The Guardian’s Jonathan Watts reported on Japan for seven years before taking up his post in Beijing in August 2003.
His career includes coverage of the Asian financial crisis 1997-98, the G8 summit in Okinawa in 2000, the South Korea-Japan World Cup 2002, the Tsunami disaster in 2005, the Sichuan earthuake and the Beijing Olympics of 2008.
Watts was a contributor to Mother Jones, The Christian Science Monitor, The South China Morning Post, The New Statesman and The Asahi Shimbun, as well as contributing to TV.
He is currently putting the finishing touches on a book about the environment, When a Billion Chinese Jump and working as The Guardian‘s first Asia Environment Correspondent.
Danwei asked Watts some questions about Copenhagen, the media backlash against China following its close, and the environment reporting projects that he has been conducting, and doing as part of a team.
Danwei: Were you optimistic before taking off for the Copenhagen summit?
Jonathan Watts: I was impressed with the progress that was made before the summit started. Getting so many nations, including China, US and India, to declare carbon targets was an achievement. I did not have high expectations for the Copenhagen conference, but I was hoping to see a little movement on some of the major issues.
Danwei: At which point － before or during Copenhagen － did you realize that the climate accord was going to freeze Europe out and as Miliband said, be “hijacked by a group of countries”?
JW: I don’t see it quite as you describe. There was a gulf in the expectations of the different parties. It soon became apparent that the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) were playing for a 0-0 draw. They did not want to sign up to anything that would constrain their future economic growth. Europe wanted ambitious, legal targets for 2020 and 2050. The US was most concerned about ensuring China made its emissions data more transparent and avoiding criticism for its dismal record in recent years. Europe was the furthest from achieving its goals, which is depressing as I think its targets were
the best way to keep the rise in temperature below two degrees celsius. China and the US, the world’s two biggest emitters, came away happier as they can now continue emitting without legal constraints for a longer period of time, perhaps indefinitely.
Danwei: What’s your opinion concerning the outcome?
JW: If you consider only the past two weeks, the outcome was disturbing. Very little progress was made in Copenhagen despite all that effort, all those nations, all those leaders and all the political capital invested. From Obama and Wen to Desmond Tutu and Arnold Schwarzeneger, from scientists to civil society, from pop music to the aristocracy, mankind lined up its A-team to solve this problem, yet they only just salvaged a two-page document. Given how close the conference came to complete failure, I wonder whether leaders will ever again dare to sit down and try to thrash out a deal. It will be difficult to get the political stars in alignment again. As one depressed Asian delegate said to me, “We have wasted the opportunity of a lifetime.”
On a broader, more hopeful note, the build-up to Copenhagen focused unprecedented attention on climate change. It has forced nations to set targets. We do have a deal of sorts and a greater commitment of funds. Now leaders need to learn from the chaos of the conference and find a new way forward. Building trust will be essential. There was
little of that around in Denmark.
Danwei: What are your plans now after reporting on Copenhagen for The Guardian?
JW: I will continue to focus on the climate. Copenhagen will shape our lives for years to come. But I will also look more widely at other environmental issues. The high amount of carbon in the atmosphere is only one symptom of a wider malaise. The main cause is the unsustainable consumption of a huge and growing share of the world. It is an issue of development and individual lifestyle choices. I hope I can reflect this in future articles. But damn, it is hard to make people interested in any story that suggests they might be at fault for something. Me included.
Danwei: Have you been proud of any one particular article that you’ve done for
The Guardian on environment? What was it and why do you think it’s important?
JW: Tough question. I am never satisfied with any of my stories. This subject is so important that I don’t feel I can ever adequately do it justice. But I was lucky to get good access to coal mines and coal-to-oil plants in Ordos recently, I was impressed by the work of young conservationists trying to halt the trade in endangered wildlife in Guangzhou, and I was proud to be part of the Guardian team in Copenhagen － despite the disappointing outcome.
The biggest project of the year, though, was a “Climate Frontline” interactive project I did before Copenhagen with Swiss photographers Mathias braschler and Monica Fischer.
The Guardian invested heavily in this eight-month, 16-nation multimedia project, which tried to show the human face of climate change. I joined for a part of the trip and took some video of Mongolians affected by a dried-up lake in Hebei, Russians whose homes are sinking into the melting Siberian permafrost and Thai swamp dwellers who are losing their homes and livelihoods to rising tides and temperatures.
Danwei: A bit of media speculation frenzy has been caused by Mark Lynas’ article published in The Guardian, where he claims that China refused to agree on targets and intentionally humiliated Obama during Copenhagen’s final meetings. Should we trust his account or just see it as one voice in a cacophony? What’s your take?
JW: Lynas has given a partial view from the inside. It is fascinating, but we will need a lot more than this to build up a full picture of what happened. The post-conference blame game is now well underway. Europe, and the UK in particular, have come out of Copenhagen with guns blazing. They are frustrated because their strategy for the conference fell apart almost from day one.
Their plan had been for the Danish hosts to introduce a compromise deal at some point early in the talks. About a dozen countries, including China, India and Sudan, had been consulted about this in advance, according to one European negotiator. But this strategy collapsed when someone leaked the “Danish Draft” to my Guardian colleague John Vidal. Nations that were not part of the consultation were furious. The authority of the chair was undermined. From then on, the talks ground to a halt. Almost the entire two weeks was wasted as a result.
Was China to blame? Well, there is no smoking gun. The killing of the Danish draft served the interests not only of China, but also other nations such as India that were determined to block any proposal that might constrain their future growth. Nonetheless, China was repeatedly cited as the main obstacle, particularly on the final day. While Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and a core group of leaders from about thirty nations or regions tried to hammer out a deal, Wen Jiabao sent officials in his place. This was primarily a defensive tactic. He did not want to be strongarmed into a deal. Those negotiators choked almost every numerical target.
Three European negotiators confirmed to me that Chinese negotiators not only blocked targets for themselves, but also a target proposed by Angela Merkel for developed nations to trim emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
I found that disturbing and perplexing. Was China doing this because it will be a developed nation by mid-century? I would like to hear China’s explanation, but its delegates have been very quiet since the end of the conference.
Danwei: Could you tell us a little about your book, to be published in June?
JW: The book is an environmental travelogue across China. It explores what happens to people, wildlife, the economy and the climate when development passes the point of sustainability. Is red China really turning Green? Can crap save us from algae? How screwed are we as a species? Between considering those questions, the book takes the reader from the Tibetan Plateau to the Inner Mongolian deserts via waste dumps, nature reserves, coal mines, eco-cities, melting glaciers, cancer villages, science parks, Shangri-la, Xanadu and a Barbie Emporium.