Latest Articles by Zhang Haibin

China and the US: moving forward on climate (part one)

Haibin Zhang — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 07:48:00 +0000

The environment is becoming part of the core agenda in both countries, and international cooperation is growing. But, writes Zhang Haibin, if the two nations cannot take genuine action, global efforts may yet be wasted.

Cooperation on climate change between China and the United States is facing both challenges and opportunities. In both nations, climate change is becoming more prominent on the political agenda and there is a greater desire for cooperation. Common understanding is now being reached in areas where previously there was only disagreement.

In the past, environmental protection occupied, at best, the margins of China’s political agenda – and climate change occupied only the margins of the environmental agenda. The importance accorded to different environmental issues is reflected in the environmental targets set by the government. Targets set in the 9^th and 10^th Five-Year Plans and State Council decisions on strengthening environmental protectionall failed to identify climate change as part of the core environmental agenda.

But in October 2007’s report from the 17^th Party Congress, president Hu Jintao identified managing environmental resources as the main challenge to China’s development and put forward the concept of building an “ecological civilisation” – indicating a major increase in importance for environmental protection. At about the same time, the climate-change issue received further government attention. In June 2007, a National Climate Change Programme (CNCCP) [pdf] was released, comprehensively detailing China’s stance and policy on climate change. That same month, a National Leading Group to Address Climate Change, headed by premier Wen Jiabao, was founded on the basis of the existing National Coordination Committee on Climate Change (NCCCC). The 11^th Five-Year Plan calls for a compulsory 20% reduction in energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) and a 10% reduction in emissions of major pollutants.

To ensure completion of this mission, the government published a notice on a programme of work to reduce power usage and emissions. It established a responsibility system and a veto mechanism that will see the environmental targets become part of development evaluation in different areas, along with the performance of government officials.

And on the other side of the Pacific, too, climate-change politics is in a state of flux. Calls for the United States government to change its negative stance on climate change and to take stronger measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are increasing, while the American public is talking more about climate-change issues. In the 2006 mid-term elections, the Democrats took control of both houses of the US Congress -- the Senate and the House of Representatives – and the environment is increasingly becoming a major topic of legislative proposals and debate.

President George W Bush’s administration – with one more year in office -- also appears to be softening its position. Most notable is the shift from the fierce scepticism and unilateralism of the early years of the administration to a basic acceptance of the reality of climate change and a return to the United Nations framework today. Meanwhile, some state government administrations are racing ahead of the federal government in Washington. Over a dozen states, led by California, are implementing their own plans to reduce emissions. California’s state legislature passed a Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006, which sets a greenhouse-gas emissions reduction target of 25% for 2020 – bringing emissions down to 1990 levels.

The US military also is becoming worried by climate change. In February 2004, the Department of Defense published a report, An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. Prepared by the Global Business Network (GBN) consultancy, the report considered the possibility that abrupt changes in climate could lead to violence and separatism, seriously impacting on regional political stability. The report went on to discuss plausible climate and conflict scenarios that could see an unprepared world facing greater poverty; food, water and energy shortages; and a rising toll of refugees – all leading to warfare over diminishing resources.

Perhaps the biggest change the US has seen is an increased public concern about climate change. On Earth Day 2007, there were 1,400 public events across the country calling for more positive action from the US government. A series of public-opinion surveys carried out by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that in 2005 the US public did not know much about climate change and did not give the issue priority – but by 2006 climate change was considered to be the most pressing issue. Media coverage of climate change in 2006 also reached unprecedented levels. Former vice president Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth earned praise from the US and world news media, won the best-documentary honour at the 2007 Academy Awards and had a huge impact in the west.

Meanwhile, changes also have been seen in the attitudes of the main opponents of measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions – business and unions. Many of these groups are now showing understanding and support for compulsory emissions targets. A classic example is the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a collection of mainly US businesses that formerly was one of the major interest groups opposing any significant reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. “Deactivated” in 2002, it once had a major influence over US climate-change policy.

The increasing importance of climate change on the domestic political agenda has prompted China to cooperate internationally, as with the National Climate Change Programme. The changes on the US political scene also have created – to a certain extent -- a desire to work with China. The US government made energy and the environment one of the six key fields for cooperation during the China-US Strategic Economic Dialogue, launched in 2006. At a National Committee on US-China Relations dinner in October 2007, deputy US secretary of state John D. Negroponte called climate change one of five global challenges that the US and China must face together.

Interest in China-US cooperation on climate change also is increasing in Congress and the Senate – the focus of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) on China’s energy and environmental sectors is a good example of this. In 2003, when the commission held a hearing on China’s energy demands, it was titled “China’s Energy Needs and Strategies.” In 2007 this had become “China’s Energy Consumption and Opportunities for U.S.-China Cooperation to Address the Effects of China’s Energy Use.” In American academia, more and more scholars are stressing the importance of China-US cooperation on preventing climate change, as evidenced by the successful holding of the first China-US Climate Change Forum at the University of California, Berkeley, in May 2006.

With this need to work together, China and the US have increased common understanding on international climate-change cooperation. One of the reasons the US gave in 2001 for pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was the failure of developing countries such as India and China to commit to large-scale emissions reductions. The US withdrawal threw a major China-US disagreement into sharp relief. Since then, there have been subtle shifts and an increase in common understanding. On some crucial issues, the two nations have eliminated their differences and reached agreement. Such issues include whether or not the world is warming, whether slowing global warming should take place within a framework of sustainable development; whether climate-change measures should include adaptation; and whether the UNFCCC should continue to be given priority.

Currently, the world is agreed that global warming is a fact, and widespread international cooperation is under way. China and the US must grasp this opportunity to work together on dealing with climate change, to reach agreement on root issues and to cooperate positively. If these two great nations cannot take genuine action, then global efforts to combat climate change may yet be wasted.

Next: The obstacles to overcome

Dr. Haibin Zhang is an associate professor at Peking University’s School of International Studies. His major research areas are global environmental politics and international organisations.

China and the US: moving forward on climate (part two)

Haibin Zhang — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:42:00 +0000

Lack of mutual trust is among the problems hampering cooperation on global-warming issues. But, writes Zhang Haibin, if the world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases do not overcome the obstacles between them, their relations as a whole may suffer.

The United States and China are, respectively, the world’s largest developed and developing countries. They also are the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases. It is no exaggeration to say that cooperation – or lack of it -- between these two countries will determine the future of climate change.

It may appear that China has established a number of mechanisms for climate-change cooperation, with results already obtained in scientific research and energy and environmental policy. But in comparison with what is possible and what is necessary, progress to date has been limited. Numerous problems lie ahead.

The primary issue is a lack of mutual trust. The cold war may be over, but ideological factors still are a major influence on US policy towards China. International cooperation on climate change means, effectively, development aid being transferred from developed to developing nations. But hostility toward communism excludes China from receiving official aid – including on climate change -- from the US. Indeed, the US is the only developed nation not to have provided China with assistance in this field – in contrast to Japan and the European Union. Official development aid is a main channel for inter-governmental cooperation on climate change, and without it China-US efforts in this field are crippled.

The US is the world’s only superpower, while China is a rapidly rising new power. For reasons both historical and current, there is deep suspicion between the two nations and the foundation of strategic trust is weak. This leads the two countries to pay particular attention to the balance of costs and benefits of any cooperation. The most obvious example in the field of climate change is continuing US concern – arising from national security and economic considerations – about cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is one of China’s most viable options for replacing fossil-fuel power and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Developing it is one of China’s main strategies for ensuring energy security and dealing with climate change. Currently 2% of China’s power comes from nuclear sources, compared to an average of 16% for developed nations. China’s energy plans will see that 2% increase to at least 4% by 2020. Although the Agreement Between the United States and the People’s Republic of China Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy was signed in 1985, implementation was long delayed. Representatives of China and the US signed the Agreement of Intent on Cooperation Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Technologyin 1997, during a Washington summit between presidents Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin. Finally, in 2003, the US corporation Westinghouse won a sales order from China for advanced pressurised light-water reactors, the first of which is planned to begin operation in 2013. Although obstacles to China-US nuclear cooperation have been removed, comparing the US decision to carry out condition-free cooperation with India on nuclear matters with the complex process of transferring nuclear technology from the US to China shows there is still some distance to go.

There are many similar examples. After all, both sides have their own economic aims for energy and climate-change cooperation. The US, for example, has always made clear that besides influencing China’s energy and climate-change policy and reducing the environmental impact of Chinese energy and resource development, a major aim is maintaining the competitiveness of US industries and increasing their market share in China’s energy sector.

Meanwhile, China aims to use international cooperation – including China-US cooperation -- on climate change to import affordable, usable technologies. Disagreements exist between China and the US on this transfer of energy and environmental technology. The US pushes strongly for entirely commercial transfers of technology, while China maintains that, as a developing country, it should enjoy preferential conditions.

There also are wide gaps in the understanding of obligations under international climate-change cooperation. In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development – the “Earth Summit” held in Rio de Janeiro -- established the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” as the basis for international environmental cooperation. But during negotiations, China and the US have taken very different views of what this principle actually means.

In China’s view, climate change is largely due to the release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide by developed nations since the Industrial Revolution, with effects that are now global. Therefore, the US and other developed nations should take the lead in combating climate change by reducing their emissions -- and the US, being the world’s largest greenhouse-gas emitter today, should play an exemplary role. As developing countries have historically had low emissions, the average emissions per capita currently are low and the countries’ main task should be to achieve sustainable development. Requiring developing nations to reduce emissions in step with developed countries, then, is unfair.

The US, for its part, believes that by not including obligations for major developing nations such as China and India to reduce emissions in the Kyoto Protocol, efforts made by developing nations will be cancelled out – which is unfair to the US. It opposes this model of reduction in developed nations, calling instead for global emissions reductions. This thinking is reflected in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, passed by the US Senate in July 1997. This non-binding resolution – expressing the “sense of the Senate” and co-sponsored by legislators of both political parties – was approved with 95 votes in favour and none against. The resolution expresses the Senate’s belief that the president should not sign any climate change deal “unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period.” In 2001, the Bush administration announced a withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, a move ascribed in large part by the lack of obligations placed on developing nations such as China and India.

In May 2007, Bush’s strategy changed. The new starting point was that post-Kyoto climate change mechanisms must include both developed and developing nations. This stance was reiterated at international economic and climate-change meetings held in the following months. Former US vice president Al Gore, who lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush and has been a harsh critic of his environmental policies – agrees that future international climate mechanisms must include both the US and China (or they will fail to gain political support within the US). In accepting the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize – shared with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – Gore said in December 2007 that the US and China will need to make the boldest moves.

These, then, are the main issues hampering further China-US cooperation on climate change. Currently, the Chinese government’s stance is that “cooperation has started”. This is good to hear, but with climate change becoming an ever more pressing problem, a start is nowhere near enough. Overcoming these obstacles and changing the current situation -- where there is more talk than action -- will require a calm and steady approach from both sides. If this does not happen, it will not just hold back (or even reverse) China-US cooperation on climate change, it may negatively impact on China-US relations as a whole.

Dr. Haibin Zhang is an associate professor at Peking University’s School of International Studies. His major research areas are global environmental politics and international organisations.

Homepage photo by Cougar-studio

New hope for climate cooperation

Haibin Zhang — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:23:00 +0000

Barack Obama’s presidency offers a unique chance for China and the United States to cooperate on environmental issues. Zhang Haibin explains why.

What impact will Barack Obama’s presidency have on climate-change cooperation between the United States and China? Will the level of cooperation move forward, continue as is, or go backwards?

I believe that greater cooperation is the most likely outcome, as Obama’s inauguration on January 20 will cause key factors hampering energy and climate agreements to weaken.

China-US cooperation in the energy and climate fields started in the late 1970s. In the past three decades, almost 40 bilateral agreements have been signed. Although there have been a few achievements, the majority of those agreements have not yielded impressive results. Cooperation between China and the United States appears limited when compared with that between China and the European Union and China and Japan. There is no lack of ability for China and the United States to work together – but the will to do so has been absent, in particular in the United States.

In the past eight years of George W Bush’s presidency, climate change has not been a priority. In 2001, Bush announced US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, thereby holding back global efforts on climate change and earning worldwide condemnation. The United States also has not given climate change priority in bilateral relations with China. The European Union and Japan both proposed joint statements on climate change, demonstrating their intention to work together. The only major western country not to sign a similar agreement with China is the United States. Although 2008 saw the signing of the US-China 10-Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework as part of the Strategic Economic Dialogue process, the document lacked any concrete goals.

During the presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly emphasised the importance of energy and the environment. He pledged to reverse the unilateral climate policies of the Bush administration and to rebuild the United States’ reputation.

In a conversation with Chinese president Hu Jintao, Obama specifically expressed hope for more cooperation on climate issues. A number of US think tanks have produced detailed plans to achieve this aim for the Obama administration. All the signs indicate that the new US government will raise the importance of energy and environmental issues in the China-US relationship.

Also worth noting is the increased political appetite in China for international cooperation on climate change, including making agreements with the United States. China’s cooperative attitude at the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, met with widespread praise. Also in 2007, the Report to the 17^th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party listed protection of the global environment as a goal for Chinese diplomacy.

In 2008, the Communist Party Political Bureau held its first discussions on climate change, with Hu Jintao stressing that climate change is of great importance both now and for future generations. These major changes in China’s climate change politics show that there is increasing political will for cooperation with the United States, which hopefully will match up with similar aims of the Obama government and provide new impetus for climate-change partnership between the two countries.

Mutual finger-pointing held back further cooperation. The Clinton administration’s signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 indicated an acceptance of China’s stance on common but differentiated responsibilities. However, domestic political circumstances meant that the US Congress did not ratify the protocol.

A decade later there have been huge changes. The American public is much more aware and concerned about climate change, and US firms are eyeing the commercial opportunities presented by development of low-carbon technology. The new government urgently needs to promote international cooperation on climate change in order to improve the country’s image. Overall, the domestic voices calling for the United States to play a leading role in international climate change cooperation are getting louder. Obama himself is also enthusiastic.

Meanwhile, China is coming under greater international pressure because of increasing greenhouse-gas emissions. It is very likely that after Obama’s inauguration the United States and China will reach a compromise, with the United States committing to quantifiable reductions and China making a voluntary commitment to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. If differences over common but differentiated responsibilities can be reduced, then significant advances will be possible.

Of course, none of these changes can be accomplished easily – many unknown quantities and uncertainties remain. The ongoing financial crisis will undoubtedly have a negative impact. Obama has made it clear that his first priority will be the rescue of the US economy. Meanwhile China has passed a 4 trillion yuan (US$586 billion) economic stimulus plan, giving full priority to combating the financial crisis. With both countries focusing on economic issues, there will naturally be less attention paid to energy and the environment, so progress on climate cooperation will be slower.

To a great degree, climate cooperation will depend on the ability of the two nations to recover from these economic problems. A lack of mutual trust also is an issue. In the United States, there are worries that cooperation will reduce the international competitiveness of American companies and therefore increase unemployment – potentially changing the US lifestyle. In China, many believe that the United States is using climate change as an excuse to hold back China’s peaceful development. Both sides worry that they will lose out by cooperating.

China and the United States have a common interest in climate-change issues, and there is a huge potential for cooperation. If cooperation on energy and climate change is possible, it will become the bright spot of China-US relations and provide mutual understanding and trust -- an anchor for ensuring long-term stable relationships. But if progress is not made, it will become a source of mutual doubt and conflict.

The new US administration is soon to come into power, and a historic opportunity is presenting itself. Both the United States and China must seize this chance to sign a joint statement on climate change as soon as possible and produce a concrete plan for bilateral cooperation. As two of the world’s biggest energy consumers and greenhouse-gas producers, the United States and China – through mutual cooperation – can benefit not just their own citizens, but also all of humanity.

Zhang Haibin is an associate professor at Peking University’s School of International Studies. His major research areas are global environmental politics and international organisations.

Homepage photo by yunheisapunk