The United Nations climate change conference being convened in Bali, in Indonesia was opened on Monday, or Dec. 3, through Dec. 14 and the global attention is still focused on this beautiful, equatorial island resort for a dozen days or so to come.
Hearing some commentary remarks concerning the issue of climate change, I cannot but remind myself of a "story about eating sesame seed cakes" I used to hear the ensuing story in my early childhood: A hungry man goes to buy sesame seed cakes at a vendor's stand to stave off his hunger. He however remains hungry after finishing eating one, two… and he remains half full after hurrying through six cakes. So he immediately picked up the seventh. Nevertheless, he could hardly expect that he became quite full after eating another half cake. While paying for the cakes he had eaten, he quried with regret that he would not have eaten the first six cakes if he had known that the last half cake could completely end his hunger!
There is not necessarily such a foolish man who believes in the amazing "ultimate half cake", but there are plenty of such people doing silly things or setting forth similar ideas contrary to reasoning, however, either in the past or at present, and either in China and elsewhere in the world. Upon learning some discordances on pollution reductions lately, I have once again thought of that foolish man who eates up the "last half sesame seed cake."
With an ongoing global climate warming, it has become the consensus of the whole humanity to effectively control and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. As on how to reduce the emission of pollutants, there are still fairly great differences, which are concentrated on whether or not the developed nations and developing countries should "enjoy" the equal treatment and undertake the same responsibilities?
There should have been no problems, as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), signed in New York on May 9, 1992, clearly and definitely specified "common but differentiating responsibilities" for the developed nations and developing countries. Some developed nations, however, have all along diverted or shifted their attention onto the developing countries.
If China and India are not obliged to accept the targets for their emission of greenhouses gases; China and India would gain on competitive advantage from unilateral emission in Europe, some people said, while a few others simply dished up a fallacy about the "environment threat" of a certain country. So some viewpoints and propositions are apparently unfair and unreasonable.
With regard to the emission of greenhouse gases in the present world, the developed nations are still playing the lead. In view of total emission quantities or in term of per-capita emission volumes, the developed nation are still far ahead the developing countries despite a hastened tempo in the latter's emission of greenhouse gases, particularly quite a newly-emerged developing nations in term of emissions. In the case of China, its current emission of greenhouse gases is only one third of that for developed nations, and less than one fourth that of the United States, and is even lower the global average level
Furthermore, as is known to all that the shaping and aggregation of greenhouse effect on earth represents a process of prolonged accumulations and has been developed synchronously with the industrialization of the humanity. The emission of greenhouses in Western industrial nations accounts for 95 percent of the global total in the two centuries from 1750 to 1950. In the last two to three centuries, those Western nations have exerted themselves to "set fires" in exchange for their economic development and social prosperity.
In the past few decades, however, the poor and backward countries have only started to "light lamps" of their own with the problem of feeding and clothing their people" yet to be resolved, and these countries are, nevertheless, urged or even compelled to drastically cut their emissions "in compliance with the relevant goals."
Of course, no one maintains that these developing countries should follow the beaten track of "high energy consumption and high remission"practiced by developed countries over the decades due to their economic growth or science and technology attainment; the recently emerged developing countries should also draw referemce from the experience of predecessors in an effort to handle the relationships between development and environmental protection better still, and strive for low environments costs for their economic growth and take up the responsibilities they are entitled to.
It brooks no denial that development is undoubtedly the most vital affair for the developing countries, and especially for those countries in abject poverty. No one has the right to force common people living below the poverty line to "make contributions" beyond their capacities.
Common challenges determine the shared responsibilities. But for those countries, either "developed" or "developing"in the two diametrically different shapes of economy, the responsibilities undertaken should have somewhat marked differences, and even relatively big differences, whereas the "ecological debts" handed down from history and the present economic strength and science and technology strength are the biggest yardsticks to determine responsibilities for nations. Then, how can we ask the hungry man "who finishes the last half cake" and the well-fed man "who have eaten the previous six cakes" to finish the eating likewise and pay equally?
By People's Daily Online and its author is senior PD desk editor Wu Changsheng
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article