A number of readers have e-mailed criticising last Wednesday's column in which I argued that Beijing's opposition to a global deal to limit greenhouse-gas emissions is rational, if not altruistic.
In it, I drew on a new academic study that suggested that although a global agreement to restrict emissions would be the most desirable outcome for the world as a whole, it would not be the best option for every country.
The study argued that China, because of its relatively high latitude, would be relatively unaffected if global warming was allowed to run on unchecked. According to the study, by the end of the century, this 'business as usual' scenario is likely to end up costing China some US$360 billion a year in environmental damage.
In contrast, an 'optimum' global deal is likely to cost China, as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, well over US$1 trillion a year. As a result, it makes hard economic sense for Beijing to resist any international agreement on emissions.
One reader was outraged by this line of reasoning, maintaining that China's opposition to a deal on emissions is not motivated by narrow self-interest, but rather by Beijing's genuine pursuit of climate justice for developing countries.
He argued that it was the developed economies of the Western world that were to blame for global warming. They have been burning fossil fuels and pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for more than 200 years. As a result, they are responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse-gas emissions of the past, that are now causing climate change.