The Treasury Department’s Advisory Committee on the Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework held its first meeting on January 15. What perverse scheduling sense guides the setting of these meeting dates? The first meeting of the Committee was originally noticed for the Monday morning immediately after the Thanksgiving holiday (needless to say, it was ultimately cancelled) and this rescheduled one was held five days before the change in Administration. The last gasp of an irrelevancy?
As part of the Obama rethink of the whole SED process, high on the agenda has to be getting the Treasury Department out of the lead on the Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework and further collaborative efforts between the US and China on environmental and energy issues. Obviously, Treasury’s competency with respect to these issues is weak to non existent. Moreover, it really should be focusing on its core mission at this time.
The new teams assembled and DOE and EPA seem uniquely suited to lead these issues with China. Steven Chu’s selection as Energy Secretary obviously raises the profile of this Department with the Chinese side. Treasury may have opened some important doors in China, but it’s time for it to step out of the way and let the professionals through. Moreover, Treasury’s stock has dropped precipitously in China in tandem with the drop in the US economy. Paulson, in particular, is taking a beating in the Chinese press (see, e.g. Paulson’s bubble theory ‘unreasonable’ ).
I’m in good company in advancing this recommendation. Here’s what the US-China Business Council has to say on the issue (the following quote is in a “members only” section):
The Treasury Department led the SED during the Bush administration largely because of Secretary Henry Paulson’s background with China, as well as his designation as the leading economic official for the White House. Though Paulson succeeded in establishing and demonstrating the value of a forward-looking dialogue, Treasury is a somewhat ill-fitting home for the SED, given that the dialogue covers broad topics that go well beyond Treasury’s expertise, such as energy and the environment.
Given the need to quickly engage China on climate change issues which will require significant inputs from a revitalized DOE and EPA, these agencies should have the lead in coordinating all energy and environmental exchanges with China. I suspect we will see Treasury eased out of its current role fairly soon.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Robert Price // Jan 20, 2009 at 3:14 am
I fully agree. DoE has had an Energy Policy Dialogue with China since 1995 and extensive bilateral energy and environmental science and technology activities. Treasury’s SED just added a bureaucratic layer, and accompanying paperwork, to the ongoing US-China energy and environment dialogue.
2 Vance // Feb 2, 2009 at 5:54 pm
If the Treasury Department gets “eased out,” what happens to the commitments made under the SED? Will they have to be renegotiated and re-signed under a new lead agency?
Also, do you know if the complete text of the early December ‘08 SED is public and online?
3 cmcelwee // Feb 2, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Hi Vance: I have all the press releases/fact sheets which summarize the December 2008 SED agreements, but I have never seen any of the actual argreements themselves, although it has been a month or so since I looked for copies. If you find any online, please let me know.
Not having seen the agreements themselves, I don’t know if they designate Treasury as the lead agency. Even if they do, it would only take a simple amendment to change that. I suspect the Chinese would only be too happy to switch the lead from Treasury to the DOE.
Treasury is designated as the “lead” agency for internal US purposes, but that is easily changed as well.
4 Vance // Feb 2, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Thanks for the response. For some reason, I have this strange fear that agreed-upon goals under the TYF will fall by the wayside simply because the US Treasury Department’s steps down as the lead.
Here’s some more info about one specific issue I’m concerned about. The 12/5/08 Joint US China fact sheet (http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/hp1317.htm) says, “the United States and China announced consensus on action plans for each of the five goals under the Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework (TYF).” But I can’t seem to find the action plans anywhere.
Specifically, I want to know more about commitments on sulfur content in fuels in China; the 12/13/07 US fact sheet (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp733.htm) mentions a specific target, but this is conspicuously absent from the 12/08 documents.
5 cmcelwee // Feb 3, 2009 at 11:32 am
I haven’t been able to find any of the “action plans” either. I know that some people involved in the SED process read this blog, so I hope they may be able to provide some more information, particularly on the lowering of the sulfur content of fuels program.
As to Treasury’s role, I think what will happen is that the overall lead role for SED (they will probably drop the “E”) will be transferred to the Vice President’s office or maybe State. Treasury will keep its lead role on economic issues, but the Ten Year Framework lead will move to DOE or DOE/EPA. Both DOE and EPA have longer and more successful histories of working with China than does Treasury, so I think things will continue to run as well as can be expected.
Leave a Comment