Last month, EWI’s Global Lens put forward Brazilian, French, Indian and Ghanaian perspectives on climate change. EWI’s China program picked up where the Global Leadership Consortium left off, continuing the conversation with a roundtable that brought together the two biggest players in the debate: the United States and China.

EWI convened the event on September 30, on the heels of the U.N. Summit on Climate Change in New York and the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh. The roundtable focused on Chinese and American views on climate change and the ways in which the two countries can catalyze international action to combat it.

The event, chaired by EWI’s China Program Associate Piin-Fen Kok included three presentations:  Liu Qing, Deputy Director of the Department of American Studies at the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS), presented on China’s priorities and progress on climate change. Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, presented on developments in U.S. legislation. Wang Ruibin, Deputy Director of CIIS’s Department of Information and Contingencies Analysis, assessed the outcomes of the UN talks and their impact on the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December.

The roundtable also included diplomatic representatives from Europe and Asia.

Key Issues Addressed

• What are the opportunities for and challenges to cooperation between the U.S. and China on climate change, energy technology and energy efficiency?
• What concrete actions do China and the U.S. expect from each other to reach common goals on climate change?
• What role can domestic U.S. legislation play in pushing toward a climate change agreement in Copenhagen?
• Is the adoption of a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen feasible?
• Are perceptions of disunity in the EU warranted? How will these perceptions impact climate change negotiations?
• To what extent can developed and developing nations reach agreement on the financing and sharing of technology and related intellectual property?

Key Observations and Policy Recommendations

 

On U.S.-China Cooperation:

• The United States and China must become strategic partners in the development of green technology and development, particularly in the areas of smart grid technology, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and overall efficiency gains. The Chinese cannot achieve the drastic emissions reductions necessary to meet emissions targets without technological and financial assistance from the U.S. and other developed nations.
• Presidents Hu and Obama should sign a Memorandum of Understanding for a partnership on green projects or principles during Obama’s visit to China in November.
• Key to progress in bilateral cooperation is a resolution to legal and trade barriers between the U.S. and China that limit mutual investments in green technology.
• Stronger legal commitments by China would increase U.S. politicians’ willingness to adopt domestic climate change legislation and provide financial and technical assistance to China and other developing countries.  This “legal symmetry” is crucial to building trust and lowering suspicions about each other’s commitment to combating climate change. 

On International Negotiations and Cooperation:

• A framework deal, at the very least, must be agreed in Copenhagen. Such a deal would then allow member nations to fill in specifics at their own pace.
• Negotiations in Copenhagen should not focus on specific emissions targets.  Instead, negotiations should focus on legal commitments and practical measures that will eventually lead to those emissions targets.
• Developing nations must clearly communicate their technological and financial needs. They must further specify how fulfillment of these needs will impact their ability to reach domestic climate change goals. Such a clarification of expectations would enable developed and developing nations to start collaborating on intellectual property rights, transparency, accountability and other barriers that are slowing negotiations.

U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change

Many experts agreed that the U.S. and China must continue to improve their bilateral ties as the sense of urgency around climate change increases. Cooperation on energy technology and energy efficiency transfers would be particularly helpful. China is rapidly moving ahead with investments in green technologies, but is missing essential components to build comprehensive solutions. Twenty percent of wind turbines in China lack the infrastructure necessary to hook them into the power grid; they are generating power but they cannot transmit it. This inability to extract benefit from investments in green technology is an example of how U.S. technology transfers could have a large impact on efficiency gains and emissions reductions in China.

The Chinese government, beginning with its current five-year plan, has elevated environmental issues to the forefront of its domestic priorities. These efforts have begun to pay off. China is the world’s largest producer of solar water-heaters and expects a 10 percent decline in emissions over the period of 2006-2010. Increased public awareness in China about climate change, according to one Chinese participant, is essential to continue the push on climate change. At present, most Chinese citizens believe that climate change and environmental protection are the responsibility of the government, which leads to general inaction on the part of individuals.

Meanwhile, some U.S. legislators are skeptical of China’s commitment to combating climate change. Many of them have the ability to block meaningful legislation that would share the technology China needs to ramp up its efforts. A strong, demonstrable commitment by China can play a significant role in allaying these legislators’ fears and help pass strong legislation that opens up American technology and binds the U.S. to curb carbon emissions.

International Negotiations and Cooperation on Climate Change

Experts are generally optimistic about agreement in Copenhagen on a framework for a post-Kyoto climate regime, though they disagree on the likely details. But regardless of the specifics, an agreement is essential if the discussion is to continue after December.

Many experts suggest that the international community should regard the December talks in Copenhagen more like trade negotiations than climate change talks. In other words, the negotiations should consist of long, drawn-out meetings where specific disputed areas are addressed. Such talks can shift expectations away from a detailed comprehensive agreement toward a more pragmatic solution. Industrialized nations, for example, have already committed to 2030 and 2050 emissions targets; an extensive discussion on mid-term 2020 targets would have little effect on overall emissions reductions.

China, the EU and the U.S. all have significant roles to play in the run-up to Copenhagen, experts say.  President Hu’s speech to the U.N., where he touted China’s commitment to making substantial cuts in carbon intensity, is important because it signals the first public declaration by the Chinese on climate change and creates international expectations that China will adhere to its commitment. The Chinese must continue to set specific goals for emissions reductions; such goals will likely encourage other nations to set targets.

Experts are divided on whether the EU has been showing sufficient leadership. According to one participant in the EWI discussion, internal discord in the EU over emissions targets and the impact of the recession have limited EU leadership in efforts to combat climate change. Refuting this claim, another participant suggested that while some disagreement exists, it has no impact on the EU’s ability to take a strong stance in Copenhagen. Further, the EU has already submitted a funding proposal for financial transfers to developing nations.

Many question the U.S.’s ability to lead in Copenhagen, given the lack of domestic consensus on the issue. Passage of climate change legislation in the U.S. before December would strengthen its position in Copenhagen and nudge other nations into action, but lack of legislation is likely not a deal-breaker for an international agreement. There are many differences other countries must resolve regardless of the U.S., including disagreements on financing targets, technology transfers and mutual trust in the international system.

Many challenges remain, but opportunities also exist. Experts lauded recent emissions reductions targets announced by Japan and Indonesia. These announcements might encourage other nations to set targets of their own, experts suggest, and build momentum ahead of Copenhagen. Japan’s announcement in particular can help promote regional security and understanding in East Asia.

Next Steps

EWI will share the results of this meeting with government officials in China, the U.S. and other key governments around the world. Participant’s insights will contribute to EWI’s Trialogue21 meeting in November, a gathering of Chinese, American and European leaders that will cover climate change, energy security, and stability in Africa. The results of the meeting will also contribute to EWI's work on climate security, which is still under development.