文章 Articles

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

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.

Article image

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 9th and 10th 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 17th 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 11th 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.

 
 

 
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.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

中美的气候变化政策

中美及世界其他国家都必须付诸行动来抑制全球气候变化。但是气候已然生变,而它对所谓利益相关者的诉求并没有兴趣——它才不会坐等我们去解决分歧。

美中都需要开始执行强有力的应对气候变化的政策。两国已开展的行动当然值得肯定,但若要真正稳定气候,我们需要在2050年之前减排80%。相较之下,中国在2013年之前单位国内生产总值能耗降低2 0%的计划,或者布什政府2002年制定的环境政策,都只能说是杯水车薪。

世界的经济(尤其是中国的经济)发展如此之快,以至于(我们必须认识到)减排密度和减排总量不能简单的划等号。实际上,正如在美国所发生的,当一个经济体由工业制造型发展为服务型时,虽然其温室气体密度降低了,但排放总量没有降低。

不论中国还是美国,都必须拿出切实有效的气候变化解决方案——我们不想再听那些空口无凭的承诺了。
CUNappo

China and US CC Policy

It is imperative for China and the US, along with rest of the world, to pursue actions that will curb global climate change. However, the changing climate is not concerned with stakeholders' interests- the climate won't wait for us to get over our differences. The US and China both need to begin to implement robust climate change policies. I commend the two countries for the action they have taken. However, we have to cut emissions 80% by 2050 to stabilize the climate. Climate change policies, such as China's plan to cut 20% ghg emissions "per GDP" by 2013 is meaningless. We saw this same attempt at fake climate change policy from the Bush Administration in 2002. The economy, particularly in China, is growing at a fast enough rate that to cut ghg intensity does not equal cuts in overall output. In fact, as an economy evolves form manufacturing to services, such as in the US, ghg intensity necessarily decreases- not overall output, though. We need REAL solutions from both China and the US- no more lip service!
CUNappo