[fblike]
Last week President Obama gained a much needed diplomatic victory when he and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced a bilateral climate change deal. The non-binding accord pledged both nations to make feasible steps in reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and lays the foundation for environmental cooperation. It creates the first cap of Chinese CO2 emissions – the highest in the world – and may eventually produce a comprehensive global climate deal in Paris next year. While some climate activists praised the deal, others warned that it did not go far enough. Republicans argued that the deal will present another workaround of Congress and hurt the American economy. Other nations, especially those who have resisted caps on CO2 emissions, remained mum about the accord.
This topic brief will discuss the tenets of the China-U.S. climate deal, the challenges and difficulties of making it work, and how the deal may impact the world’s ability to produce a new climate deal by the end of 2015.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
The Climate Deal
The United States and China have been on opposite sides of the global climate change debate for decades. In 1997, the world attempted to create a global deal to limit CO2 emissions, which trap heat in the atmosphere and thereby cause world temperatures to rise, via the Kyoto Protocol. That accord, which the Clinton administration pledged America to but the Senate never ratified, mandated that industrialized nations move to limit their emissions while exempting developing nations. The argument of China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and other emerging economic powers is that Western nations have been emitting CO2 for a longer period of time. They argue that an equitable accord that would force all nations to reduce their emissions by equal amounts would harm them economically and deny them the opportunity to industrialize like Western nations did during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Time on November 12 writes that China nearly thwarted a global climate change agreement at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009. The eventual Copenhagen Accord urged governments to work together to keep global temperatures from increasing by two degrees Celsius by 2100, but unlike the Kyoto Protocol it did not set emissions limits for the participating nations.
Extempers should always refer to the two degrees Celsius target in climate change speeches because that is the temperature level climatologists argue is the largest increase the world could safely sustain. Without concerted international action, the University of Oxford has warned that global temperatures will rise by more than four degrees Celsius by 2100 with disastrous impacts for the world’s poorer regions, food supply, and coastal communities.
According to Politico on November 12, the Obama administration had been working with the Chinese government through secret channels for nearly a year to put a deal together. Secretary of State John Kerry made climate change a central piece of his diplomacy with the Chinese when he took over the post in 2013. The deal was finalized when President Obama visited China for the first time in five years for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, which was held last week in Beijing.
The deal, as discussed in The Asian Correspondent on November 13, calls for the United States to cut CO2 emissions by 26-28% compared with 2005 levels by 2025. China is mandated by the accord to cap its CO2 emissions by 2030, which is when its emissions are expected to peak, and it is supposed to complement that cap by getting 20% of its energy needs through renewables or zero-emission energy sources. The Diplomat adds on November 14 that under the accord both governments will work together on a U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center, carbon capture technologies, a low-carbon cities initiative, and promote trade in green technology goods. The Economist on November 12 admits that the deal is unequal for the United States, as it commits to begin lowering its emissions immediately, whereas China does not have to cap its emissions until a later date. The United States has already made a commitment under the Obama administration to lower America’s CO2 emissions by 17% from 2005 levels (as called for under the Copenhagen Accord), so the new agreement with China will cause the U.S. government to pursue more aggressive cuts. Still, the deal is China’s first global commitment to reduce its CO2 emissions, which constitutes progress by itself.
The Los Angeles Times on November 13 argues that the deal will be beneficial to both sides. It will improve the prospects for renewable energy development in both nations, which are the largest emitters of CO2 in the world. The deal may also create more pressure on developing nations to set dates to cap their own emissions now that China has broken ranks. Other proponents say that it is a great first step toward creating momentum toward a larger climate deal by the end of next year. However, the Politico article cited earlier notes that skeptics point out that the agreement is not a legally binding accord, that a new president could decide not to enforce it, and that it depends on technology advances that do not exist yet. Furthermore, Slate on November 12 points out that China being allowed to continue emitting until 2030 may complicate global efforts to achieve the world’s temperature goal. Slate writes that global temperatures would rise 2.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 under the deal, although that is still better than projections that show temperatures rising between three and four degrees Celsius.
Implementing the Accord
On the U.S. side, the deal will be implemented through executive and administrative actions. After failing to secure a cap and trade agreement from Congress in his first term, President Obama opted to use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce carbon emissions mandates. In 2007, the Supreme Court granted the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant, and last spring the EPA announced rules to reduce American CO2 output. These rules target coal-fired power plants that are 40% of America’s electricity grid and the largest source of the country’s CO2 emissions. They also allow states to create their own cap and trade accords and each state has an emissions target to meet. The carbon agreement with China is not a treaty, so the U.S. Senate will not need to ratify it. This has angered Republicans, who will take control of the Senate in January. Soon to be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was dismayed at the climate accord, arguing that it signals that the White House will not work constructively with Republicans over the next two years. The Los Angeles Times on November 12 writes that the EPA will soon unveil new rules that affect methane emissions in the oil and gas industry. These could have a wide impact on the economy because they will target the oil, gas, and manufacturing sectors. President Obama sees action on climate change as part of his legacy, so as long as he is in the White House CO2 regulations will enjoy his support.
Problems that the U.S. will have implementing its part of the agreement will center on making more aggressive cuts beyond what the EPA has set out to do, which could create a political backlash. The Republican victory in the midterms was due in part to attacking President Obama’s climate policy, which candidates in Kentucky and West Virginia blasted as a “war on coal.” The Economist article cited earlier notes that Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma is set to take over the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and he is a committed climate skeptic. He has accused the EPA of acting like the Nazi Gestapo in its policymaking. The GOP narrative combines skepticism about the long-term effect of climate change and humans role in the process with attacks on the undemocratic process of EPA rulemaking. The Los Angeles Times writes on November 12 that the new Republican Congress will try to push through the Keystone XL pipeline project to draw Canadian tar sands oil to the Gulf of Mexico, a project that the Obama administration has thus far opposed on environmental grounds, and will probably attempt to restrict the EPA’s bureaucratic powers. If the Obama administration is unwilling to compromise, congressional Republicans could move to deny funding for some of the EPA’s initiatives. Additionally, some states may refuse to cooperate with the EPA’s mandate that they submit proposals for complying with the agency’s emissions requirements by 2016. If states refuse to participate or opt to sue the federal government, this could significantly complicate U.S. climate efforts. A great parallel for extempers to use here would be the refusal of some states to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). That has limited the reach of the law and left thousands of poorer Americans without health insurance, thereby failing to make a significant dent in the number of Americans who lack coverage.
One of the reasons that the Chinese government may have decided to make a deal with the United States is because the Chinese Community Party has a growing recognition of how environmental problems constitute a danger to its rule. The Hindu on November 13 notes that in 2012, China emitted 8,547 million metric tons of CO2. By comparison, the United States emitted 5,270 million metric tons, India emitted 1,830 million metric tons, and Russia emitted 1,781 million metric tons. Foreign Policy writes on November 12 that Chinese citizens, especially in urban areas, are protesting high levels of air pollution. Activists point out that the Chinese government was able to reduce smog during the Summer Olympics in 2008 and that it cleaned up the air for the APEC summit but that it is unable to do so year round. Extempers should recognize that pollutants such as CO2 have been linked to asthma, cancer, and other health problems, so the debate over reducing emissions is not merely about climate change.
The Los Angeles Times article previously cited from November 12 points out that the biggest problem for the Chinese government will be enforcing the agreement. Promotion in the Communist Party is tied to economic growth, which encourages policies that are not always environmentally friendly. Also, Chinese companies have pollution control equipment at their disposal, but often choose not to use it because of the costs involved. Having more transparency so these companies can be held accountable may be a problem as well as Newsweek reports on November 12 that Chinese authorities have launched a campaign to crack down on air pollution monitoring websites. This is part of an initiative by the Chinese government to portray its cities in a more positive light, but if the government cannot be transparent about pollution levels there are questions about whether it can live up to a climate change accord with the United States.
Although the deal with the United States makes it appear that China is not having to make immediate cuts – indeed this has been a criticism of the deal by leading Senate Republicans – it will face a significant challenge trying to meet the part of the deal that requires it to obtain 20% of its energy from non-CO2 emitting sources by 2030. Quartz explains on November 12 that meeting that element of the deal will require the Chinese government to obtain an additional 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar, and other sources of non-fossil fuel power, which is equivalent to the size of the entire electricity capacity of the United States. China has made a concerted effort to bring more renewables into its power grid in recent years, but most of the country is powered by coal plants that send a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Bloomberg points out on November 12 that China is the world’s largest market for solar and wind power and CNN reports on November 13 that China now invests more in its renewable energy sector than the European Union (EU). In fact, the Chinese solar sector is larger than Germany and its wind power sector is bigger than the United States. Additionally, The Week on November 12 writes that seven of the world’s top ten solar photovoltaic system manufacturers are located in China. China’s commitment to renewables will be difficult, as it will have to find ways to eliminate coal fired plants from its energy grid and find more efficient technologies to replace them, but the government’s commitment to this goal may continue to spur innovation in its renewables sector since Chinese firms are aware of the government’s long-term commitment to make renewables a larger share of the country’s power grid.
Impact of the Deal on a Global Climate Deal
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, scheduled to take place in Paris, France from November 30 to December 11, 2015, is seen by climate activists as the best chance to get a new international climate accord signed. They argue that if global leaders do not produce an agreement that the world will be unable to stop a dangerous rise in global temperatures by 2100. Prior to the announcement of the U.S.-China climate agreement, the chances of reaching a new one were deemed as slim since China still appeared in league with other developing nations in demanding significant cuts from industrialized nations and very little, if any, for themselves. Now that China has shown it is willing to negotiate on the issue, and the European Union (EU) has shown that it will continue to take aggressive steps on climate change by announcing a 40% cut in its emissions by 2030 over 1990 levels, there are hopes that a broad accord can be reached.
A new climate change agreement, though, may look very different than the Kyoto Protocol. The Huffington Post on November 13 writes that Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), whereby countries submit proposed cuts after the upcoming Lima Climate Change Conference in December, may make up most of the new accord. In this system, countries would say what they were willing to do and an agreement would be worked around those cuts. This might be the best way to get everyone to buy into the process, but again, it would seem to require buy in from everyone because countries such as Japan and Australia are unwilling to make cuts so long as countries like Brazil, India, and South Africa are unwilling to do so. After all, Tony Abbott’s government in Australia eliminated the country’s carbon tax last July. Reuters notes on November 12 that if the U.S. lives up to the Chinese accord that it will reduce its emissions by 16% from 1990 levels, but emerging countries want a cut of 25-40%. Also, The Hindu reports on November 13 that the Indian government says the U.S.-Chinese accord does not go far enough and that it could have been more ambitious.
Despite these difficulties, the willingness of China and the United States, who produce 40% of the world’s CO2 emissions, to negotiate an agreement may produce some positive momentum toward a global deal. As the Bloomberg article cited earlier notes, opponents of a global climate deal will have to come up with a new excuse for opposing one because China has shown that it is willing to negotiate. Previously, opponents of a climate deal in industrialized nations argued that acting on climate change would hurt their economies. These opponents warned that industrialized states would be sacrificing their global economic position as developing nations continued to pollute and advance. Also, the agreement may produce some pressure on other BRICS members to follow China’s lead. And to save face in the region, Japan may feel pressure to act as well, since it may not want to give China a diplomatic advantage when negotiating with other states, especially island nations in the Pacific that are most threatened by global warming.
Extempers should see the China-U.S. climate accord as a good first step toward the Paris climate talks and not as the end of the road. It is highly likely that both nations will not live up to the agreement because of political pressures, workability issues, or a potential chill in relations, but the deal may constitute the foundation for what an eventual global deal involving most of the world’s industrialized and developing nations will look like. Also, there are other issues that could eventually scuttle the Paris talks that have nothing to do with the China-U.S. deal. The New York Times reports on November 12 that climate negotiators believe a new deal would require a tax on industries based on their CO2 emissions and the United States has vehemently objected to this idea. There may also be significant objections to transferring hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth from developed countries to developing nations to mitigate the effects of climate change. Opponents of making a climate deal argue that climate talks are merely an excuse to provide an international form of welfare to developing countries that do not deserve it and if the Paris talks include such an instrument, ratifying that accord in Western nations may prove difficult. Even if a climate deal was reached in Paris in December 2015, President Obama would probably have to submit the accord to Congress much like President Bill Clinton had to with the Kyoto Protocol. Republicans in the Senate would probably kill it and if the U.S. rejected a Paris climate deal, that would probably lead to other nations refusing to sign onto climate efforts.
Therefore, the bilateral accord offers a possible roadmap for a global climate deal and shows that the Chinese government is willing to entertain talks on its emissions. The Obama administration has finally received some positive foreign policy news and will hope to capitalize on it at the Lima and Paris climate talks over the next year. However, implementing the accord could prove tricky for both nations and that is what extempers should continue to follow in the months ahead.