China Environmental Law

Oh look it’s time for another round of the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.  Actually this is the first dialogue since an ampersand was added to title to reflect the expansion of its scope beyond economic issues (although Paulson had already moved the talks into other areas finding that little progress was possible on the purely economic front).

In a Wall Street Journal piece co-authored by Secretaries Clinton and Geithner note that

A second priority [after assuring economic recovery] is to make progress on the interconnected issues of climate change, energy and the environment. Our two nations need to establish a true partnership to put both countries on a low-carbon pathway, simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions while promoting economic recovery and sustainable development. The cross-cutting nature of our meetings offers a unique opportunity for key American officials to meet with their Chinese counterparts to work on the global issue of climate change. In the run-up to the international climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, it is clear that any agreement must include meaningful participation by large economies like China.

China may be feeling a bit beleaguered on the climate change issue lately.

In the past few days it has had to fend off the pesky UN Secretary General’s calls for it

to exercise greater leadership in world efforts to curb climate change, saying a new global framework deal cannot be reached this year without Beijing.  “Without China there can be no success this year on a new global climate framework deal,” Ban said during a speech to launch a programme promoting environmentally friendly lighting in China.

Now Secretary Clinton  wants “meaningful commitments” from China.

Don’t expect any such commitments from China at the S&ED this week.  The Chinese press, while making some nod to potential energy cooperation programs, has  ignored any “climate change” discussions that may occur at the talks (check out all the China coverage here).

Chinatranslated has published an interview with Elizabeth C. Economy, C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, regarding the S&ED and climate change negotiations.  As usual, Economy nails the issue.

There has been virtually no change in the Chinese negotiating stance on climate change in over 25 years: the Chinese will play if the world will pay. That is why the Clean Development Mechanism is such a hit in China. . . .

On the upside, China has a far more extensive climate change bureaucracy in place to manage both the technical and political aspects of climate change, it is ratcheting up the role of renewables in its energy mix, and it is taking steps to reduce energy intensity in significant sectors of the economy.

What China still needs, Economy says, is a high-level champion within the government to push for a leadership role for China at Copenhagen–someone who can argue that “there will be serious short term pain for long term gain,” like Zhu Rongji did for China efforts to join the WTO.

Economy concludes that

I think the best we can hope for, in addition to announcements of various small scale joint efforts such as the new clean energy research centers, would be for the Chinese to indicate that they are prepared to continue with steep cuts in energy intensity and dramatic moves forward on renewables as far out as 2025. These are the types of initiatives they are excited about because they can be done within the context of continuing to grow their economy and enhancing energy security. Otherwise, I don’t expect much.

I don’t expect much either.

PS: Economy makes the following interesting point:

In the late 1990s, the greatest challenge China posed to climate change in terms of deforestation was within its own borders. Today, China is the largest importer of illegally logged timber in the world, contributing to serious deforestation throughout Southeast Asia and Africa in particular.

If China wants other countries to take responsibility for the carbon embedded in the products it makes but sells to them, shouldn’t China bear responsibility for the carbon impact of its extraterritorial logging (with a multiplier, perhaps, since in many instances the logging is illegal).  Just asking.