It is undeniable that anthropogenic GHGs have caused ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature since the second half the 20th century. Assuming that the world careers past 2°C by the end of this century, there is a high chance that we will lose the ice cover on Greenland, lose significant amounts of Arctic sea ice, and lose most mountain-top glaciers. In addition, there is a significant chance of major sea-level rises, changing weather patterns, and massive bleaching of coral reefs.
Such climate catastrophes might generate regional conflicts over water resources, food supplies, and habitats. Weapons will not quell the conflicts caused by climate change, despite massive sums the US and China spend on advanced weaponry. If the costs of these conflicts ultimately grow high enough, the US and China will have to cooperate because otherwise the conflicts will destroy diplomatic relations, weaken economies, and cause mutual breakdown. Thus, bilateral cooperation on cutting GHG emissions must proceed immediately.
The commercial focus of US and Chinese approaches should be on the development and deployment of selected clean technologies. First, the private sector should explore opportunities to strengthen collaboration on plug-in hybrids, battery electric vehicles, and fuel efficiency retrofit technologies. For instance, Chinese Geely Automobile, a Hunan-based automaker, could make best use of its advanced technologies to cooperate with US General Motors to produce a large number of electric vehicles annually. Second, the development of solar storage technologies should be jointly examined and explored. Flywheel storage technology is a promising way in which power grids in both countries can be upgraded. Chinese Yingli Solar could collaborate with US leading solar companies, particularly in California, to share their successful experiences with the development and application of such technology.
Third, bilateral cooperation on carbon capture and storage (CCS) is also indispensible. In the short and medium term, the US and China will continue to depend heavily on coal, and will emit more GHGs. If the US coal firms and China state-owned enterprises such as Shenhua and Huaneng can accelerate the R&D and deployment of CCS technology, by 2030, the total combined carbon emissions can be reduced by as much as 7 per cent which would be of significant benefit to both countries as well as to the whole planet.
Fourth, both sides should deepen their collaboration on algae-based fuel. Algae have existed on earth for quite a long time. Yet people do not realise its great value until recent years. It has been proven by Siemens AG that released carbon dioxide is 20 per cent less from burning algae fuel than coal. Besides, algae can produce lipids which can replace industry-used oil. Thus far, China Airline Corporation and US Boeing have begun conducting R&D on algae, and Chinese ENN group and US Duke Energy have collaborated on development of algae-based fuel. Nonetheless, the projects are neither large nor fast enough. Top Chinese clean-tech companies and top US start-up algae firms should initiate large-scale demonstration projects in deserts and coastal areas.
Micro-financially, the US and China should establish a bilateral fund to support R&D, deployment, and commercial promotion of clean technologies. In the early stage of such a fund, the US and China should establish a finance and investment team to identify the most promising cooperative projects. In the middle stages, both countries should free up public finance to incubate clean technologies and then commercialise them using private funds. For example, Chinese Sovereign Wealth Funds like the China Investment Corporation might align with the US Export-Import Bank, the Agency for International Development, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation to sponsor some flagship projects. The Clean Energy Research Center, funded by the US and China in July 2009, is a good start.
Finally, in order to maintain sustainable financing, both countries should set up a robust public-private partnership to leverage private investment into projects, by establishing linkages and creating new networks of private finance and investment. Both countries should adopt professional management practices for all projects and funds, in terms of scope, schedule, and budget.
The clock is ticking. Addressing these challenges is a high bilateral priority. It is only through cooperation to curb GHG emissions that the US and China can help themselves as they help the world be a safer and more secure place.
Yuhan Zhang is a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.
While the US and China are the two largest emitters as individual countries, they are far apart in levels of per capita emissions, not too dissimilar to the differences in the levels of income per capita.
Even that, it appears that China has much more ambitious climate change policies to limit its emissions than the US does.
Further, China is only a new comer to industrialisation, while the US has been rich and the largest emitters for many decades if not a couple of centuries.
Anyone with an open and fair mind must wonder: what do all these mean for “the US and China can build a Noah’s Ark together”?
Furthermore, what do human rights mean for emissions per capita?
While Yuhan Zhang’s idea of the US and Chian act together may have many merits, the stark reality in terms of history and per capita emissions must not and should not be ignored.
They will always be part of the important context for international considerations of climate change policies and emissions reductions.
The G2 concept may sound flattering to China, but China should not and cannot be fooled by empty and worthless vanity at the expenses of its national interests.
Lincoln Fung,
You narrow our discussions to climate politics and negotiations. National interests should be taken into account while making domestic and foreign policies. In the short term, we all know curbing GHG emissions will hurt the economies in the U.S. and China. That is why U.S. and China are reluctant to reach an agreement on the negotiation table in Copenhagen, Bonn, Tianjin and now Cancun (I am very pessimistic about the result of current Mexico Conference!). Nonetheless, in the medium and long term, mutual cooperation is the only win-win solution.
Bilateral climate politics have four scenarios: cooperation/cooperation, cooperation/defection, defection/cooperation, and defection/defection. We are in a “Public Good” game in which we must pursue cooperation strategy. Otherwise, we will head into the prisoner’s dilemma trap. Aside from mutual cooperation, economic costs to both are indefinite (2-3per cent of GDP estimated by some experts are too low).
The U.S. and China are two largest GHG emitters as well as great powers in contemporary international relations, whose actions/behaviors determine the outcomes of climate politics (specifically, climate negotiations). Without mutual efforts (cooperation and collaboration), our world is risky. As Thomas Friedman says, our world is flatter, hotter, and more crowded. If we restlessly burning fossil fuels and produce massive amounts of GHGs, our world will become not ideal for living. Cats on the hot brick will not care about its “rights”, is that correct? Now, the U.S. should display their leadership whereas China should play as a “responsible stakeholder”. Bilateral cooperation should keep going within framework of the U.S.-China Ten Year Framework as well as the Strategic & Economic Dialogue.
Behaviors of nation-states are always colored by the realpolitik. Hence, the U.S. and China cannot seal a deal on GHG emissions reduction, clean tech transfer, and green financing. Taking domestic actions individually without binding commitment is a choice, but still not preferred one.
Thank you.
Mr. Zhang, this piece aptly sums up the prevailing win-win, positive thinking attitudes currently being expressed by a wide-range of think-tank scholars, academics, and some business people. However, this kind of analysis is fatally flawed because of its inability to recognize some very important governmental limitations on the part of both China and the United States.
For China, you wrote that its currently adapted policies were far better than those adapted into law by the Congress and the President of the US. China has laid out energy intensity reduction targets, a renewable energy target, and is also investing massive amounts of capital in cleantech and modern transportation. But this does not mean that China will ever be able to stop nor even slow its overall and per-capita greenhouse gas emissions. Despite its well-intended policies, China suffers immensely in getting its national policies followed at the regional and local level. One only needs to travel to Lake Taihu near Shanghai, or the Yellow River in Shaanxi, to see how China’s water pollution is out of control, despite strong environmental policies. If China can’t enforce clean air and water policies, how can US voters and policymakers trust that China will deliver on GHG reductions?
Governmental limitations in the United States are far different from those of China. Unlike China, US laws, when passed, are much more likely to be followed according to their final form, with minimal amounts of corruption. Individual citizens are also empowered to take the executive branch to court if they feel any given law is not being implemented as it should. Furthermore, unlike China, which has a relatively small ‘selectorate,’ or number of individuals governmental authorities are beholden to, US policymakers require large numbers of popular support in order to stay in office. Haven’t you ever wondered why dictators, like Kim Jong-il of the DPRK and others, have been able to stay in power for such a long period of time, despite horrendous human rights abuses and other bad-policy decisions for their countries? The answer is because these people do not need widespread support in order to maintain power. If and when the US commits itself to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, it will follow through on its promises.
Ms. Zhang, thinking strategically about the pressures different policy-makers face is not easy. It requires not only an understanding of what various policy options are, but also how vigorously those policy prescriptions will be implemented. Like you, I also understand the severe long-term biological and economic consequences to a business-as-usual approach, but researchers should also be ready to advise policymakers for less-than-ideal outcomes in the future.
Dear Paul Bob Joy:
Thanks for your note. You might need to review some of my other publications and then make comments concerning governmental limitations. You can google “Yuhan Zhang, China Dialogue”. Realpolitik philosophy always exists that no one can eliminate.
ZYH
2011-2-21