Momentum on US-China climate cooperation builds; Tsinghua holds "Overcoming Obstacles to US-China Cooperation on Climate Change" Seminar

Following Secretary of State Clinton's visit to Beijing, Ken Lieberthal, co-author of a landmark Brookings Institution report on US-China climate cooperation, headlined a seminar at Tsinghua University on overcoming obstacles to such cooperation. This post offers a brief re-cap of the seminar, and goes on to note some of the ripple effects of Clinton's visit. In general, it's fair to say there's a lot of momentum in US-China climate cooperation; the challenge will be to sustain it even as both countries plunge further into recession.

Dr. Lieberthal mainly elaborated on one of the report's main findings, that climate cooperation should be seen as central to the US-China relationship. Secretary Clinton, Lieberthal noted, raised the climate issue in almost every meeting she had during her visit to Beijing. Washington should sustain this emphasis, Lieberthal continued, and see bilateral climate cooperation as the motor for global action. US-China climate cooperation should in turn be part of a shift in the bilateral relationship which views China as a strategic partner on a range of global issues, as opposed to merely regional ones like North Korea.

Lieberthal was also emphatic that Chinese leaders should understand that their willingness to offer concrete steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions directly impacts Washington's ability to do the same; the chief opposition argument to US action is that it will make no difference unless China takes similar steps. Such political arguments also obscure real advantages in strengthening US-China climate collaboration. Lieberthal cited in particular the relative advantages of using China for clean technology demonstration projects: in America, a carbon capture and sequestration plant requires a 6-year permitting process; in China, the time period is less than 2 years.

The reactions of Chinese panelists, including former People's Congress leader Cheng Siwei and Tsinghua professor Hu Angang, broadly fit under the "cautious optimism" paradigm (see previous post). Cheng agreed that trust and dialogue is essential, but went on to reiterate the familar talking points regarding historical emissions, China's developing country status, and the "embedded carbon" in making exports for the West (this is clearly a spurious argument; see China Environmental Law on this).

Hu was a bit bolder, noting that "If the US does not succeed [in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions], neither will China." Hu also called climate change an integral consideration for 21-st century economic development policy, and called the creation of a green economy an opportunity for China to "leapfrog" the most carbon-intensive stages of economic growth. The US and China have shared dreams, said Hu, including a "green dream." Perhaps most consequentially, Hu argued that China should see action on climate change as part of its responsibility as a global power and leader in the world.

Such positivity was broadly, if more cautiously, echoed across the Chinese bureaucracy. The deputy chief of China's National Energy Administration told a US-China forum on energy efficiency that "The two countries could further cooperate on a wide range of areas in the development of economic and energy sectors against the background of economic globalization" (see Xinhua). China Daily issued a sunny report on the Tsinghua seminar, before concluding with a cautious quotation from Cheng: "Dialogues on climate change are in the interest of both China and the US, but each side should work out a plan to combat climate change according to different national conditions."

Meanwhile, China's National Statistics Bureau announced that the nation's energy intensity fell 4.59% in 2008, slightly higher than predicted (see Xinhua). While this is a step forward, the number more than anything else indicates the scale of the task confronting US-China climate cooperation. China Environmental Law has an excellent post on this, so CGS will do no more than to conclude by saying we must hope that the Hu-Lieberthal view of climate cooperation as a strategic and central issue is sustained over time. It really is nothing less than a test of both nation's ability to be responsible partners in the international community- in America's case, after eight years of reckless unilateralism, and in China's case, as part of coming to terms with becoming an economic giant.

Sino-American green stimulus; or, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Report: "Strengthening US-China Climate Engagement"

The US-based environmental NGO Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has recently released a report on strengthening US-China climate "engagement." The report comes on the heels of similar reports issued by the Brookings Institution and the Asia Society (see previous post), and contains many of the same observations and recommendations. Nonetheless, the report frames US-China climate cooperation in a slightly different way, which deserves further commentary.

More so than the other two reports, NRDC observes that the US and China are taking parallel tracks when it comes to investing a large portion of their respective economic stimulus efforts in green efforts. This is new to both governments, and yet the objective, in terms of creating green jobs and expanding the use of green technologies, is remarkably similar. It only makes sense, then, for Washington and Beijing to coordinate the green components of their stimulus packages. NRDC, for example, recommends the creation of a "green jobs forum" to share lessons learned (p 3). It's a good idea, and in principle there's no reason why there shouldn't be a high-level and wide-ranging discussion between the two governments on what works and what doesn't when it comes to green stimulus. Coordination between the two countries could also lead to synergistic investment in specific, highly promising areas of clean technology research and develelopment.

Of course, economic stimulus is politically charged in both countries, and there's a limit to how willing either government will be in disclosing failures to use public money to good effect. In the United States, Washington may take some hits from the political right for talking to China when many Americans are still hurting from the flight of manufacturing across the Pacific. But high-level consultation and coordination between the American and Chinese green stimulus packages is still worth trying.

The NRDC report also suggests one other intriguing idea. Noting that China often lacks the capacity to accurately report its greenhouse gas emissions, the report recommends that the US offer technical assistance to bolster emissions monitoring capabilities (p 11). CGS is tempted to take this one step further, and argue that the US and China should work towards joint reporting of annual national greenhouse gas emissions.

But wait, you may say. Beijing would never go for that, and statistic ambiguity is a time-tested instrument in the government's toolkit. True. But think of the benefits: joint reporting would necessarily bind US and Chinese emissions reductions efforts together. Moreover, it's hard to think of a better way to build mutual trust in the climate arena than to commit to joint, transparent reporting. Finally, joint monitoring could help to bolster emissions data collection and monitoring in both countries, and enhance climate science cooperation.

A coordinated stimulus and joint monitoring are medium-term objectives. In the meantime, several initial steps are of greater importance (see previous post). But in the face of climate change, it's necessary to think boldly and strategically. In this vein, the NRDC report provides some enticing new food for thought.

Clinton's Visit

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gets two thumbs up for her handling of the climate issue in Beijing. It's worth taking a little step back to think how far we've come in recent months. Just two months ago, the United States demonstrated its familiar reticence to take a leading role of climate at talks in Poznan (see previous post). But when she arrived in Beijing, Clinton placed the climate issue front and center, telling China "we hope you don't make the same mistakes we made" on climate. She also made a smart move in framing the climate issue as one that threatens the security of both nations, saying "This not a matter of politics or morality or right or wrong,” he said. “It is simply the unforgiving math of accumulating emissions” (see New York Times). Indeed, Clinton even went so far as to participate on a webchat, asking China's 300 million Internet users to "work together for a clean energy future" (see China Daily).

China's response to this welcome overture has been one of cautious optimism. China's Foreign Minister pledged that the economic crisis would not derail the country's greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts, a welcome sign of confidence in the seriousness of the issue. ""The government's resolve to tackle climate change has not changed, and our actions have not weakened," the Minister said, before pledging that "We are willing to work together with the international community to push the Copenhagen talks forward and make sure they yield a positive result" (see China Daily). Elsewhere, however, China's government sought to emphasize the necessity of technology transfer if climate cooperation is to be enhanced. An official at the Ministry of Science and Technology was quoted as saying "China is glad to see that the US has started to take concrete action [on US-China climate cooperation]. But without funding and technology, cooperation would end up as empty talk" (see China Daily). The official went on to reference Beijing's familiar developing-country argument that it is unable to take on concrete GHG reduction targets (see previous post).

Beijing's hesitancy points towards the next step for a promising re-invigoration of US-China climate cooperation. The US and China must come to an agreement about technology transfer and financing the deployment of GHG mitigation technology. Chinese academic Zhang Haibin writes that "Hostility toward Communism excludes China from receiving official development aid from the United States, which could significantly hasten climate-change-related projects" (see New York Times), while a recent essay by Chinese environmental experts notes that international transfer of clean technologies remains underdeveloped (see China Dialogue).

In sum, then, Clinton's push on climate can be considered a success. The real work, though, lies ahead. As Zhang's statement indicates, Washington must build on its climate overture with a series of confidence-building measures to indicate its seriousness, including adopting binding emissions restrictions itself. It must also put its money where its mouth is on technology transfer- something that, particularly in the midst of economic crisis, is an unmistakable sign of conviction to tackle climate change through Sino-American partnership. Two smaller steps will be crucial to achieving these larger goals. First, China and the US need to reaffirm and expand the dialogue on climate and energy established under the Strategic Economic Dialogue (see previous post). Second, a joint task force should be formed at once to overcome the technical obstacles to technology transfer, most crucially intellectual property rights (see previous post).

As these steps are taken, Washington should also make clear to China that it expects reciprocation. The climate and energy dialogue should state at the outset that the ultimate outcome of US-China climate cooperation must be for China to reduce its GHG emissions by a set amount, within the framework of an equitable global agreement that promotes sustainable economic development. All this lies ahead. But it's nonetheless a huge achievement to be underway on the road towards a genuinely sustainable future.

Climate Sustainability: Getting from here to there

Climate Progress published an excellent piece on how to ramp up wind, biomass cofiring, and energy efficiency efforts to start reducing US greenhouse gas emissions in the near-term- and without resorting to unproven technologies, nuclear, or clean(er) coal. Well worth a read, and let's hope those designing the US-China climate cooperation architecture take a look as well.

Exciting Times for US-China Climate Cooperation

After a New Year holiday, CGS is back in action, energized by several important developments in the field of US-China climate cooperation. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon arrive in China, and New York Times environment correspondent Andy Rivkin reports that "climate and energy will be high on the agenda."

There will plenty to discuss. The Brookings Institution and the Asia Society have both recently issued major reports probing the way forward for US-China climate cooperation. In the meantime, China is in the process of formulating a new Energy Law and its 12th Five Year Plan for Energy (see China Environmental Law Blog on this).

CGS will be back in the coming days with a fuller analysis of all these developments, but in the meantime, suffice it to say that the coming weeks will be a crucial period for US-China climate cooperation. One can safely say without resorting to hyperbole that the sustainable future we all crave may well hang in the balance.

China and the Climate Issue under Obama

President Obama's Inaugural Address, delivered yesterday, was music to the ears of those who care about climate change. As Climate Progress notes, Obama included a remarkable call "to nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say that we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect."


It's as if he had magically gathered all the anguished pleas from scientists, academics, environmentalists, and common folk over the past decade to act on climate, and made of them a poem. The time is now, and the most powerful man in the world gets it. With renewed spirit, this post looks again at the prospects for a new global climate deal that includes China.


The Necessity for US Leadership in Securing China's Cooperation

A few weeks ago, CGS wrote about an essay by a Chinese academic, Zhang Haibin, expressing optimism for progress on the climate issue under Obama. The greatest impediment to China's participation, wrote Zhang, is lack of American leadership. The consequences of this failure are elaborated in an excellent review of China's climate policy written by scholar Tu Jianjun:

Chinese policymakers and academia generally weigh GHG emissions control as significant liabilities instead of potential assets to the national economy. Such perceptions were reinforced by the outgoing Bush administration’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 and most of Annex I countries’ failure to meet their Kyoto commitments. Beijing has already expressed it’s belief that any mandatory emission cap would unfairly limit the nation's economic growth. Thus, rejecting mandatory emissions caps will be the bottom line for Beijing’s climate policy in the foreseeable future. Ironically, although the U.S. government used the absence of key developing countries as an excuse to justify its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, the sudden disappearance of U.S. pressure on China in 2001 actually made it possible for Beijing to maintain a “wait and see” climate policy for quite a while.

In contrast, Tu goes on to note, a joint US-EU push would likely cajole Beijing into accepting greenhouse gas emissions reductions. As he puts it, "If developed nations as a whole could meet their GHG reduction commitments, it is not unimaginable that China may eventually accept an intensity-based mandatory GHG reduction target." Tu's argument, then, serves simply to underline the importance of American leadership in getting China to be part of a global climate deal. On the climate issue, at least, it seems many in China will be taking their cues from Washington in the coming months.

China is Watching

In a notable essay published just before Obama's inauguration entitled "Obama's 'change' can begin with the climate issue," (奥巴马的“变革”可能从气候问题开始, in Chinese only) Tsinghua University scholar Guan Qingyou argues that Obama's climate policy can be the very emboidment of his "change" mantra. Guan outlines a remarkable vision in which President Obama's America becomes a "clean energy superpower," and reclaims the title of global climate leadership from Europe ("...领导美国成为清洁能源大国，并以积极的姿态参与国际气候谈判，从欧洲人手中重新夺回话语权。") Guan draws a sharp distinction between this vision of leadership, and the failed policy of former President Bush ("他还批评了小布什政府 的气候变化政策，表示在他的总统任期内他将带领美国重新在气候变化方面承担领导者的角色。")

Perhaps most notably, though, Guan expresses strong support for Obama's vision that a clean economy can also be a prosperous one. The new President's assertion that clean energy deployment can promote economic growth and create jobs, says Guan, is a sound one ("奥巴马认为，清洁能源的开发计划是振兴美国经济的一部分，能够创 造出数百万个就业机会，成为美国经济的新的增长点。因此，应对气候变化与振兴经济并不矛盾。这一点笔者倒是非常认同...应对金融危机和气候危机的计划，是可以毕其功于一役的.")

Consensus is emerging among Western nations for strong action on climate change, he argues, and the trend is inexorable ("从澳大利亚到美国，从陆克文到奥巴马，西方大国的政治领袖的观点正越来越趋于一致，即各国政府必须采取措施遏制和适应全 球气候变化的趋势"). The climate cause has become a global one, Guan says, and suggests that it has ceased to be a factual issue, instead becoming a matter of politics ("气候变化问题实在也已经很难再称之为有争议的科学问题了，而成为一种世界潮流、价值观或者说“宗教”。在这样的背景下，谈论气候变化问 题便有了一个“政治正确性”的问题“）。

Given this reality, Guan writes, the world will await America's metamorphasis. It's up to America, he suggests, to prove to the world that economic growth and climate sustainability can go hand in hand. If it succeeds in articulating this, a true model for sustainable development, Guan indicates that China will be all ears ("尽管改变现状阻力重重，但变革的远期依然值得期待。至少从这点看，奥巴马所宣扬的“变革”意义深远而重大。既然如此，我们是不是也该学习一下奥巴马的雄心壮志？")


The Necessity of Now


So America has its marching orders to lead the world into a new era of climate cooperation, one which includes China. But some new research lends further impetus to begin the process without delay. A new paper from Harvard's Kennedy School argues that China's emissions growth will be faster than predicted, probably putting atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration stabilization targets out of reach within a decade or two, making China's participation on a global deal even more crucial (However, lower economic growth may slow emissions growth- see previous post). A separate, economic analysis of various climate agreement models indicated that, from a "cost and enforceability standpoint, GHG stabilization at 450 ppm for CO2 only (a common standard) is hardly achievable." If these analyses prove to be correct, the politics of climate agreements, never simple, are likely to become almost impossibly complicated.

Once More Into the Breech, Dear Friends...

Obama was right to call for a new era of responsibility. As individuals, nations, and societies, we must become more aware of our responsibilities to one another. Only with respect to the common principle of responsibility does it make sense to save an intangible climate, and indeed, to save eachother. 人人都有责。