldn’t waste a good crisis. And the collapse of Copenhagen which we are now going to witness will be a good crisis. We have a chance now to stop emitting ‘hot air’ and switch to real policies to reduce emissions. Asia is setting the forward path.

Christine Loh

Over 40% [of carbon emissions] comes from the burning of fossil fuels especially coal … The number of coal plants China is building is staggering. In five year, China has put up more coal plants than all the ones in the US. 

China’s argument that it needs room for development is entirely reasonable. China is a developing country and it is saying, “I’ve got to build up my infrastructure”. None of us is arguing that that isn’t China’s right to do so as part of her development path. 

Who is able today to start reducing carbon emissions? Not China. China has already told us she’s got to keep building. Not India. Not most of Asia and Japan alone is not going to save the day. Who is capable of reducing carbon emission now? It’s got to be the Annex 1 countries. 

The West is full of hot air … but the problem is so is everybody else! Asia is not going to save the world from climate policy disaster. Who has the capability to do something today? It is in fact the West and Japan.

Where would you put Hong Kong – as part of the developing world? Or part of the developed world? One of the things China should do to break the impasse between the East and the West is to enable Hong Kong to offer itself to take on emissions reductions. It is completely ridiculous for Hong Kong to pretend it is part of the developing world. 

China has an easy solution. It should go to Copenhagen and say, “Hong Kong, our most affluent and developed area, will go first”. Offer emissions reductions from Hong Kong. It will be highly popular. Hong Kong, with 7 million people, is actually bigger than a whole range of European countries. And even better, in five years time, China can offer Beijing and Shanghai. These are the most affluent and developed cities in China. They can go first. It’s about every country looking at what they can do … There are probably more affluent parts of India that can go first..

Sunita Narain

Despite the fact that the West has been talking about doing something for the last 15 to 20 years at least, has talked big but given us very small change. In the 15 years from 1990 to 2005, the emissions of every rich industrialized country have actually increased, not decreased. 

When we looked at the emissions statistics and compared them, the richest 10% of India emit less than the poorest 10% of America.

The question for Asia today is can it actually become rich without taking the growth pattern of the rest of the world which is first pollute and then clean up. I believe that’s what Asia can and must do!

The answer to climate change … is that it’s not just efficiency but also sufficiency. In the climate policy of Asia will have to be about sharing space in an increasingly crowded world, sharing space with equity, building an agreement that is fair. Because if you do not have a fair agreement for climate change, you will have an ineffective agreement.

[In response to a member audience who commented that Portland, USA has introduced a congestion charge] Asia is trying to get its act together, perhaps a little slowly, but perhaps also because it doesn’t understand what the West is doing wrong ... Portland is getting a congestion charge after it has congested itself. It hasn’t really talked about a car restraint measure till now. Singapore has.

The West is full of hot air – I say this because the facts say it. Their emissions have actually increased not decreased. They will tell you they will cut their emissions. They have increased because there’s a cost to decreasing and they’re not prepared to pay the cost domestically. If at all they have reduced, it’s because they bought cheap emissions reductions from our part of the world. 

Eric Bettelheim

China is now the largest emitter in the world. It now accounts for 24% of global emissions. Those emissions will double over the next 30 years and 70% of it will be from coal burning. The growth in China’s emission alone over the next 30 years on its present policies will make it futile for the rest of the world to do anything about climate change.

India will quadruple its emissions over that period. It will exceed by that time the world’s per capita emissions. Asia – both particularly India and china though they’re not alone – is putting development ahead of climate.

One of the critical flaws in the whole debate was the strong tendency of both India and China and other Asian and G77 nations to point the finger of blame at the West, “This is all your fault. You created this problem. You solve it”. 

What the developing world led by China and India [in the Kyoto Protocol] insisted upon was that they had no responsibility for the past and therefore no responsibility for the future. 

Climate change impacts are going to affect the entire world whether we’re rich or poor, and the poor – particularly the poor in Asia and particularly the poor who are going to enter the world over the next 30 years, 3 billion of them, almost all of them in Asia and the rest in Africa – their future is being determined by governments of the developing world who are still saying “We have no responsibility for the future”.

If China really wants to give back all of the gains that have accrued over the last 15 to 20 years, this is the way to do it, because the impacts of climate change are going to be felt far more in Asia and particularly among the poor and increased populations of Asia than they will be in America or Europe.