Maybe it is the fact that we are coming into Copenhagen, maybe it the fact that the international press loves to chide China, or maybe Pan Jiahua was intoxicated by Australia’s fresh air… but whatever it was, he let the audience have it when answering for China’s record on the environment.

Australia’s per capita emissions are around 4 to 5 times higher than China. For basic necessities, only limited emissions are required and additional emissions are due to luxurious or wasteful lifestyles. Transport in Australia is very much based on private means. Even on the university campus you don’t have bicycle paths. Australians live in stand-alone houses that are very energy intensive compared with multi-story buildings; street lighting is not energy efficient. All sorts of things are not energy efficient. The Chinese people can look to Australia and ask, if Australia is so rich and yet unwilling to make major efforts, why should China make major efforts? It is the behavior of the rich that need to change in order to demonstrate the way for the others.

All points that should be well taken, and I would say that Pan’s comment highlight the fact that the systematic differences between China and Australia/ US are very large.  That the fact that China has built for density, and the US/ Australia have built for sprawl, that some very different solutions will be required.

In China, the largest gains will be the easiest – Investments in energy efficiency and clean energy production will not only be easier to plan for, approve, and fund.. but will be far more effective than they would be in other country due to the fact that China has clusters on levels unmatched anywhere else… but on the ground level, China will continue to struggle with apathy as individual citizens continue to rely on their government to take care of everything and continue to engage in environmentally destructive practices (dumping chemicals into rivers) and over utilizing resources (water usage on the farm)… which will also leave “China” open to a lot of wiggle room in the middle as local officials in hinterland locations will take action as they see fit.

For the US and Australia, it is the little things like environmental awareness that they have done well, yet both struggle with converting that awareness into something tangible beynd hybrid cars and solar panels.  It will, in many ways, require more political will from both countries to take the big steps like investing in metro systems, resricting urban sprawl, and diverting investments away from areas that support sprawl (highway maintenance) into things that will over time drive people into the city.  However, once policies are set, they are fortunately put into place in a manner that is consistent.

Surely this presents an opportunity for sharing at Copenhagen?