COP27- Chinese propaganda firecrackers as non-starters: „developing country“ China demands Veggieyear for Western elites and does not want to pay for the Global South
The CCP, as a self-proclaimed leader and new Eurasian-Eastern world power for the Global South, now has a proposal for solving the world food problem and the climate catastrophe in view of the COP27 climate protection summit: a kind of veggie year for Europeans and Americans. According to the Global Times, these “Western elites” should curb their meat consumption:
“Western elites could consider eating less meat if they are truly concerned with food crisis, climate change
By Guo Tian Published: Nov 16, 2022 08:21 PM
When dealing with global challenges such as the food crisis and climate change, Western elites should take the lead, rather than urging developing countries to tighten their belts in a bid to maintain their appetite for the extravagant spending of Western developed countries.
The Nature Food journal on Monday published a brief communication with the headline: „Adoption of plant-based diets across Europe can improve food resilience against the Russia-Ukraine conflict,“ completed by Sun Zhongxiao and Zhang Qian at China Agricultural University, as well as two experts from the Netherlands.
According to the article, when „crises related to extreme weather events, COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine conflict have revealed serious problems in global food (inter) dependency,“ a transition toward planetary health diet will help. It said „If the European Union and the United Kingdom reduced meat consumption 20 percent, the saved crops could replace most crops exported by Ukraine and Russia… If 50 percent of people engaged in a planetary diet shift, the saved crops would account for almost all crops exported by Ukraine and Russia (except wheat and sunflower) and would yield a considerable environmental dividend.“
Yes, it is Europe’s turn now! Forbes in 2021 pointed out that in recent years, Western rich countries have been putting pressure on the developing world to eat less meat. Time magazine in the same year posted an article entitled „How China could change the world by taking meat off the menu.“ In 2019, the Economist released an article entitled „The planet needs China to curb its appetite for meat.“
The study by Nature Food once again demonstrates that tackling climate change and food crisis requires joint efforts from the whole world. Everyone can contribute to this by making dietary shifts where possible. However, Western developed countries cannot force developing countries to change their dietary structure, so as to continue their luxurious lifestyles, in the manner of moral kidnapping. This will result in the Matthew effect and a widening gap between the rich and poor countries.
If the West does regard climate change triggered by carbon emissions as a challenge that threatens the common destiny of mankind, everyone must bear corresponding responsibilities, including the adjustment of lifestyle. Playing tricks or scheme against others will backfire and divide global unity, said Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University.
According to figures by the official website of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2021, Western developed countries‘ consumption in beef and port sharply outweighed that of developing countries. The middle and upper class in Western countries should take the lead in implementing the shifts of their diets, instead of weaponizing public opinion to force developing countries to change, while retaining their habitual lifestyles.
The West always likes to talk about the total amount of meat consumption in China, but the reality is that China is the world’s largest country in terms of population. In terms of per capita consumption of meat products, many countries, especially Western countries, are far ahead of China.
Take pork consumption as an example. Pork accounts for the largest share of China’s meat consumption. But according to data of the OECD, in 2021, China ranked behind Vietnam and South Korea in per capita consumption.
In addition, for beef consumption, the OECD shows that China’s per capita beef consumption is even lower than the world average in 2021. The US‘ is more than six times that of China. Western countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Switzerland also consume far more beef per capita than China. It can be seen that Western countries are the major consumers of beef.
Beef produces five times more heat-trapping gases than pork. Before the West asks China to improve its diet, shouldn’t it first examine itself?
Eating more vegetables is indeed helpful to the environment, but the West cannot politicize the dietary structure. When talking about meat consumption, the Western media tends to pin labels against China. Such long-term public opinion hype will not be conducive to cooperation among countries to deal with climate changes.
What’s more, it should be noted that the use of energy represents by far the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the data, in 2021, the energy use per person in the US was as high as 77,574 kWh, ranking first in the world.
When the West is dealing with climate change and food security, it cannot rob the poor to feed the rich, noted Shen.
The author is a reporter with the Global Times. firstname.lastname@example.org”
Mind you: Western elites. Are the Westerners now all elites compared to the Global South with sheer privileges of the angry white (old)man and woman, or are only their governments and state leaders and their ruling class meant? No more Hamburger for Trump? Deliberately kept ambiguous. In any case, one gets the impression that China is the pioneer of a new, hip and fully ecological lifestyle movement that criticizes the West and now wants to recommend itself as a role model and join all the Friday for Future eco-vegetarians and vegans. But these demands are justified only partially, because it would also be more depend on a change of the entire economic system, in agricultural and factory farming production methods, not just from the consumer side, which also relies more than on responsible lifestyle and non-meateater consumer individualism. China is sitting in all these criteria in the glass house. Gone are the days when India and China were vegetarian and rice eating nations. In terms of meat consumption in China, factory farming, the use of pesticides, herbicides, environmental toxins, it is also a world power and a leading industrial nation. Eating rice is seen in China today as poor people’s food, fast food everywhere, overweight Chinese and young people are also a mass phenomenon. And the Chinese elite doesn’t hold back on meat-eating, which is also shown by the plump chubby cheeks of Xi and many of his comrades. Even if China, with a new hybrid rice variety, now thinks that it can now use genetic engineering to solve the nutritional problems like a second Ford Foundation Green Revolution in India back then, it is still interesting that it is now starting with the meat consumption of the “Western elites” as if China wasn´t even an “Eastern2 elite in both respects. So China has the much-cited Western double standards in a Far Eastern variant, but behaves like a savior of the world as long as it doesn’t have to make any sacrifices or contributions itself and for the Global South.
Another propgandistic non-starter was made by China at the COP27 climate protection summit in Egypt, which it probably didn’t see coming, and Baerbock has now quite skilfully brought most of the countries of the Global South affected by climate change, including India, to the side of the EU—the USA and China now together as blockers:
“World Climate Conference: EU exposes China’s bluff Created: 11/19/2022, 12:42 p.m
The World Climate Conference in Egypt shows that many developing countries are siding with Europe in the dispute over an equalization fund. On Friday morning, actually the last day of the UN climate conference COP27, the Egyptian COP presidency finally presented a draft for the final declaration. This almost guarantees that the COP will not end at 6 p.m. as planned, but only on Saturday. The draft follows a turbulent night: In a plenary session, EU Commissioner Frans Timmermans describes the issues of loss and damage as a result of global warming on the one hand and reducing emissions on the other as “two sides of the same coin”. In doing so, he makes it clear that the crucial balance between these two issues must be found for the success of COP27. And then comes an offer that is likely to be decisive for the course of the conference: Timmermans said that the EU is ready to agree to the creation of a fund for losses and damages in Sharm el-Sheikh – under two conditions: First, the funds may only benefit the poorest and most vulnerable countries and, on the other hand, all countries must pay into this fund and additional „innovative sources of finance“ must be tapped.
Results of the world climate conference: China has gambled away its trump card In doing so, he exposes China’s bluff. China refuses to be held accountable for payments and also opposes the „innovative sources of finance“. This wording refers to taxes on flight tickets and ship diesel. China argues that according to the 30-year-old UN climate convention it has the status of a developing country and is therefore not obliged to make any payments and that Chinese airlines and shipping companies should also be exempted from climate taxes. But what was still a trump card 30 years ago no longer stands up: The EU has received broad support for its proposal from industrialized countries such as Australia and Norway, as well as from the poorest developing countries. The latter want the fund for losses and damages – and now it is no longer the EU that stands in the way of this fund, but China.
World climate conference COP27: EU calls for falling emissions from 2025
And also on the other side of the coin, the emission reductions, the EU has the poorest countries on its side. The EU calls for emissions from the “biggest emitters” to peak no later than 2025 and then decline. In most industrialized countries (including the USA), emissions have been falling for years, but China still expects emissions to increase by 2030. Open points The conference presidency extended the world climate conference, which was supposed to end on Friday, until Saturday. Conference President Sameh Schukri expressed concern about the large number of contentious issues on climate finance, emission reduction, climate adaptation and compensation for climate-related damage. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock criticized limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees: „The gap to the 1.5-degree path is still far too large.“ China rejects this. The environmental organization WWF demands that the COP27 must pave the way for phasing out all fossil fuels. The BUND demands more concessions from the industrialized countries in financial matters. „The rich countries must clearly fulfill their historical responsibility,“ demands climate expert Susann Scherbarth. afp That would be fatal for the poorest countries, which is why they support the EU’s demand. Surprisingly, India is also willing to negotiate on the issue of emission reductions. The country is demanding that a commitment to eliminate all “fossil fuels” be included in the final declaration – including oil and gas. For Saudi Arabia, but also for China, this formulation is a red line. They get support from the conference presidency, which should actually be neutral. India has the backing of the EU, the US and a great many developing countries, but Egyptian Foreign Minister and COP27 President Sameh Shoukry still does not include “fossil energy” in the draft final text.
Climate crisis: US role remains unclear at COP27 climate conference
Meanwhile, the role of the United States is unclear. Their delegation held back noticeably on Thursday night. The US rejects a fund for losses and damages. They fear the fund could eventually result in the largest historical issuers being held to „damages“ that could be very expensive in the US legal system. Since the EU and the other industrialized countries now agree in principle to a fund, the USA is alone among the industrialized countries and finds itself in an “alliance” with China. The fact that the USA and China have different reasons for their positions is irrelevant. However, it is not only the large countries that play a role in multilateral negotiations. Small states can also have an influence here. In Sharm el-Sheikh, this applies to Antigua and Barbuda. The Caribbean island nation’s prime minister, Mia Mottley, had caused an uproar by calling for reform of the multilateral development banks and the creation of $500 billion worth of IMF Special Drawing Rights, a type of currency. This money should then be used to mobilize $5 trillion in private funds for climate protection. This proposal is at least hinted at in the draft of the final declaration, which is a remarkable achievement for a country with almost 100,000 inhabitants. If her proposal were implemented, Mottley would have freed up $50 million per inhabitant in her country for climate protection. No other country can compete with that.
China expert and sinology professor van Ess, who himself does not believe in a coming climate catastrophe and the importance of climate change in German absolute terms, tries to find a word of defense for China’s behavior and its evaluation by the Frankfurter Rundschau:
„Wonders what ‚China’s bluff‘ is supposed to be. It has always said that it has the status of a developing country, and in larger parts of the country this is true. And it is also clear that the USA does not want these payments, because they emit much, much more CO2 per capita than China. That would be very expensive, and Biden cannot afford that. Neither do we, of course, but so be it. The term „innovative sources of finance“ is nice, too. It’s actually a bluff, because you don’t know what that means. Actually, this can only be higher taxes or an attempt to make China pay. In the new China strategy, the first draft of which is available, Anna Lena also “identified partners, competitors and systemic rivals and made it clear that the focus has shifted to the latter. Now China should pay. If the lady doesn’t overestimate her importance!“
But China is falling victim to its own official propaganda. It just doesn’t work: wanting to be a world power and a developing country at the same time. In any case, it doesn’t seem to be considered a part of what’s left of the Global South now. The rest of the Global South wants China and the USA to pay, and heavily. Biden has America First-Trump has his neck, Xi whom, if not just himself! A democracy has more excuses than a neo-totalitarian one-man dictatorship.
Van Ess also said:
„I wonder if the so-called ‚Global South‘ agrees – I think that’s an inappropriate battlefield anyway. And above all, the point is that the word „bluff“ is nonsense, because that would imply that China had pulled an unexpected trick that took a lot of effort to figure out. But it only said what it has always said.”
After India also signed it, it is more difficult for China, which sees itself as a part and above all as a leader of the Global South and has also spoken of it in the same way. „Bluff“ might be the wrong word, because there is nothing that cannot be ignored as China always emphasizes that it has already surpassed the USA economically. That’s where this propaganda boast becomes nonsense, especially since it’s pouring billions into its own rearmament and its military-industrial complex to get on par with the US. Baerbock and Germany just have to be careful if China and the USA don’t want to pay, if the so-called Global South doesn’t get its fill of the climate compensation fund, primarily from Germany and the EU, perhaps with simultaneous demands for reparations for colonialism, the postcolonial, postmodern Gender feminists would probably be willing to pay because of their western guilt complex along with new German Ukraine war guilt complex because of Ostpolitik and Nord Stream. Then this would again be a non-starter for Baerbock. But maybe these compensation funds will be connected to the new European Silk Road Global Gateway (maybe Biden’s B3W as well), but so far nothing can be read about it. And should nothing come of Sharm el-Sheikh, the EU and above all the Germans would have shown good and best will, but would have failed because of China and the USA for the time being.
Focus, on the other hand, sees COP27 more as a Phyruss victory for Baerbrock, especially since their „bluff“ didn’t work either. It doesn’t look like the much-cited end of the fossil age. The 1.5 degree target also seems to have been abandoned or lacking consensus. They only seem to want to set up a compensation fund for the coming climate collapse and repair work as part of civil protection, and the USA and China are shirking the financing.
“Disappointing world climate conference Germany’s hard-hitting threat turned out to be a bluff just a day later
11/21/2022 | 07:55
At this point in time, the EU, which negotiates jointly for its member states, only wants to give the green light if it is more ambitious when it comes to climate protection. This is on the condition that countries like the economically strong China, which also emits the most greenhouse gases, have to pay into the pot. So much for the full-bodied red lines – but they shouldn’t last long. „The 1.5 degree limit remains in the intensive care unit“ „If anyone had hoped that this is the place where the climate crisis will be tackled, we can announce that it is not,“ commented German climate activist Luisa Neubauer bitterly after the gavel fell without decisive climate protection progress. The expert Niklas Höhne from the think tank New Climate Institute is even clearer: „The 1.5-degree limit remains in the intensive care unit, as the condition deteriorates.“
When Baerbock, Timmermans and Co. appear in front of the cameras on Sunday morning, it has long been clear that the tough announcements from the day before were a bluff. The German Foreign Minister speaks of a „result with hope, but also with great frustration“. Timmermanns says that the European Union faced a „moral dilemma“ when it came to compensation payments for climate damage in poorer countries. Sharm el Sheikh’s proposal did not go far enough in terms of climate protection, but „are we therefore turning away and destroying a fund that vulnerable countries have fought so hard for for decades“? Such a move would have been a „huge mistake and a huge missed opportunity,“ he defends.
The Russian-Saudi-Iranian bloc
But did the advance ever stand a chance? With their ambitious goals for the conference, Germany and the EU moved between powerful states that quietly let their influence work from the background. For oil giants like Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia, formulations for phasing out fossil fuels are a red rag. They hardly appear publicly in Sharm el Sheikh, but in the talks they form a firm block against more climate protection.
The Russian war of aggression in Ukraine, which has exacerbated the climate crisis through a new race for fossil energy sources, seems far away on a few days of the conference. The fact that activists briefly disrupt what is probably the only public appointment by a Russian government representative is almost forgotten. It was difficult for anyone who wanted to find out more about the positions of the USA and China – which are still the biggest causes of climate-damaging emissions. American reporters found themselves in the bizarre position of having to ask the European delegation about the stance of the US government, which has closed the channel on hot topics such as climate compensation payments. China’s climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua showed up here and there, also unannounced for an appointment with US climate commissioner John Kerry.
Baerbock is denied a meeting Led by the Egyptian hosts, who, according to some observers, acted opaquely, the meeting headed for a belly flop. Distrust of the conference management grew, and there was talk of chaotic processes. For example, negotiators could only tell their delegations about compromise proposals from memory because they were neither given papers nor allowed to take notes. Halfway through the conference, the German embassy complained to the government in Cairo that security guards in civilian clothes, some with radios, were being observed, roaming around the UN grounds and not least the German pavilion. Foreign Minister Baerbock was apparently denied a personal meeting with Foreign Minister Schukri, whose country has repeatedly been criticized for human rights violations. The Greens politician said on Sunday: „There was no meeting here between the Egyptian Foreign Minister and the German Foreign Minister.“
China calls the COP27 meeting „historic“ in the today´s Global Times. But then again full attack against the USA and the rich Western countries (China once again as a developing country excepted-the poor world power church mouse), since they probably only made empty promises and everything remained vague and without concrete mechanisms. In addition, the West wanted to negotiate the 1.5 degree target and the end of the fossil era- gas and oil- in the declaration, which was unacceptable for China. Why is not explained in more detail? As a conclusion, it is emphasized that this is not a matter for the EU, Germany or even Baerbocks, but that it was crucial that the two largest emitters USA and China would join forces and that the USA ended its trade war and cold war against China , also with regard to sanctions in the field of renewable energies. Ultimately, the key to saving the world climate lies in Washington (and not in the EU or China):
“COP27 concludes on Sunday, yields ‘historic’ deal on climate loss and damage
Western countries under test again, as doubts amounting if they can honor promise this time
By GT staff reporters Published: Nov 20, 2022 09:42 PM
A logo of the COP 27 summit.Photo: Xinhua
COP27 President and Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry (center) speaks during the closing session of UN climate summit COP27 held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt on November 20, 2022. Photo: VCG
In what has been hailed as a „breakthrough“ achievement, negotiators from nearly 200 countries agreed to set up a „loss and damage“ fund meant to help vulnerable countries cope with climate disasters after two weeks of negotiations at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. Experts said that although the landmark agreement will serve as a powerful response to developing countries‘ requests, it will only come into effect as long as rich countries honor their promises, rather than making another sham promise just to quell poorer countries‘ criticism.
China, a strong supporter of establishing a loss and damage mechanism, has been actively helping developing countries tackle climate issues via the South-South cooperation. But faced with pressure from the US and other countries for China to contribute to the loss and damage mechanism, experts said that the onus is first and foremost on rich countries, the main contributors to historical global warming, to pay for the mechanism, and that China will not be coerced or pressured on climate issues.
After days of intense negotiations that stretched into early Sunday morning in Sharm El-Sheikh, countries at the COP27 reached agreement on an outcome that established a funding mechanism to compensate vulnerable nations for loss and damage from climate-induced disasters.
The deal calls for a committee with representatives from 24 countries to work over the next year to figure out exactly what form the fund should take, which countries should contribute and where the money should go. Many details, however, remain vague, media reported.
„This COP has taken an important step towards justice. I welcome the decision to establish a loss and damage fund and to operationalize it in the coming period,“ UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a video message issued from the conference venue in Egypt, underscoring that the voices of those on frontlines of the climate crisis must be heard.
„The announcement offers hope to vulnerable communities all over the world who are fighting for their survival from climate stress,“ said Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s minister for climate change. The agenda item was proposed by Pakistan on behalf of the Group of 77 coalitions of developing nations and China during talks in Bonn, Germany, earlier this year.
Chinese scientists praised the deal as „historic.“ Under the backdrop of the ever more intense climate crisis, this agreement serves as a powerful response, and a political signal to developing nations‘ requests on the climate crisis, which can help alleviate the global damage from the crisis,“ Li Shuo, a senior global policy adviser at Greenpeace China who is attending the summit, told the Global Times.
The creation of a loss and damage fund was almost derailed by disputes that ran into the dawn hours of Sunday over other elements of a broader agreement, including how deeply countries should cut their emissions and whether to include language that explicitly called for a phase out of fossil fuels, including coal, natural gas and oil. By 5 am in Egypt, negotiators were still debating those other measures, media reported.
The US and other wealthy countries had long blocked the idea, for fear that they could be held legally liable for historical greenhouse gas emissions and the colossal payment they could face.
Although agreement on the mechanism was reached, Yang Fuqiang, a research fellow at Peking University’s Research Institute for Energy is pessimistic that the promise will translate into meaningful action by the rich countries.
„Developed countries are constantly grilled on why they have defaulted on their previous promises of transferring $100 billion per year to vulnerable states hit by increasingly severe climate-linked impacts and asked to be responsible for their historical emissions. So maybe signing this agreement is just to quell developing countries from firing criticisms at them,“ Yang told the Global Times.
„It is almost predictable that US and other rich countries are just making empty promises,“ Yang said.
A decade ago, the US, European Union and other wealthy emitters pledged to mobilize $100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020 to help poorer countries shift to clean energy and adapt to future climate risks through measures like building sea walls. They are still falling short by tens of billions of dollars annually.
Yang pointed out that details of how to carry out the mechanism are not hammered down, nor is how to quantify the damage caused by climate crisis, which will make it difficult for the mechanism to work and leaves room for rich countries to maneuver.
„Moving forward into discussions [on] the details of the [loss and damage] fund, we need to ensure that the countries and corporations most responsible for the climate crisis make the biggest contribution. That means new and additional finance for developing countries and climate vulnerable communities not just for loss and damage, but for adaptation and mitigation too,“ Yeb Sa?o, Executive Director, Greenpeace Southeast Asia and Head of the Greenpeace delegation attending the COP said in a statement sent to the Global Times on Sunday.
But the US and the European Union are pushing for assurances that China will eventually contribute to the fund – and that China would not be eligible to receive money from it, The New York Times reported on Sunday.
When asked whether the US has informed him that China should contribute to the loss and damage fund, Xie Zhenhua, China’s special envoy on climate change said that China supports the loss and damage mechanism. He said the solution is simple, that is common but differentiated responsibility.
„China has no responsibility [on loss and damage], but China is willing to help developing countries raise their adaptability by South-South cooperation and China is already doing that,“ Xie said.
China is still a developing country and it has been offering help to developing countries via multiple international channels, said Yang. „We stick to common but differentiated responsibility, and we will never be coerced or pressured by Western countries on climate issues.“
A constructive negotiation
On Saturday local time, Xie told reporters that Chinese and US negotiators had „very candid, friendly, positive and constructive“ negotiation at COP27, and the result is very constructive, but will only be made public after formal negotiations.
Xie said that formal talks, or even face-to-face discussion between Beijing and Washington, will be conducted after COP27 is concluded.
The fact that Xie’s US counterpart John Kerry tested positive for COVID-19 has hampered the two countries‘ discussions at the summit.
Climate negotiations between the two countries resumed after the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden on the sidelines of the G20 summit last week in Bali, Indonesia. The two presidents agreed that the two countries will jointly work for the success of COP27.
Scientists are overwhelmingly praising the resumption of talks between the world’s two biggest economies as a positive sign, and the final negotiations could yield positive results to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
„The US is denounced by other Western countries as it lacks efficient efforts in tackling global warming, and flip flops on its climate promises. Thus it strives to cooperate with China, because Beijing wins wide support among developing countries on addressing climate change,“ Yang said.
However, to show sincerity over the cooperation, Washington must abandon its previous crackdown on China’s clean energy industry, such as on photovoltaic products, Yang warned.