China’s Responsibility for Climate Change: Ethics, Fairness and Environmental Policy (review)

Substantial participation from all stakeholders is essential in responding to tragedy-of-the-commons problems as large as global climate change. As the largest national source of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution causing global warming and resulting changes to the Earth’s climate, China faces more and more pressure both internally and externally for substantial reduction of GHGs and meaningful participation in international climate regimes. But for China, there are two convenient excuses for not making legally binding commitments: the historical emissions from developed countries are the main cause for the problem the world presently faces, and China is a developing country with millions of poor people, so (the argument goes) China should not have to make any legally binding commitments before the developed countries do so. This book is a timely contribution to the debate on China’s reasonability in global climate regime and trying to answer the question of “whether and how China is responsible for climate change” (p. 13) from ethical, moral, and policy perspectives.

One of the many strengths of this book is that the authors argue forcefully for China’s responsibility for climate change according to different parameters. According to some, it is obvious that China’s responsibility for climate change is increasing when thinking in terms of projected emissions in the coming decades, and China’s capabilities. As Harris argues, “China can do more to solve the problem through international cooperation than it is doing at present” (p. 225). And China’s argument for developed countries to do more, based on their historical emissions, cannot hold without further refinement; people in developed countries are not responsible for all past emissions.

The chapters by Harris offer a fresh perspective in defining China’s responsibility. He changes the focus from states’ responsibility to “responsibilities of people.” Whether or how much China is responsible for climate change depends on how we define “China”; a distinction should be made between the responsibility of the Chinese state and the Chinese people. If all countries look at climate responsibility this way, Harris argues, the world can “move away from debates about which countries are responsible for climate change towards debates about which people are responsible for the problem and for helping those people who are suffering from it” (p. 229) and will in the future.

Several authors offer policy options for China’s future climate policy. Eric Schienke calls China’s climate problem “a series of interrelated issues at multiple scales of governance” (p. 123). Thus, he argues, more robust public participation in China is important to ensure that international policies are better implemented. Frances Moore and Michael MacCracken suggest that China limit its emissions of short-lived greenhouse gases as a bargaining leverage for developed countries to limit their emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases.

Patrick Schroeder sees China’s responsibility for climate change through the lens of sustainable consumption and production, by which he means an “international political process to promote and support policies and actions necessary for systemic transition towards sustainable consumption and production patterns” (p. 169). As the factory of the world, not only China but also the consumers around the world should be responsible for greenhouse gases resulting from the production process in China. He also argues that China has the opportunity to undertake “environmental leapfrogging” in areas like energy, manufacturing, urban development, etc. The chapter by Andreas Oberheitmann and Eva Sternfeld attempts to offer a new post-Kyoto climate change regime, arguing that “an international trading system based on this new regime could induce increasing low-carbon technology transfer and it could provide financial support for China and other developing countries to develop their own eco-efficient innovations” (p. 217).

Some policy options presented are appealing in the theoretical sense but are hardly practical in the real world, especially when many developed countries failed to set a good example for the rest of the world during the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period. At the international...