• Collaboration, not confrontation - OPINION -CLIMATE CHANGE
China and the West have got locked into a pointless debate about who is to blame for high carbon emissions and the solutions. David Tyfield argues that collaboration in the development of low carbon technologies offers the right way forward.

EVERYBODY KNOWS that climate change is a global problem, and it is increasingly accepted that it must be tackled urgently. So it is a matter of both enormous importance and frustration that the international negotiations for a post-Kyoto agreement appear to be so difficult.

One major sticking point concerns China and low carbon innovation. In China the standard position is to demand “technology transfer” from the West to help China clean up its industry, much of which is servicing the import demands of the West itself.

In reply, however, Western governments and businesses argue that there is no way they will simply hand over intellectual property even where they are able to, because these are key economic assets and the Chinese, with a huge currency surplus, can afford them in any case.

Furthermore, excitable Western analyses heighten the politics of blame by fingering China for its massive and growing carbon footprint and inadequate low carbon innovation.

This means deadlock, which neither China, the West nor the world as a whole can afford.

A possible answer
One way forward has been proposed by a new report from Lancaster University, to be presented at the Inaugural Conference of the International Forum for Contemporary Chinese Studies, at Nottingham University this month.

The paper calls for a refocusing of the debate, from the narrow, national calculation of “who pays?” to the construction of platforms for international collaboration in low carbon innovation.

The paper notes that both existing positions depend on several problematic, if not false, assumptions. Against the Chinese position, technology transfer can only resolve problems of climate change if the technologies already exist and are in use in the West. Whether in energy, transport, construction or agriculture, though, this is simply not the case.

Conversely, the Western position underplays the importance of developing and maximising Chinese innovation capacity. Kick-starting this development through collaboration with the West may be necessary, but this is not a matter of a one-off handout of existing intellectual property.

The potential deadlock is also particularly stark because both parties seem to be concerned only with hi-tech innovation. The problem with this definition is that it fails both to capture a whole host of activities that are important forms of innovation and to reflect the complex social processes that innovation of any kind involves. For example, significant changes in economic behaviour can be made by introducing new services and business models, so-called ‘disruptive innovation’ as detailed in the NESTA report The Disrupters.

The task of the negotiations should be shifted to creating the mechanisms for the joint global implementation of the global low carbon shift

These gaps are of particular relevance to low carbon innovation. The challenge of climate change is not one of minimising the impact of current models of growth but to effect a global shift to new social systems that are premised upon low consumption of carbon-intensive fuels.

Hi-tech innovation will be undeniably important for this task, but so too will the ‘disruptive’ forms of low-tech, social innovation and low-cost innovation.

Broadening the definition of innovation in this way, however, also widens the debate, creating space for negotiation on alternative forms of international collaboration. It also allows for a fairer assessment of China’s current performance regarding low carbon innovation, because this broader definition allows the inclusion of its strengths in low-cost solar and wind or improved energy efficiency.

In short, the task of the negotiations should be shifted to creating the mechanisms for the joint global implementation of the global low carbon shift. This is clearly a much more co-operative framing for negotiations, which could facilitate their progress.

It also places a premium on international collaboration, which should in turn engender further cycles of trust, rather than of suspicion and recrimination.

Getting around the table
But what exactly is the role of international collaboration? And what mechanisms and platforms are needed to support it?

The paper argues that the primary goal must be to expedite the development of innovation capacity, including innovation capacity in China.

China is making important progress in this field, but gaps remain. In particular, current efforts in China are focused overwhelmingly on the mass production of existing technologies, with little in the way of either hi-tech, breakthrough innovation or ‘disruptive’, low-tech innovation.

Yet it is precisely regarding these two forms of innovation, at either end of the spectrum, that international collaboration could be of most assistance.

The paper makes a number of policy recommendations regarding possible platforms to stimulate international collaboration in low carbon innovation. In particular, at the national level, individual governments (and the EU) should step up efforts to encourage international collaboration and reduce the bureaucratic barriers such work faces, particularly regarding arrangement of funding from both sides.

At the global level too, new institutional supports are needed. The paper suggests two platforms: a global research council for basic science of particular relevance to low carbon innovation; and a global disruptive innovation network and fund, to incentives the forging of global connections and markets for the small businesses that are the primary locus of disruptive innovations.

Establishing these funds, with primary financial backing from the West but also significant contributions from China, would not only offer concrete, progressive measures regarding the global negotiations on low carbon innovation.

It would also engender deeper connections and global networks of innovation, and shape the structural context to make international collaboration in low carbon innovation a simple matter of strategic self-interest.

For more information, contact Dr David Tyfield (d.tyfield@lancaster.ac.uk) or see the project website www.lancs.ac.uk/fass/faculty/activities/606/