面对气候变化，什么是中国基本国情？（一）
易水
刘鉴强

2009年8月6日
刘鉴强和易水采访了中国最知名的经济学家之一——胡鞍钢。他同时也是少数要求中国承诺减少温室气体污染的呼吁者。

“可惜很多人没有认识到这是中国的核心利益，也是人类的核心利益，也就是说，我们找到了中国和人类共同的核心利益。”

相关文章
通向哥本哈根之路的全球减排路线图之一
2009年4月6日

通向哥本哈根之路的全球减排路线图之二
2009年4月6日

通向哥本哈根之路的全球减排路线图之三
2009年4月6日

【本文由本网站和美国鲁特格斯大学的气候变化和社会政策行动合作刊发】

“中外对话”和鲁特格斯大学“气候变化和社会政策行动”于4月发表胡鞍钢《通向哥本哈根之路的全球减排路线图》，读者反响强烈。经济学家胡鞍钢是清华大学教授，国情专家，中国著名高层智囊之一。他在《全球减排路线图》中提出，中国可以通过承诺减排义务推动全球减排协议的达成，为世界做出绿色贡献。

文章发表后，同时得到激烈的批评和热情的赞扬。有位参加气候变化国际谈判的中国代表团成员从波恩谈判会场给“中外对话”发来评论，认为胡鞍钢发表的是“不 负责任的乌托邦式言论”，“缺乏对气候变化问题成因的深入认识，缺乏对相关国际政治的历史和现实的基本了解”。而另一位参加气候变化国际谈判的NGO观察员也从波恩谈判会场发来评论，认为“如果到哥本哈根的这几个月，中国依然只是不断简单、保守地重复‘公平’这个词汇，而无法拿出自己对公平和责任的具体观点和可行性建议，在这场举世瞩目的全球论战里恐怕会处于越来越不利的地位。这点上胡教授开了一个好头，抛出观点，展开讨论，宜早不宜迟。”

近期，“中外对话”编辑采访了胡鞍钢，再次探讨中国应该如何应对气候变化。

中外对话：有些评论者认为你作为国情专家，在发表有关气候变化的问题时，“不懂国情”，信马由缰。那么，你作为一个经济学家，是何时开始研究气候变化的？

胡鞍钢：其实很多人也觉得奇怪，胡鞍钢是经济学家，国情研究专家，怎么会对气候变化感兴趣？而且很快发展了一些新的独特观点？其实一个人成熟的思想不是瞬间形成的，有时需要花10年、20年甚至更长的时间思考。

20 年前，我在中国科学院和同事牛文元、王毅写了一篇国情报告《生态赤字》，副标题是《未来时期中华民族生存的最大危机》。我们认为，生态危机将演化为21世 纪人类生存与发展的中心问题，我们论述了七大生态环境问题，第一个就是全球气候变暖与海平面上升。1989年，有的学者研究计算，到2030年全球平均温 度上升1.5度到4.5度，全球海平面上升20到140厘米。我们非常关注它对中国沿海地区和农业的影响，包括淡水问题。

中外对话: 那么你们得到了什么结论？

胡鞍钢：我们的基本结论是，生态危机是人类面临的共同危机，一个国家造成的大气体污染加剧气候变化，会影响邻国，一国排放的温室气体，绝对不只停留在这个国家上空，所以人类应采取共同行动。

因此在2008年，我借奥运会的口号，就应对气候变化提出三句话：一，“同一个世界”，就是越来越小的地球；第二句话“同一个梦想”，我们需要的是绿色实践，这是我们的梦想；第三句话“同一个行动”，我们必须在哥本哈根达成共识，共同减排。

早在1989年，我们就前瞻性地讨论了全球环境危机对中国安全的严重后果。海平面上升将严重打击三大三角洲人口密集、经济密集地区。现在事实表明，这三个中 国经济最发达地带是中国遭受灾害最频繁的地区，也是直接经济损失最大的地区。我们当时已把气候变化、海平面上升视为对中国最大的危险之一了。我2008年 去河北省唐山曹妃甸调研，那里吹沙造地、围海造地有没有考虑到海平面上升问题？要是考虑了，那你的发展成本肯定就高了。我2008年2月到广东珠海调研，他们浅滩造地和基础设施建设都要考虑海平面上升，但是不是还有很多地方没考虑到呢？很有可能，因为海平面上升的幅度到底多大？这有极大的不确定性。另外最重要的是气候变化的影响，让我们“百年不遇”、“千年不遇”的灾害，现在几年或十年就一遇了。

1989 年，我们还讨论了中国环境对全球的重大影响，我那个时候已是全球主义者了。首先，中国是世界人口最多的国家，因此中国就会对全球环境问题和气候问题产生重 大影响，今天中国已经是世界排放温室气体最多的国家之一。第二，中国是世界最大的产煤国和煤炭消耗国，对全球气候变暖贡献巨大，世界各国难以容忍，必然引 起各种冲突。我们认为，上述国际背景很重要，决定了中国不得不把治理生态环境放在十分重要的战略地位上，必须加入到全人类保护环境、拯救地球的斗争中去。 这个观点到现在也不过时。这是20年前我对全球气候变化或者全球环境问题的基本看法。

1997年，我出版了《中 国自然灾害与经济发展》，这是我和中国科学院地理研究所专家们的共同研究，我在中国经济学家中是最早研究自然国情与经济发展的，因为中国的经济发展、社会 进步必须基于对中国自然国情的认识、对自然支持系统的保护和投资。通过这个研究，我发现气候引起中国自然灾害频发，中国成为受自然灾害影响最大的国家，中国是气候变化最大的受害者。我又做了一些初步的计算和研究，比如受灾和成灾面积从50年代迅速上升，粮食在50年代每年损失380万吨，2001— 2006年每年3400万吨。我们再看损失量占总产量的比重，50年代为2.1%，2001年到2006年上升为7.4％，一方面粮食单产在提高，另一方面成灾面积在扩大。我的结论就是中国是气候变暖的最大受害者，这还不包括冰川雪线上升，高原冻土融化，我们未来的水塔“三江源”受到严重威胁。

我 在《生存与发展》一书里计算过，与隋朝(公元581-618)相比，唐朝(公元618-917)自然灾害发生频率高，宋朝(960-1279)比唐朝高， 清朝(1644-1911)更高。历史数据告诉我们，1950年以来自然灾害频率加快，我推论未来还会继续加快。未来的人会采用更好的科学手段来观测，但结论会差不多。

中外对话：那么，面对气候变化，你认为中国的基本国情是什么？

胡鞍钢：第一，中国是气候变化的最大受害者，第二，应对气候变化是核心国家利益。

如果我们讨论在哥本哈根会议上怎么跟外国人讨价还价，就小家子气了，我们应从本身利益角度来看这个问题，我和同事在2003年《第二次转型：国家制度建设》 一书中，把生态安全和环境保护界定为五大国家核心利益之一。不是因为美国或西方逼着我们，我们才保护生态和环境。可惜很多人没有认识到这是中国的核心利益，也是人类的核心利益，也就是说，我们找到了中国和人类共同的核心利益。如果我们领导人都能认识到这一点，中国对减排绝对不说NO而说Yes。但是你们 也看到，我成了中国唯一公开提出减排承诺的学者，这就有点可悲了。我必须传播我的这一理念，而且不管它花多长时间，我相信最终会变成中国领导人的政治共 识，十几亿人民的社会共识。这就是我对中国生态环境与气候变化认识的一个简要回述，我对气候变化政策的思想就是这样来的。它是中国的核心国家利益，我公开地表达出来。

胡鞍钢是中国著名经济学家，任中国科学院和清华大学教授、国情研究中心主任，是一流的政策智库成员。他同时任供政府高级官员阅读的参考刊物《中国国情研究报告》主编。

下一篇: 中国气候变化政策是如何形成的？

 

 

 

“I openly call for emissions cuts” (1)
Yi Shui
Liu Jianqiang

August 06, 2009
He is one of the country’s best known economists, and a rare voice in calling on China to commit to reductions in greenhouse-gas pollution. Liu Jianqiang and Yi Shui talk to Hu Angang.

“Unfortunately, many do not realise that addressing these issues is in China’s own interests, and those of all humanity – they are the shared core interests of China and the rest of the world.”

Related articles
A new approach at Copenhagen (1)
April 06, 2009

A new approach at Copenhagen (2)
April 06, 2009

A new approach at Copenhagen (3)
April 06, 2009

[Produced in association with Rutgers Climate and Social Policy Initiative]

The publication of Hu Angang’s essay for chinadialogue, “A new approach at Copenhagen”, met with a large response. Hu is a well-known economist and professor at Tsinghua University; he is also an adviser to the Chinese government. The article, published in April, suggested that China promote a global deal on emissions reductions by drawing up its own commitments, thus making an environmental contribution to the world.

Hu’s article has received both fierce criticism and enthusiastic praise. A member of the Chinese delegation to the climate change talks in Bonn commented on chinadialogue that Hu’s standpoint “lacks intrinsic knowledge about how climate-change problems have appeared and lacks any common sense of history or knowledge of the current situation of international politics.” However, an NGO observer at the talks responded, “if China keeps repeating the hackneyed refrain of ‘equality and justice’ in the few months left before Copenhagen round of talks, rather than putting forward its own views and propositions on this issue, it will find itself stuck in an ever unfavourable position. I believe professor Hu has made a good motion by airing his viewpoint and sparking a popular discussion. The sooner we do this the better.”

Liu Jianqiang and Yi Shui, editors at chinadialogue in Beijing, interviewed Hu to ask him how China should deal with the climate-change problem.

chinadialogue: Some commentators say that although you are an expert on China, your work on climate change does not reflect that expertise. As an economist, how and when did you come to research climate change?

Hu Angang: Actually a lot of people think it’s strange: “Hu’s an economist – an expert on the nation, why is he interested in climate change? How has he come up with these new and distinctive opinions so quickly?” However, a mature point of view does not just appear; it took 10 years, 20 years or longer.

Twenty years ago I wrote a report with Niu Wenyuan and Wang Yi, two colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, called “The ecological deficit: China’s greatest future challenge”. We wrote that the ecological crisis would evolve into the central issue of human existence and development in the twenty-first century. We covered seven major ecological and environmental issues, the very first of which was global climate change and rising sea levels. In 1989, academics had calculated that by 2030 global temperatures would have risen by between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with sea levels of between 20 to 140 centimetres. We were very concerned about the impact of that on China’s coastal regions and agriculture, including the availability of fresh water.

cd: What were your conclusions?

HA: Our basic conclusion was that this was a crisis for humanity as a whole. One nation’s pollution impacts on its neighbours by exacerbating climate change. The greenhouse gases emitted by one country do not remain in that particular country. Humanity had to respond in concert.

Thus in 2008 I paraphrased the Olympic slogan, “one world, one dream”, adapting it to climate change. “One world” is to say that our world continues to get smaller; “one dream” refers to our need to adopt environmentally-friendly practices – that’s our dream. I would also add “one action”: we need to reach agreement at Copenhagen to reduce emissions together.

As early as 1989 we had discussed the consequences of the environmental crisis for China’s security. Rising sea levels would have a grave impact on China’s three densely populated and economically crucial river deltas [the Pearl River Delta, the Yangtze River Delta and the Yellow River Delta]. Those are China’s three most developed areas, and also the areas most frequently hit by natural disasters; thus the potential for economic losses is huge. In 2008, I visited Caofeidian, in Hebei province, a development on land that has been reclaimed from the sea. However, have they considered rising sea levels? If they were to, the costs would rocket. In February 2008 I went to Zhuhai, in Guangdong province. There, they take rising sea levels into account when reclaiming land and building infrastructure. But are there many more areas that are not taking such questions into account? It is very likely there are, and nobody knows how far sea levels will rise. The impact of climate change also means that disasters that at one time would only strike once in a century, now might hit every decade or even more frequently.

In 1989 we also discussed the major environmental impact that China had on the planet. At that point I was already pro-globalisation. First, China is the world’s most populous nation, so it has a major impact on environment and climate-change issues as a result. China is already one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Second, China is the world’s largest producer and consumer of coal, a huge contributor to global warming, and no other nation can ignore this. That inevitably leads to frictions. We were saying that this background was important, that it gave China no choice but to view environmental management as of great strategic import, in order to participate in humanity’s efforts to protect the environment and save the planet. That view is still valid today. It was basically my view on global climate change and the environment 20 years ago.

In 1997 I co-authored a report with experts from the Institute of Geographical Sciences at the Chinese Academy of Sciences called, “China’s natural disasters and economic development”. I was the first of China’s economists to research the country’s natural environment and economic development, because growth and social progress is founded on an understanding of the environment, on protection and investment in natural systems. Through that research, I found that the climate is often the cause of natural disasters in China, making the country the largest victim of natural disasters, and the biggest victim of climate change. I went on to do some initial calculations and research, and found that the impact of disasters has increased rapidly since the 1950s. In that decade, 3.8 million tonnes of grain were lost per year, compared to 34 million tonnes per year from 2001 to 2006. In terms of the percentage of total production, in the 1950s that was 2.1%, in 2001 to 2006 it was 7.4%. On the one hand you have increased production, but on the other you have wider areas affected by disasters. We concluded that China would be the biggest victim of global warming, even before we considered that receding glaciers, rising snowlines and melting permafrost are putting the “water tower of Asia” – the source of our rivers – in grave danger.

In my book, Survival and development, I calculated that the frequency of natural disasters increased from the Sui Dynasty (581 to 618 CE) to the Tang Dynasty (618 to 917), from the Tang to the Song (960 to 1279) and increased again in the Qing (1644 to 1911). Historical data shows that disasters have increased in frequency since the 1950s; I inferred that this will continue. In the future, more scientific predictions will be made, but the conclusion will not be much different.

cd: When it comes to climate change, what would you say China’s “national circumstances” actually are?

HA: First, China is the largest victim of climate change. Second, adapting to climate change is in China’s core interests.

It would be petty of us to discuss how best to haggle with the foreigners at Copenhagen. We should start with the question of China’s own interests. In The second transformation: construction of state systems, I wrote that ecological security and environmental protection were two of our five core national interests. And this is not because of pressure from the United States and western nations. Unfortunately, many do not realise that addressing these issues is in China’s own interests, and those of all humanity – they are the shared core interests of China and the rest of the world. If our leaders can realise this, they will agree to make emissions cuts, rather than continuing to refuse. But as you know, I am the only Chinese academic openly calling for emissions cuts, and that is just lamentable. I need to spread this idea, no matter how long it takes. I believe that ultimately it will become the consensus among both China’s leaders and its people. So, that is how I sum up my views on China’s environment and climate change: it’s in China’s core national interests, and I’m saying so publicly.

NEXT: How is Chinese climate-change policy formed?

Hu Angang is one of China’s best-known economists. He is professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Tsinghua University and the director of the Centre for China Study, a leading policy think-tank. Hu has worked as the chief editor for China Studies Report, a circulated reference for senior officials.

面对气候变化，什么是中国基本国情？（二）
刘鉴强
易水

2009年8月7日
在采访的第二部分，刘鉴强、易水继续与胡鞍钢谈到中国的气候变化政策是如何制定，以及如何进行调整。

“我的《国情报告》会形成一个政治压力，我在上面写的非常清楚，中国在这样一个关键的全球性重大问题上，1%的决策失误就会导致世界100%的失败。”

相关文章
“我公开呼吁减排”（一）
2009年8月6日

通向哥本哈根之路的全球减排路线图之一
2009年4月6日

通向哥本哈根之路的全球减排路线图之二
2009年4月6日

通向哥本哈根之路的全球减排路线图之三
2009年4月6日

【本文由本网站和美国鲁特格斯大学的气候变化和社会政策行动合作刊发】

中外对话：许多反对中国现在承诺减排的中国人认为，承诺减排会损害中国利益，减缓中国发展步伐。这也是你的批评者的主要观点。

胡鞍钢：这对中国来说不是损失，而是巨大机遇。我20年前就在《生存与发展》、《生态赤字》等国情报告提出持续发展战略，在1994年成为国家战略。进入21世纪后，我又提倡绿色发展理念。这是中国人的创新，我们老祖宗提出“天人合一”，绿色发展是主动的发展、智慧的发展，这种发展模式不仅可持续，还有利于绿色产业、绿色能源，充满巨大商机，它更多的是基于新的社会需求，基于市场机制，和可持续发展更多基于政府作用有很多不同。另外我也清醒地意识到，我们 应该发动一场第四次工业革命，因为前两次工业革命都是发达国家领导，中国丧失了机会，只是最后一次信息工业革命，中国从“落伍者”变为“追赶者”，邓小平发动改革开放，我们才追上了信息革命、工业革命。但是这次我们和发达国家在同一起跑线上，一起发动这场绿色革命，也就是说，未来谁掌握了绿色技术，谁就掌握了核心技术。未来谁发展了绿色产业，谁就掌握了核心竞争力。我们不能清醒意识到这样一个巨大发展机会，就愧对后人。

这几年我先后写了几篇文章，提出中国应该对人类做出绿色贡献。这里也充分反映了毛泽东的宏大思想，1956年他就说过进入21世纪“中国应当对人类做出较大贡献”。他没来得及说到底是什么贡献？我把它发展了，就是“绿色贡献”。中国领导人已经公开承诺要对世界做出“和平贡献”，仅仅这个贡献是远不够的，所以必须有一个绿色贡献。

胡鞍钢：中国在重大的全球性事务中，应扮演越来越大的正面角色。刚才英国《经济学家》一位副主编来访，他给我的问题很清楚：“中国怎样尽快令经济复苏，进而促进全球经济的复苏？”每当人类发生灾难和危机，世界从来没指望中国发挥什么作用。但这次全球金融危机就不同，这是以前我们不可想象的。同样，当面对全球气候变化危机时，全世界的目光再一次转向中国。而我认为，全球金融危机是短期危机，但全球气候变化却是最根本的危机。什么是最重大的挑战？什么是最紧迫的任务？紧迫的任务不一定就是重大的任务，但往往由于“紧迫”而忽视了“重大”。因此这次金融危机冲淡了人们对人类重大威胁、根本威胁的认识。你看最近两次 重要会议，一个是去年11月在华盛顿召开的高峰会，一个是今年4月在伦敦召开的高峰会谈，一个字也没谈气候变化。今年正是关键年，在哥本哈根会议上要形成 人类共识，形成人类共同承诺，必须做出人类行动。

在人类共同行动方面，比较成功的是2000年联合国召开的全球首脑高峰会议，国际社会就减贫形成了人类共识，做出了人类承诺和人类行动，即“千年发展目标”（MDG）。因此我们就有可能在2015年，使绝对贫困人口比例比1990年减少一半，中国提前实现了这一目标，如果没有中国减少贫困人口数的话，世界实现不了目标，因此中国的成功导致了世界的成功。

历史又一次给中国一个难得的机会，当人类再次面临巨大威胁时，作为最大温室气体排放国，中国对能不能达成这样的人类行动，起着至关重要的作用。我希望中国领导人应该像当时国家主席江泽民正式签署MDG协议，承担中国责任一样，到哥本哈根，不是拒绝而是签署这个协议。

中外对话：你关于气候变化的报告，中国高层领导人有没有看到？

胡鞍钢：我的报告都送给他们了。我的《国情报告》会形成一个政治压力，我在上面写的非常清楚，中国在这样一个关键的全球性重大问题上，1%的决策失误就会导致世界100%的失败。只要哥本哈根没有达成协议，中国绝对要负重大责任。温家宝总理5月20日在捷克表态，要推动哥本哈根会议取得积极成果，我感到欣慰，但具体情况如何，要由实践来检验。

中外对话：一位政府内的学者告诉我们，胡鞍钢这样的学者能起到重大的作用。政府领导人的信息主要来自政府的气象局、科学院、发改委、各部委的报告，领导人会说，那再听听胡鞍钢这样学者的意见吧。他们听了很多体制内部门的信息，再听听重要学者的不同意见，会起到平衡作用。

胡鞍钢：我两年来已发表了7篇有关气候变化的《国情报告》。我不做非常单纯的科学研究，因为气候变化不是一个单纯的科学问题。我看的非常清楚，我看的是历史趋势、国际趋势，本届政府不做，下届政府也得做，你看外国人见中国领导人时都跟他们谈这事儿，躲都躲不了，我也是换位思维，感受到中国领导人所承受的国际压力。不能说我们是发展中国家，就可以不承担责任。刚才我说到，2000年中国签署千年发展目标（MDG），就是成功案例，我也告诉他们怎么学习江泽民， 也要学习邓小平，言外之意是，你们领导人不能错失掉这些机遇。

中外对话：那现在的中国气候变化政策是怎么形成的？你认为是哪些机构合力制定了目前的政策？

胡鞍钢：气候变化的政策制定，并不像制定国家“十一五”规划那样公开、透明、民主，还是集中在少数有关部门内部小圈子里讨论，这是很少见的，这样的重大问题，不征求专家意见是不对的，已经违反国务院工作规则。《规则》第四章《实行科学民主决策》明确规定：国务院及各部门要健全重大事项决策的规则和程序，完善群众参与、专家咨询和政府决策相结合的决策机制。国务院各部门提请国务院研究决定的重大事项，都必须经过深入调查研究，并经专家或研究咨询机构等进行必要性、可行性和合法性论证；涉及相关部门的，应当充分协商；涉及地方的，应当事先听取意见；涉及重大公共利益和人民群众切身利益的，要向社会公开征求意 见，必要时应举行听证会。

但我从来不去影响国家有关部门，我影响9位中央政治局常委就够了。相关国家部门从来不是重大问题的决策者，只是信息提供者。我必须打破信息垄断，我就是竞争者。他们提供他们的信息，我提供我的信息，而且我还不只给一个人信息，九个人我都给，中央决策是中央常委集体决策，不是哪一个人说了算，这和毛泽东时代的决策机制完全不一样，与邓小平时代不一样，与江泽民时代也 不一样。现在是充分民主、政治协商、投票决定的集体决策机制。因此，你在多大程度上影响这九个人，也就多大程度上影响决策者。但我并不是说他们就接受我的观点和建议，这是两回事，至少我白纸黑字给你们都提供了。这很重要，决策者不仅需要信息，而且更需要不同的信息，兼听则明。朱鎔基、温家宝两届总理多次讲过，你们作为专家要对国家负责任，要多送一些材料。那我就送吧，他们不嫌烦就行。这是开个玩笑。我们还是能提供一些有用的信息。“中外对话”有时候我也 看看，必要的时候还会引用。

中外对话：5月20日，中国政府发布《关于哥本哈根气候变化会议的立场》，一位专家告诉我们，他觉得那个中国的官方态度仍很冷硬。

胡鞍钢：这一文件，实际是要让占世界总人口不到20%的发达国家为世界80%以上人口的发展中国家“买单”，说白了就是，你们发达国家不买这个单，我们发展中国家就不减排。这个建议可能会得到发展中国家的政治支持，但是发展中国家也有不同类别，相当多的岛国与气候贫困人口国家是反对的，如果是这样的话，哥本哈根会议就会失败，达不成共识和协议。我不知道哥本哈根会议失败的可能性有多大，因为温家宝总理已在中欧会谈承诺要推动积极合作。现在只能观看，因为每个 国家都提出气候政策了，奥巴马提出了，欧洲国家的政策也很清楚，最后中国变成孤家寡人就有问题了，你必须对全世界政策做出一定的妥协和让步，更理性、更务 实、更可行。

胡鞍钢是中国著名经济学家，任中国科学院和清华大学教授、国情研究中心主任，是一流的政策智库成员。他同时任供政府高级官员阅读的参考刊物《中国国情研究报告》主编。

“I openly call for emissions cuts” (2)
Liu Jianqiang
Yi Shui

August 07, 2009
In the second section of a two-part interview, Liu Jianqiang and Yi Shui talk to Hu Angang about how China’s climate-change policy is formed, and how it can change.

“I have made it explicit that on such a crucial global issue, a 1% error in China’s decision-making will result in total global failure.”

Related articles
“I openly call for emissions cuts” (1)
August 06, 2009

A new approach at Copenhagen (1)
April 06, 2009

A new approach at Copenhagen (2)
April 06, 2009

A new approach at Copenhagen (3)
April 06, 2009

[Produced in association with Rutgers Climate and Social Policy Initiative]

chinadialogue: Many Chinese people who oppose a commitment to emissions cuts say that to do so would harm China’s interests and slow development. This is also the view of many of your critics.

Hu Angang: There would be no loss to China. In fact, it’s a huge opportunity. Twenty years ago, in national situation reports such as “Survival and development” and “The ecological deficit”, I first proposed a sustainable development strategy. In 1994 this became the national strategy. Then, at the start of this millennium I proposed the concept of “environmentally friendly development”. This is actually a Chinese invention: our ancestors spoke about nature and man as one. Environmentally friendly development is proactive, sustainable and of benefit to green industries and green power, and thus it presents huge business opportunities. It is based on social needs and market mechanisms, unlike the idea of sustainable development, which relies on the role of government. Also, I am very aware that we need to launch a fourth industrial revolution. The first two industrial revolutions were lead by the developed nations, with China nowhere to be seen. In the information revolution, China was originally left behind – but now it is in hot pursuit. This time round, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the developed nations on the starting line of the green revolution. Mastery of green technologies will be vital, and the development of green industries will provide core competitiveness. If we fail to see that, we let down our descendants.

I have written several articles over the past few years that suggest China makes an environmental contribution to the world. This echoes Mao Zedong’s statement in 1956 that in the twenty-first century, China would make a contribution to the world. He never specified what kind of contribution, but I do: a green one. China’s leaders have already stated they will make a “peaceful contribution”, but that alone is inadequate – there must also be an environmental contribution.

China should play a larger, positive role in international affairs. An editor at The Economist asked me quite a specific question: “What can China do to restore the economy as quickly as possible – and thus promote recovery of the global economy?” In the past, when humanity faced disaster or crisis, the world would never look to China to play any kind of role. But this financial crisis has been different, in a way that would have been unimaginable before. Similarly, the world’s gaze has again turned to China when tackling global climate change. And I believe that the financial crisis is a temporary one; climate change is the true threat. We need to ask what the most important challenge is, and what the most pressing task is. The most pressing tasks are not always the most important challenges, which are often ignored due to the perceived urgency of the former. The financial crisis has weakened people’s awareness of the greater threat to humanity. Look at the two recent summits in Washington last November and London this April. There was little mention of climate change. This year is crucial – we must see consensus, joint undertakings and action at Copenhagen.

An example of successful joint action was the Millennium Summit in 2000. Consensus was reached on poverty reduction, and humanity agreed on the Millennium Development Goals, of which the first is to reduce absolute poverty to half of 1990 levels by 2015. China achieved its part in this undertaking early – without that contribution, the world could not meet its target. China’s success led to global success.

History again offers us a rare opportunity. Humanity faces a grave threat, and as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China will play a decisive role in the success or failure of joint action. I hope the Chinese leaders will sign a deal at Copenhagen, just as Jiang Zemin signed on to the Millennium Development Goals in 2000.

cd: Have China’s leaders seen your reports on climate change?

HA: They have received them. My national situation reports could constitute a kind of political pressure. I have made it explicit that on such a crucial global issue, a 1% error in China’s decision-making will result in total global failure. China could bear great responsibility for any failure to reach an agreement at Copenhagen. Speaking in the Czech Republic on May 20, premier Wen Jiabao called for positive results at Copenhagen. That was gratifying to hear, but it still needs to be proven in practice.

cd: One scholar in the government told us that people like yourself can play a very important role. Politicians largely get their information from reports published by the Chinese Meteorological Administration, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the National Development and Reform Commission and the ministries. They then look to opinions from academics. They get a lot of information from within the system, but important academics play a balancing role.

HA: I have published seven national situation reports on climate change in the last two years. I don’t do pure scientific research; climate change isn’t a purely scientific issue. I have seen very clearly the historical trends and the international trends. If this administration doesn’t take action, then the next will have to. This issue is always raised when our leaders meet foreign politicians – it’s unavoidable. I’ve put myself in their position and felt the international pressure they are under. We can’t claim that as a developing nation we don’t have to accept responsibility. The Millennium Development Goal I mentioned earlier is one example of success – and I have advised them to look at what Jiang Zemin did, and also to look at Deng Xiaoping. The implication is that they must not let this opportunity pass.

cd: How is climate-change policy formed at the moment? What institutions work together to produce policy?

HA: The formation of climate-change policy is not as open, transparent and democratic as, for instance, the drafting of the eleventh Five-Year Plan. It is discussed internally within a small number of departments – and that is very rare. With such a major issue, it is wrong not to seek expert opinions, and it is in breach of the working principles of the State Council. The fourth article of the principles is clear: policy-making by the State Council and its ministries must include public participation and expert consultation. When the ministries request that the State Council make important decisions, the necessity, feasibility and legality of the policy must be examined by expert institutions. Relevant authorities or localities must be consulted; in cases where the public interest is affected, public opinion must also be solicited – if necessary, through public hearings.

However, I’ve never attempted to influence the ministries. It is enough to influence the nine members of the Politburo. The ministries have never been major policy-makers, they only provide information. I need to break that monopoly on information, to compete with them. They provide their information, I provide mine – and not just to one person, to all nine. Central policy-making is handled by the Politburo, not by one individual: it’s not like it was in the era of Mao, Deng or Jiang. Now there are policy-making mechanisms with democracy, political consultation and votes. Your influence over those nine people is your influence over the policy-makers. That is not to say that they do accept my views and suggestions – that’s a different matter. But I have presented them in writing. That’s very important: the policy-makers don’t just need information, they need to hear both sides. The former premier Zhu Rongji and the current premier Wen Jiabao have both said that experts have a duty to provide these materials. So I do – I just hope they don’t find it troublesome. I joke – but we can provide valuable information. Sometimes I read chinadialogue, if necessary I quote it.

cd: On May 20, the government published China’s Position on the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. One expert told us that he felt the official attitude was still very firm.

HA: That document wants developed nations, who represent less than 20% of the world’s population, to cover the costs for the rest of the world. It basically says: if developed countries won’t pay for it, we won’t reduce our emissions. That position might garner political support from some developing nations, but there are different kinds of developing countries – many island nations and ecologically impoverished countries are in opposition. If this is the position, the Copenhagen talks will fail – with no consensus or agreement. I do not know how likely that is, however, as Wen Jiabao has said that China will promote cooperation. We can only watch. Every country has put forward its policy: US president Barack Obama has put forward his; the European Union has put forward very clear policies; and now China stands alone. With global policy you need to compromise and make concessions – to be rational, pragmatic and practical.

Hu Angang is one of China’s best-known economists. He is professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Tsinghua University and the director of the Centre for China Study, a leading policy think-tank. Hu has worked as the chief editor for China Studies Report, a circulated reference for senior officials.