 This Monday, COP26 begins in Glasgow. The conference will bring together leaders and negotiators from every member state of the UN with the goal to commit participants to CO2 reductions sufficient to avoid catastrophic climate change. Yet while there will be 193 countries in attendance, one has been subjected to more scrutiny than any other. China. And this week, the spectator shows the manner in which the world's largest nation state is being portrayed. You can see here Boris Johnson putting all his effort into saving the planet with Biden making a tepid effort in the same direction that's contrasted with Xi Jinping alongside Vladimir Putin, essentially holding the whole world hostage. Of course, the focus on China isn't entirely unreasonable. It is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases and its nationally determined contributions announced on Thursday have been deemed disappointing by experts including from Greenpeace Asia. However, in an excellent piece currently up on the Navarra media website, Aaron Bostani argues that China's role in climate mitigation is actually far more complex. Aaron, it's a very timely piece. Can you lay out the key points? Yeah, for sure. So China, like you said, is the world's number one emitter and that's because it's got 1.4 billion people. On a per-person basis, its CO2 output isn't that high. It's about 38th in the world. The US produces twice as much CO2 per person as does Australia, as does Canada. That produces about four times more CO2 per person. Of course, that's not a particularly big country, but it's quite interesting that three of the four big Anglophone countries produce twice as much CO2 as China. I know we're not talking about them as the bad guys. Interestingly enough, Canada and Australia, between them, don't have a single kilometer of high-speed rail, not a single kilometer. Meanwhile, China has two-thirds of all global high-speed rail capacity. So two-thirds of all high-speed rail capacity worldwide, two-thirds in China, and it's going to be doubling that its extant capacity over the next 20 years. The US has less high-speed rail than Uzbekistan, and very soon it's going to be taken over by Iran. These are big countries. China has taken really big steps to take on domestic internal flights, domestic aviation, with its high-speed rail network. Nothing similar is happening in Australia, Canada, the United States. Russia's a little bit better, but not great. So you've got, actually, on a per-person basis, quite low carbon emissions. Then you've got the fact that wealthier countries outsource carbon emissions to poorer countries. So China produces about 30% of all manufactured goods worldwide. Of course, a manufactured good has these outsourced emissions, which is to say that if iPhone is produced in China, but it's used by Michael Walker here in London, the CO2 emissions for its production go on the Chinese ledger, not the UK one. Now it's estimated that global CO2 emissions, about 25% of global CO2 emissions, operate in this way. So that actually casts the global north in a better light and countries like China in a worse light. Like I say, China by far the world's largest manufacturer. So that's a major, major factor why China's CO2 emissions are relatively high. But like I say, still only half per person with the US is 38th in the world, next to somewhere like Norway. So you've got, like I say, actually not that bad on a per-person basis. You've got the fact that it's internalizing manufactured products, CO2 emissions, which are being consumed elsewhere. And then you've got other things like reforestation. In the early 1990s, 12% of China was covered by forest. Today, it's around 23%. It's looking to get that to 30% by 2050. You've got, like I said earlier, high speed rail. You've got urban transit systems being built in dozens of cities in China. Meanwhile, in the US, they haven't laid a single kilometer of underground transit for 30 years in the mainland US. You've got just issue after issue after issue, which I think you're actually on any sort of fair basis. China would be judged as a leader when it comes to climate change. Then finally, if you look at its actual record on renewable energy, I think this is the icing on the cake. China produces, has a greater solar energy capacity. So it doesn't necessarily produce more solar because it's dependent upon the sun shining, but it has more solar capacity than the US and Europe combined. It's world number one in regards to wind capacity. It's increased nuclear capacity by 500% since 2010. It's world number one on hydroelectric capacity. And it's also got huge plans again for the next 10 years. And again, all that really on wind, on solar, on nuclear, all of that is since the 2010s. It didn't lay a single kilometer of high speed rail until 2007, Michael. And when you look what the Europeans have been doing since 2007, you think of the European debt crisis, et cetera, how little infrastructure has been built, how little renewable capacity has really been built. Compare that to what the Chinese are doing. We're nowhere, Michael, whether it's the Europeans, whether it's the North Americans, whether it's the Australians, the Brits, you really can't compare us to China. Now, that doesn't mean China is saving the world. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying that. And what's quite clear is that any economy based upon economic growth with 1.4 billion people like China, which is looking to become much wealthier in the coming decades, is going to massively impact CO2 emissions and levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is going to lead to a warmer planet. But if we're talking about a large country, which is actually making an effort when it comes to climate change, on green energy, on reforestation, on high speed rail and moving away from aviation, China is far and away ahead of the Western nations. And this is something they will not accept. And so what we'll see at COP over the next couple of weeks is sinophobia. And that rests upon ignorance with Western audiences to basically think, well, the Chinese, they're stupid. They're not white. They're not the West. They're burning coal. They are. They burned a huge amount of coal, but it's also 1.4 billion people. And the new coal power stations that China is going to build, and there's dozens of power stations that are going to be built with coal, dozens. But again, it's 1.4 billion people, Michael. It's three times the population of the European Union. It's only going to add 1.5% to China's extant carbon emissions. So the numbers we're talking about here are huge. Every year between now and 2025, they're looking to reforest the surface area the size of Belgium. So a bit of nuance is required. And actually, when you really get beneath the sort of fog perpetuated by Western press who are being very hostile to Beijing, I think for geopolitical reasons, then like I say, it's pretty clear where leadership is, if it's anywhere. It's not Washington. It's not Brussels. It's not London. It's Beijing. Let's look at a bit more detail about China's NDCs. So for background, how these climate negotiations work since the Paris Agreement is that there are no binding commitments that any country has to make. It's not the case where back in the days of the Kyoto Protocol, there were some ideas that people would allot a sort of set carbon budget for each country. They'd have to agree what the algorithm would be that would work that out. And then they'd all be limited by law to that. That turned out to be completely a dead end. No country would agree to it or at least no big powerful country would agree to it. Now what you get is countries coming forward and voluntarily committing to reduce their emissions. And it's all based on peer pressure, essentially. China submitted theirs on Thursday, their NDC was much awaited. And this is a summary of what they've committed to as per the FT. So it says China aims to have CO2 emissions peak before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060 to lower CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by over 65% from the 2005 level to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 25% to increase the forest stock volume by 6 billion cubic meters from the 2005 level and to bring its total installed capacity of wind and solar power to over 1.2 billion kilowatts by 2030. Now in terms of analysis of that, the most common thing I've heard from climate experts or China watches is that they're disappointed about this idea that emissions will only peak by 2030. Lots of people suggesting 2025 was very much doable for the Chinese and so they could have come forward with that. A counter to that is that Xi Jinping doesn't want to commit China to anything. There's a chance in hell they won't meet. So even though they've said before 2030 it could still be the case that they end up managing to peak emissions by 2025. Of course as guests like Sam Guiao who we've had on the show have argued or explained I suppose China is also a country with internal politics so there is a coal lobby in China just as there is a coal lobby in the United States. Aaron what did you think of that NDC and I suppose it's interesting this COP26 process because it seems as if Joe Biden's going to arrive and he might potentially make a fairly ambitious proposal when it comes to US emissions reductions. I mean he already has but it'll be confirmed there. But he's really going to struggle to implement his climate policy because Congress is now blocking any kind of carbon tax on the coal industry. So it could be the case that you get to COP. America commits to something really ambitious. China commits to something far less ambitious but ultimately China can follow through on theirs whereas the Americans because of their political system are completely unable to. How likely do you think that scenario is? I mean I would dispute the idea that China would be committing to anything less ambitious than the US. From what we've seen so far I mean maybe this is going to change but both are talking about net zero by 2060 and when you think that the US has a GDP per capita about six times that of China I mean that's a remarkable achievement by China. This is a country I think $10,000 per head GDP US about $60,000 far wealthier country and actually China is eliminating poverty. You can go between 1990 and 2060. They would have taken 800 million people out of poverty and they would have effectively decarbonized 80% of their energy supply would have been decarbonized. That's why they're talking about net zero not 100% decarbonization. That's not good by the way but they're both talking about net zero it's not just China. Do that in the space of 70 years is remarkable Michael and there's absolutely no comparison. You could maybe talk about post-war social democracy in Europe maybe getting a little bit close but I don't think it does actually in terms of a political economic technological ecological revolution of a country in 70 years in a lifetime that's extraordinary so I don't think the US is making bigger sort of has bigger sort of plans than China now. It's about reforestation you know it's gone from 12% of the country's surface area to 23% they wanted to get 30% US has been standing still Michael and the US is a very large country extraordinary large country and reforestation isn't the answer to everything there's actually a great criticism of reforestation indigenous land rights colonialism etc you know if you're Britain you're not going to be reforesting somewhere in Britain although we obviously should do that you know increasingly what you'll do is you'll be there'll be a market for this stuff and you'll pay for a carbon sink somewhere in the Amazon and so people that live on that land have been moved out and they'll grow a forest and that means oh we can burn more carbon over here this is stuff that we'll be talking about at COP so the offset thing in terms of reforestation while you still burn carbon fuels is why they're talking about net zero big difference is Michael China's serious about this because it's actually doing the rewilding thing it's doing the reforestation thing so I agree with you that the political system in America is a big barrier to the marketing as decisive as the Chinese but I disagree that it's in any way more ambitious on that part I just simply don't think that's true I suppose I just mean so the targets I've got in in front of me they're saying they're gonna halve emissions compared to 2005 everyone picks whenever their peak was so ours is compared to 1990 because that's when our peak was so they want to halve emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 and go to net zero no later than 2050 so it is you know the the cuts by which date are more ambitious but obviously they're starting from a much you know their historic contribution to carbon emissions is much bigger than China and on a per capita basis they're much richer if it's net zero by 2050 then that's a big difference with China which is net zero by 2060 I mean let's see what what comes out in the wash and again net zero is quite a flexible term UK is now aiming for net zero really the UK could decarbonize forget net zero we could decarbonize by 2035 Corbyn was saying 2030 I thought 2035 isn't entirely plausible so there's that point yes that would be a big a big difference but Michael if you look at China's looking now peak carbon so it's basically gonna hopefully reach peak emissions before 2030 like I say when it's a country which is one sixth as wealthy as the United States remarkable achievement really really remarkable if they can do that and the problem we have Michael in the western media is if you say this it's just an observation if they do that it's impressive oh my god why do you hate this country so much who told you that has it been corroborated well actually yes NASA two years ago said that the planet today is greener than it was in the 1990s because of reforestation efforts reforestation efforts by India and China so yes we we do have independent observers verifying this stuff I think reaching peak carbon when you've got a GDP per capita at the same level as Romania when you've got the geopolitical ambitions that China does have I think that's big I think that's huge yes China is not going to massively reduce domestic economic growth and push back its geopolitical ambitions in order to decarbonize even more quickly than it already is of course but this is the world we live in and like I say when you're doing a sort of comparative analysis of China to the US or China to Russia or you know China to Brazil yeah it's far and away ahead particularly in context I have one of the stupidest tweets I've seen recently it's from Anton Spizak who's a policy lead at the Tony Blair Institute where else and in a tweet this week he asked is this the most important chart of our time and the chart he's referring to which he's made on our world in data shows the percentage change in carbon emissions over time in six big countries using 1990 as a baseline as you can see Japan the US Germany and the UK have all reduced their emissions since 1990 but this chart makes it look like that was all completely pointless because the emissions of China and India dramatically rose now there's nothing incorrect about this but I have a problem with that y-axis it's incredibly misleading to make China to make China and India look like the bad guys here now I went on our world in data I made my own graph and instead of looking at the changes in per capita emissions since 1990 I plugged in what emissions actually are and that tells a very very different story so this is the the total CO2 emissions of each of each country over time and whereas the chart shared by the Tony Blair won't makes the US look like a leader in China a laggard the chart based on actual emissions shows that the Americans are still twice as bad as China when it comes to emissions you then have Japan Germany China and the UK bunched in the middle and India with tiny emissions per capita at the bottom so this this this policy lead who is making India look like the bad guys when they've still got emissions which are less than half of of any of the big European countries about an eighth of the United States I mean it just shows how bankrupt so much discussion of this is this has become a real meme hasn't it of of the right there's real backlash which is to say any any action that we take on climate is pointless because actually the responsibility is just with China and India we should go on as normal and there's no point if these big poor countries don't do something first yeah so Britain is about 1% of global CO2 emissions China is about 30% of global CO2 emissions and and that is because of the size of its population I mean that point certainly isn't true for the US Michael that's very important to say they can't make that argument but yeah countries in the EU you know you see it with the true fins or they're called the fins now in Finland you see with far-right parties in smaller European countries particularly in Scandinavia they say look we can't change or Poland we can't change very much so we're just going to keep on burning fossil fuels obviously the world is comprised of 200 nation states so that's obviously a silly argument it's a collective action argument it's like saying I won't do x because it's not going to change everything because not everybody's doing it well you know that was the case and collective action is is literally impossible and we know that's not the case because it happens all the time sometimes in voluntary but often through voluntary action so yeah it's a really daft take and what's happened with the far-right Michael they've gone from outright climate denial saying climate change doesn't exist to yes it does exist but actually we can't do much about it and that is something that you see with you know the far-right party in the Netherlands you see it with the fins in Finland you see it with the far-right in Poland you see it with the Swedish Democrats and Sweden you see it with the Front National or what they call now Reassemblement National in France and it's a change but at the same time Michael you know there are also people in this country or the US progressives who say oh climate change is a thing we have to do something about it and then they don't do anything about it you know Barack Obama's tweeting about how he got stopped climate change this guy was talking meetings in 2018 to oil company executives saying I saved when the US became the world's largest energy exporter briefly that was because of me because of this fracking revolution you should be more grateful so there's a nice proverb in Chinese Michael which is to no one not do is not to know which is to say if you know something but you still don't do it you might as well be ignorant in the first place because you're not actually acting on the information at hand and that's where I see a lot of western progressives on climate change Sadiq Khan we're going to become this green city but we're still going to build the Silver Town tunnel for a couple of billion pounds okay you know but you're not doing so effectively you don't know going back as well to the point you made about that graph that very misleading graph Michael you know China and India are the bad guys here this is like saying my son and this was a tweet I saw so I'm not going to claim responsibility for it this is like saying my son has grown 500 in the last two years and I've lost an inch because I'm growing older does that mean he's a giant well no it's because he was a child and you were an adult and that's probably the best way to look at co2 emissions from global south countries compared to the US and the UK it's a daft thing to say but look these people often um often it's it's it feels almost like they're paid propagandists for a broken status quo Michael of course that's not what I'm saying about that particular person but that's just how it comes across is this the most important chart of our time so grandiose as well I found it all pretty gross