China Environmental Law

As noted yesterday, the BI Report is more process focused (although it does propose several “major headline initiatives”) while the ASP Report is more project focused.  It is possible to follow the process of the BI Report and incorporate the projects proposed in the ASP Report.  The projects which the reports propose are designed to implement or develop technologies or practices which either directly or indirectly reduce carbon emissions.  Their ancillary purpose is to increase trust and a sense of shared mission between the US and China.

Only one of the projects seems like a non-starter-the BI Report’s “Clean Energy Corps;” forget about the fuzzy focus and high administrative costs associated with this proposal, it will not fly with Chinese.  Support from the highest levels and constant vigilance will be required to keep these projects form going the way of so many other US-China joint efforts. 

The projects in my order of preference (although I don’t have strong preferences) are: 

1. Capacity Building (Quantifying Emissions) and Financing Low-Carbon Technologies (both reports). 
2. Improving Energy Efficiency and Conservation. (both reports). 
3. Deploying and Developing Low-Emissions Coal Technologies (both reports). 
4. Promoting Renewable Energy (ASP Report only). 
5. Electrify vehicle fleets (BI Report only). 
6. Developing an Advanced Electric Grid (ASP Report only). 
7. A million of volunteer “Clean Energy Corps” (BI Report only). 

There is, of course, significantly more detail about these projects in the reports themselves.  Well-informed readers can skip over some of the background sections and go right to the substantive parts of the reports.  ¹

Now there is only one question left.  What should his new initiative be called?  The BI Report proposes “US-China Clean Energy Partnership,” the ASP Report calls it “US-China Partnership on Energy and Climate Change.”  I prefer the later.  Let’s get started.