Beyond the Hotspot – What Vietnam Can Teach Us About Biodiversity

Central Annamites Mountains, courtesy of Indochina Legend

Biodiversity hotspots, according to Conservation International, are, “the richest and most threatened reservoirs of plant and animal life on earth.” These islands of natural abundance cover less than 3% of the Earth’s surface yet host a stunning array of plant and animal life. Imperiled by the twin threats of habitat loss and climate change, hotspots may be ground zero for the jump in extinctions that is widely believed to be looming.  Amid the busy schedule of upcoming summits such as COP-15, the best hope for prioritizing the preservation of biodiversity may hinge upon adoption of a more pragmatic approach to negotiation.  Stressing the favorable impact of forested land on reducing temperatures and providing food and economic security to the broader community, may prove a more persuasive argument than preservation for the sake of exotic plant and animal life.

Vietnam provides an excellent example of how biodiversity preservation may be tied to the larger climate change and economic policy debates. A WWF Vietnam study has found that the Central Annamites forests in Vietnam have been steadily losing biodiversity as they are degraded by climate change and human encroachment. As forests recede, loss of biodiversity creates a cascade effect that ultimately harms local rice, soybean, fish and fruit harvests thereby reducing the food security of the surrounding communities. It is these considerations, and not the plight of comparatively obscure hotspot species that will be in negotiators’ minds as they sit down at Copenhagen. Combined with the assertion, made by scientists such as Nguyen Ninh in this study, that biodiversity may be a powerful mitigation tool, policymakers and environmentalists need to confront the reality that hotspots, which capture the imagination, may be less useful for climate progress than the forests and fields that drive the global economy.

COP 15 – Shifting Perceptions of Global Power

 

As the COP-15 meetings draw closer, some observers note that at the end of the day, measureable progress will hinge on the cooperation of two nations – China and the United States. The two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, these powerhouses will ultimately decide the extent of the forward progress made in Copenhagen. Regardless of how desirable it is for two countries to monopolize the debate to such an extent, it is clear that the situation is very much a double-edged sword for climate negotiators.

For long-time observers of the Sino-US relationship, the inability of the US to persuade China to adopt key policy concessions is another sign that the balance of power in Asia may be shifting.

Chinese negotiators are clear that they will enter the COP-15 negotiation with Chinese economic and development priorities at the forefront of their climate platform.

There is little doubt that a failure to compromise could jeopardize the outcomes of the Copenhagen meetings before they begin. UN climate secretary Yvo de Boer summed it up, “If these two countries don’t cooperate further, then we’re not going to get a result.” At the center of the dispute is the commitment level that developing nations must make in reducing GHG emissions, and China has consistently maintained that industrialized countries must shoulder the brunt of the reductions.

With China’s economy rebounding ahead of that of the U.S., growing trade imbalances between the two nations, and a continued need for the US to fund a domestic bailout scheme with borrowed foreign dollars, the negotiating power of the U.S. is arguably diminished.  The COP-15 negotiations may mark a significant change in the perception of the international community about where the seat of global economic power will reside going forward with the outcomes of the COP-15 bearing significance beyond the technical details of any agreement that is reached.  Outcomes will play an important role in reshaping perceptions of power and a “win” by China will signal a decrease in American influence across Asia.

U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern has expressed hope, however, that an “accommodation” can be reached with China.

Asia Society Fellow Simon Tay At the 2009 PSIGCC

Asia Society Bernard Schwartz Fellow Simon Tay indicated at the 2009 PISA Summer Institute on Global Climate Change that China may also be forced into action by the Obama administration. Tay pointed out that American recalcitrance can no longer be used as an excuse for inaction.  Indeed, the world is watching these two nations: are they boxers entering the ring for the ultimate prize of superpower status and regional dominance or will China and the US meet as equals with different national priorities but a shared vision of building a sustainable future and understanding of the mutual sacrifice needed to halt the consequences of climate change?

India, the Nano and Development

The auto world was abuzz this week as Indian carmaker Tata Motors unveiled the Nano, a four-door, pint-sized sedan that will soon go on sale in India. Beyond its diminutive stature and no-frills interior, the Nano is turning heads because of its price: 100,000 rupees or a mere $2,500 USD. Sales projections still vary wildly, but many analysts agree that the hyper-affordable Nano could bring car ownership – and its social prestige – to a vast swath of rapidly developing India.

The Tata Nano

There is, naturally, a downside to this otherwise feel-good story. Despite weighing only 600 kilograms and sporting a tiny 624cc engine, the Nano is still a conventionally fueled car. And although Tata Motors has outfitted it with a catalytic converter and boasts 50 mpg efficiency, this eco-friendly profile may be vastly outweighed by the millions of new drivers it may put on the roads. Environmentalists are still struggling to calculate the effect this development will have on greenhouse gas emissions (and global energy supplies), but the picture doesn’t look good so far: “This car promises to be an environmental disaster of substantial proportions,” said Yale’s Daniel Esty.

The Nano debate is only a tiny facet of a much larger and fairly acrimonious controversy over the tension between emissions reductions and environmental stewardship on one hand and the right to develop and attain first-world standards of living on the other. In the environmental community, some scientists and public intellectuals advocate strict planet-wide reductions, including regulations that mandate significant cuts on the part of developing nations and punitive measures such as carbon taxes and other sectoral norms. International development and human rights workers oppose this view, arguing that inflexible emissions cuts risk keeping nations perpetually in “developing” mode.

How can we resolve this impasse? Is it even resolvable? Environmental advocates make a point that is difficult to refute: if we are truly worried about climate change and its impacts, then we should take any action necessary to reduce our emissions – even if it means economic burden on already burdened states. Nor is it fair that some nations’ hard work can be undone by the developing world: one estimate says that the reductions made by every Kyoto country will be nullified by China by year 2010.

If the environmentalists’ arguments are hard to reject, so too are those of the development advocates. After all, who wants to be the person to tell an upwardly mobile family in India, or China, or Cambodia that they cannot enjoy the same benefits of their income that a Western family can? Vishal Bhatia, an Indian commenter on the Nano dispute, summed up why he wants one: “I’m buying it because it gives a sense of freedom.”

Today, this dispute leans somewhat in favor of the UN’s George Kell, who said, “You can’t deny emerging markets the right to the same living standards as OECD countries.” This definition of the “good life” and upward mobility is based in the experience and priorities of Western economies. Is there a bridge that offers synergy between individual desires and public needs or corporate desires and environmental consequences?