China Environmental Law

Todd Stern (quoted by Bloomberg):

“I don’t think that there’s any question that China and the other major economies have to be in the game,” Stern said today on a conference call with reporters. “They’re doing a lot already, but they’re going to need to do more actions and commit to them and be able to quantify them.”

There seems to be little argument that China needs to play a role in controlling the emission of greenhouse gases going forward.  The public pronouncements of China’s leadership would certainly indicate that they take the issue of climate change seriously, and only a cave-dweller would not know that China has taken a number of actions that have (or, will have, if all goes well) the effect of reducing the growth of its carbon emissions off business as usual scenarios.  If you are a troglodyte, the Center for American Progress has prepared a handy primer on Climate Progress in China that you should read.

The US, of course, has awoken from its slumber and significant climate change legislation (ACES) is working its way through the House.  The legislation could be stronger, particularly in terms of 2020 reduction targets, but, in Speaker Pelosi’s words, it represents a “sea change” in the US position on climate change.

Does the final passage of ACES require commitments from China?  No.  The US has accepted the responsibility to lead on the climate change front and it should continue to lead on this issue.  ACES has enough provisions to protect US business from competition from foreign companies that may be operating in a less carbon constrained environment. 

It should be noted that not everyone shares this view and, especially in the Senate, there may be factions that assert that ACES (or whatever bill the Senate is considering) should not come into force unless there are significant commitments by China.  I think that these arguments will primarily be made by those who would oppose any carbon reduction legislation, and thus are simply smokescreens designed to kill the bill.  For those genuinely concerned about this issue, additional sticks can be added to the bill which can be brought down on countries which fail to undertake their fair share of responsibility on the carbon front.

The US needs to pass and implement ACES (or something stronger) regardless of what China does.  This will help get its domestic house in order, and many of the provisions of the bill make sense even if the only issues were energy independence, conventional pollutant reduction, and economic stimulus. 

No actions the US can feasibly take alone, however, even if the 2020 reduction levels were 5 times greater than ACES currently provides, will be sufficient to avoid catastrophic climate change if the other significant emitters are not on board with their own commitments.  This brings us to the next question.

Does US agreement to a deal at Copenhagen require commitments from China?  Here I think the answer is yes.  The US has now committed to leadership on the climate change front.  The effective employment of that leadership requires crafting a deal that works for the planet.  A deal without commitments from China won’t work (for reasons I will address in a later post, but are really self-evident).  Refusal to participate in a deal in which China does not meaningfully participate gives the US the freedom to continue to ratchet up the pressure (and yes, as a last resort, I think carbon import tariffs are an option) to obtain acceptable commitments from China. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that increased cooperation and collaboration between the US and China, as contemplated by several pending initiaitves, may be able to ultimately convince China agree to meaningful and verifiable commitments.  If this carrot works, use it; if it fails brandish the stick.    

Should the US repeal ACES if China doesn’t sign up at Copenhagen?  Of course not.  As I mentioned earlier, ACES is a sound piece of legislation even if climate change were not an issue.  Moreover, it provides mechanisms to cushion US businesses from “unfair” advantages competitors operating in less stringent carbon environments may have, and provides sticks to prod other countries who do not commit to meaningful carbon emission reduction efforts. 

If there were no deal at Copenhagen, but the US continues with ACES and China continues with its currently announced efforts (and presumably it will since most of the actions touted by China were designed to achieve other goals and only incidentally reduce the growth of carbon emissions), there will not be any significant harm in the short term.  Long-term, however, China needs to commit to more efforts and the success of its efforts needs to be “measurable, reportable, and verifiable.”  If these aren’t part of a Copenhagen package, I don’t see what is to be gained from a carbon reduction prespective from US participation.  

Thus, I think Todd Stern’s approach is right on track, and he should have the leeway to walk away from the table if acceptable commitments from China (what these need to be and why they are important will be the subject of a subsequent post) are not forthcoming.

Some reporters are likening this position to the one advanced by the Bush administration.  That is complete nonsense.  Bush had nothing similar to ACES and no (domestically or internationally) enforceable commitments to reduce carbon emissions.  That position will be dramatically reversed with the passage of ACES.  A US commitment to live within the strictures of ACES with or without a deal at Copenhagen constitutes a complete 180 in terms of US policy.  It use to be we won’t act if you don’t act (a “suicide pact”); now it’s we are acting, come join us.