Can Hillary Forge a Climate Treaty With China?

At the center of efforts to bring down greenhouse gases -- efforts that must involve the world's two highest-emitting countries -- aren't just issues of politics and security, but the curious conflicting desires of both of those countries. The US has said it cannot lower emissions unless China does so too (while also providing Americans with affordable products). For its part, China wants lower emissions (and more) from the US first (while it increasingly adopts American lifestyles).

As Secretary of State Clinton heads to China with the beginning of a climate agenda in tow, many are wondering how the world's biggest environmental stalemate can become its biggest opportunity.

Clinton will be arriving in Beijing this week with some serious thinking behind her. Late last month, reports by the Brookings Institution and the Asia Society called for new bilateral climate change cooperation. Especially promising is that the panel behind the Asia Society report was led by Obama energy honcho Steven Chu.

Post-Kyoto Dreams
Though many have called for it, few are optimistic about a broader, deeper set of mandatory targets for cutting greenhouse gases. China has scoffed at such suggestions, raising its relatively low per-capita emissions and pointing a finger at the West's carbon-intense path toward industrialization. American officials say that no climate change mitigation is possible without China's participation, and imposing carbon controls in the U.S. would give China a competitive economic advantage.

But both countries have begun to change their tunes. Clinton's State department will focus on climate change in its talks with China, likely more so than Hank Paulsen did during his multi-year Strategic Economic Dialogue with Chinese officials. And though short-term energy security (read: coal, oil) remains a top priority for the Communist Party, Chinese experts have begun to acknowledge that no per-capita arguments or finger pointing is going to stop climate change from ravaging the country's environment.

Now hopes seem higher than ever that both countries can agree to work on a set of climate-friendly initiatives related to electricity generation, manufacturing and energy efficiency.

Hilary's Agenda
On Friday, Sec. of State Clinton paid a visit to the Asia Society to outline her Asian agenda ahead of her trip to China, and placed climate issues third in her list of priorities, after economic stability and security (including North Korea's nuclear capabilities).

Some believe that China on the rise is by definition an adversary. To the contrary, we believe the United States and China benefit from, and contribute to, each other¹s successes....
When we consider the gravest global threats confronting us - financial instability and economic dislocation, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, food security and health emergencies, climate change and energy vulnerability, stateless criminal cartels and human exploitation - it is clear that these threats do not stop at borders or oceans. Pandemics threaten school children in Jakarta and Jacksonville. Global financial crises shrink bank accounts in Sapporo and San Francisco. The dangers posed by nuclear proliferation create worries in Guangzhou as well as Washington. And climate change affects the livelihoods of farmers in China's Hunan province and in America's Midwest. These dangers affect us all, and therefore we all must play a role in addressing them.

A promising but complicating aspect to the approach Clinton hopes to take is her interest in bypassing ministries and "engag[ing] civil society" directly "to strengthen the foundations needed to support good governance, free elections, and a free press, wider educational opportunities, stronger healthcare systems, religious tolerance, and human rights."

US Leads, China Follows
Both of the new reports on China-US climate cooperation -- by the Brookings Institution and the Asia Society -- place an emphasis on "clean energy," a priority against which it's hard to argue. They also indicate the importance of the US helping China develop mechanisms to measure and monitor the performance of energy policies, help that China could use if it is to make serious progress on emissions.

Both reports also assume that the US will take the first steps in the CO2 reduction dance. Specifically, the authors of both reports say that means a cap on carbon by the US, followed by a responsible response by China.

That would include "intensity targets" (limiting emissions per unit of GDP), renewable energy requirements, emissions limits in specific sectors; or "policies and measures" like closing inefficient plants or adopting strong building efficiency standards.

The Economic Question
One question lingering over any road map is how the US and China will manage to balance climate agreements with their economic priorities. Both countries' interests could go hand-in-hand, with green job creation and technology cooperation on either side of the Pacific.

Or the US, under Geitner's Treasury Department, and lobbied on all sides, could end up with a more protectionist stance, turning inward for green solutions rather than searching for common ground. Essentially, how will the US and China promote green jobs in their respective countries in a way that also allows cooperation? As China seeks more clean tech innovation on top of its manufacturing sector, and the US looks to continue its lead in technology and build up its manufacturing capacity, can both countries work together?

It seems possible for the two sides to complement each other, but this will have to do not only with political will and government stimulus, but also with a serious dialogue over technology transfer and intellectual property protection, as well as continuing reforms and policies in both countries that incentivize green behavior.

The 21st Century's First Serious Climate Treaty
Both countries have long been stuck in a mindset that pits economic development over environmental concerns. That's become a stale dichotomy, even in developing China, where pollution is slowing economic gains. In both countries, improvements in both sectors are mutually beneficial.

Let's hope that the emphasis on creating domestic jobs and addressing other issues don't distract but rather bolsters an effort to form the 21st century's first serious climate treaty.

See also Charlie McElwee's sharp analysis of the reports on US-China Climate Change Engagement at China Environmental Law.

See original post at TreeHugger

Follow Alex Pasternack on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pasternack

Comments

[Luvial]

It depends if China contributes enough to the Clinton Foundation. How much did Stanford give to the Clintons?

[PaPaPeng]

The nascent conspiracy theory side of me sees the US-UK emphasis on global greenhouse gas reductions is
1. A means to divert attention from far more dire issues like the tanking economy.
2. A political blowback free stick to beat on the head of foreign governments if they do not make similar politically correct noises.
3. A sales pitch for expensive engineering solutions, Made in USA of course, that won't do very much for greenhouse gas reduction but will provide good jobs and revenue for the equipment manufacturers.

China is already way ahead in installed rooftop solar water heaters and in solar power arrays. There are giant wind power farms in Inner Mongolia tied to the Beijing grid. As noted in other comments where a technology has a real benefit China will adopt it promptly and without chest beating.

[KillTheMessenger]

You are right about the first half of your third point. It's going to be a sales pitch. And that's what it should be. The Chinese are interested in economics, not politics. There is no political stick we can threaten a country of four times our population and ten times our history with.

Point one can be taken care of by acknowledging the president's remarks that he thinks his government (unlike their predecessors) can be expected to be able to multi-task. We can improve relations with China and the rest of the world, solve our economic problems, fight global warming and pacify the people who hate us at the same time. And interestingly enough, the solution to all of these problems happens to be the one and the same.

Point two is basically moot. There is nothing we can use to move the Chinese that resembles force or aggression. We can ask in a friendly tone of voice. We can appeal to them to accelerate things that are of importance to them and the rest of the world. We can offer help and collaboration. And that's it. If they find that our handshake is that of a friend, they will accept. If they find we come with a clenched fist, they will smile and let us know where we can shove it.

[PhilipB]

Yes, I agree. The Chinese always look to what is in their best interest. I think they will come to the conclusion that having some of the worlds most polluted cities comes with a cost. I think the SOS made a very diplomatic statement when she described the mistakes western nations made on the road to industrialization. The Chinese feel that a direct criticism by a guest is an insult. Hillary's language prevents the loss of face, and established the "cordial" tone which is needed to begin this relationship.
I suspect that China will make some moves with climate change in the long run.
This laid a foundation for possible change.

[Shortyfuse]

If she does not it will not be from lack of trying like Bush. However , I did read an article in some foreign news paper stating that China announced that they had discovered a huge deposit of the large coal ( I guess there is large and small coal.) . And to top it off ,they found it in East Turkistan. No wonder they kicked us out.
So any idea that China will quit using coal is out the door.

[MagisterLudi]

Priority of Chinese Communist Part is feeding the population and maintaining unified China.
Pollution control is a secobndary issue, but an important one. I doubt the political climate control pitch will play. But concrete proposals aimed to reduce pollution will play well for Chinese pragmatic leaders.

[KillTheMessenger]

The Chinese Communist party is for the most part made up of level headed long term strategic thinkers, not four year election bound political tacticians. That's the enormous advantage they get from NOT being a democracy (besides having groomed highly educated administrative elites for the past 3000 years). The Chinese are showing a lot of long term planning in much of what they do these days. They are, however, also bound by their Asian social norms. How we talk to them plays as much a role in how they talk (and act) back as what we say. The Bush administration had a "let me kick your shin for half an hour while I peeper you with derogatory terms before we open the real talks" kind of diplomacy. That doesn't fly with anyone, let alone the leaders of the Asia's hyperpower.

Now, I am not sure Mrs. Clinton is exactly the right kind of woman for this job, however, she claims to be a good politician, so let her try to prove herself. If she plays nice, she will find the Chinese more than willing to engage in a CONSTRUCTIVE dialog.

We have things the Chinese could use badly. More efficient power plant technology for instance. They will not walk out of an offer to transfer some of that technology in a well meaning manner to them in exchange for a rational energy and climate policy. They need it more than we do.

[MagisterLudi]

I agree with most of your statement. Few corrections:

1. It is not Mrs. Clinton, but Secretary Clinton, or Madame Clinton. Your choice.

2."re. We have things the Chinese could use badly. More efficient power plant technology"

Actually the most efficient green power technology exists in Israel. Americans contract israelis to build their green power capacity ( Mojave desert etc.
Chinese are already working with Israeli scientists to expand this capacity.
Hopefully more is on the way.

[SteveK9]

In this case China leads and hopefully the US follows. China has clearly decided to go with nuclear power. Both for economic and environmental reasons. Their current plans call for 160GW of nuclear capacity by 2030, greater than the combined fleets of the US and France.

[mamacat]

This is the first I have heard that Sec. Clinton was going to China, and that she was going to do some serious talking about the economy and pollution while there. Very encouraging news.

The Chinese leaders are not fools. If they believe that there is a way to go forward on cutting pollution that they can successfully implement, I think they will go for it. After all, this is the same country that adopted a zero-growth policy back in 1979, something that no other nation on the planet has tried to do. If they think that the U.S. will join them in the effort to fight global warming, I think they will be very interested.

[DAdvocate123]

Observer of environment, architecture and society?

Isn't that called walking down the street?