China Environmental Law

The good folks at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have joined the list of groups offering advice for US-China climate change engagement “Strengthening US-China Climate Change and Energy Engagement: Recommendations for Leaders and Policymakers in the US and China”

The NRDC has a unigue and valuable perspective on these issues since it

has been working on environmental issues in China for more than twelve years, with a particular focus on improving energy efficiency in industry and buildings, developing advanced sources of energy, and strengthening environmental law and governance in China.

In other words, it has been in the trenches of China doing the necessary groundwork that doesn’t always make it into the headlines, but has the best chance for making a real impact on the environment.

The report contains nine specific recommendations:

1. Engage in serious bilateral meetings on climate change and address the key sticking points to reaching meaningful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009
2. Establish a US-China forum on climate change strategies that promote green jobs and economic recovery
3. Mobilize the untapped potential of energy efficiency
4. Assist in the deployment of renewable energy sources and technologies
5. Promote low-carbon, high-efficiency vehicles, fuels, transportation systems, and community development
6. Expand research and investment on carbon capture and storage technology
7. Improve greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and data transparency
8. Conduct co-benefit analysis on GHG emissions controls
9. Invest in regular exchanges and sharing of expertise to improve enforcement of environmental law and energy efficiency standards

It has been reviewed elsewhere (e.g., James Fallows, Cleaner Greener China), and merits reading in full.

My personal take is that the NRDC has done the best job of all the recent advice givers of highlighting the need for and urgency of engagement on the “commitment” track. ¹ At the top of the NDRC list is “Engage in serious bilateral meetings on climate change and address the key sticking points to reaching meaningful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.”

As the NRDC notes there needs to be

a series of high-level bilateral discussions throughout 2009 on the concrete steps that the US and China can undertake to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions now and in the future, and the key sticking points that need to be overcome for both parties to sign on to a meaningful international climate change agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009.

These discussions must address “the need for both countries to commit to measurable, reportable, verifiable, and appropriate reductions in GHG emissions.”  They should also “be aimed at delivering concrete actions, rather than merely issuing symbolic joint statements or press conferences.”  As a China veteran, NRDC has no doubt seen its share of  death by a thousand press conference and MOUs. 

Good job!

While we are on the subject of Environmental NGOs in China, Greenpeace China has posted a reaction to Clinton’s recent China visit.  It was not impressed.  In its official statement it says (in bold type, turned off here for the sake of the reader):

The US and China have repeatedly expressed their good will to work together on climate change, and it is now time to move on to real joint action. Without dramatic and drastic action and strong leadership from the US and China, there is no solution to the climate crisis - the most profound crisis humanity has ever faced.

There are less than 10 months until the United Nations Copenhagen climate meeting and the world’s governments must come up with a strong agreement at that meeting to stop climate change. Time is running out.

The time for action is now.

People in China, the US, and around the world, are looking for leadership from these two nations.

Now I will admit that I have not been a big fan of Greenpeace China.  The Greenpeace reputation was built on acts of bravado.  They have not employed those acts in China.  Fair enough, fear of time in a Chinese jail may quell the ardor of even the most heroic of environmental warriors.  But I think they are too deferential.  They spend most of their time going after soft (but relatively inconsequential) targets, while failing to publicly and forcefully engage the Chinese government on the tough issues.  For example, their homepage features articles such as “BASF: the bad boy of China?”  “The” bad boy? I seriously doubt it.  What about some of the big, polluting SOEs?  Oh but wait there is the video “True colours: MC Yan challenges the govt to tell the truth about the city’s air pollution” which must be about Beijing’s sketchy air pollution reporting, right?  Wrong.  It’s about Hong Kong. 

The climate change statement above, however, seems remarkably even handed.  Now if they would just print it on a banner and unfurl it over . . . .