China Environmental Law

[Reprinted in full from The Economist, Economist Debate: "This house believes that China is showing more leadership than America in the fight against climate change" Please read and vote your conscience which will no doubt be in perfect harmony with the position expressed below]

China and the United States can and should do more to lead the world on climate change. They are the first and second largest emitters of greenhouse gases today. The United States is by far the largest cumulative emitter given its early industrialisation and large economy, but China, at current growth rates, could easily assume the cumulative emissions crown before we are halfway through this century. Despite being primarily responsible for creating the problem, neither country has shown the pluck to solve it that will get them cited as models of leadership.

Fortunately, we are not asked to make the case that either country is the Churchill of climate change solutions, but simply to demonstrate that one has shown more leadership than the other. In this comparative matchup, the case is pretty clear; China has shown more leadership than the United States.

China signed the Kyoto Protocol, but as a developing country it was not bound to take any quantified actions to reduce its carbon emissions. For the next several years it hunkered down and its roaring economy powered by coal-fired thermal plants started to generate carbon emissions at an alarming rate. The rate was so alarming that China soon realised that it would no longer be able to hide behind the developing country label or count on a free pass at Copenhagen. It therefore launched a concerted effort to stake out a national position on climate change, developed and compiled a set of actions which could be deemed carbon emission mitigation efforts, and generally tried to establish its climate change good faith. At the same time, as a leader of the developing-country negotiating bloc, it continued to forcefully demand significant carbon reductions, financial assistance and technology transfers from developed countries.

China published a National Plan for Coping with Climate Change in June 2007 and a White Paper on Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change in October 2008. The White Paper concludes with this statement:

The whole world, without exception, faces the challenge of climate change. The solution demands the joint efforts of all countries and the entire international community. China will work unremittingly for global sustainable development with other countries and continuously make new contributions to the protection of the climate system which is the common wealth of mankind.

China had already undertaken a number of actions to promote energy security and improve industrial efficiency, such as increasing the amount of renewable energy in its generation mix and reducing the amount of energy required to produce a given unit of GDP. It repackaged these efforts and deemed them part of its climate change mitigation strategy. The latest instalment in China’s continuous efforts to make “new contributions to the protection of the climate system” was rolled out in President Hu’s speech to the UN in September in which he committed to reducing China’s carbon intensity by a “notable margin”.

China has succeeded in deflecting attention from how much carbon it has emitted and will continue to emit to how much carbon it has prevented from being emitted. There is no question that China has run a slick public relations campaign, but it’s not all smoke and mirrors. China’s efforts to improve energy security and industrial efficiency do have the effect of reducing the rate of growth of its carbon emissions.

While China settles in to a prominent seat at the climate change negotiating table, like other guests it casts a not so furtive glance at its watch as it waits for the United States to arrive at the venue. The opponent of this motion would have us believe that the United States’ absence is an act of leadership. But if it is hosting an alternative dinner, so far it is eating alone.

The United States has not only failed to take significant, concrete national actions to mitigate carbon emissions, it has failed to stake out a coherent public position on climate change. If I were inclined to follow the United States, where exactly would it lead me? As the other side notes, China’s efforts are cited by some to spur US actions. In contrast, no one is touting what America is doing to drive change in China (or anywhere else for that matter). Lots of good intentions have been on display over the past year in America, and a decent piece of climate legislation may be passed next year, but the United States is not leading on this issue.

The historic failure of the United States to come to grips with its energy challenges bolsters the impression that it is struggling to manage its own internal factionalism, which touches on questions of what really powers its economy. The call for the United States to increase its energy independence has resonated in American political discourse for nearly 40 years. During these 40 years, while the United States has seen its national wealth and the blood of its soldiers drained away it has failed to enact a comprehensive strategy to wean itself from foreign oil. What leadership is there to be seen in the perpetuation of this status quo?

China faces the same concerns. While it continues to attempt to secure foreign sources of oil, it has also taken concrete actions to decrease its reliance on oil. Chinese national fuel economy standards are tougher than those in the United States; national taxes encourage the purchase of cars with smaller engines; thousands of miles of subway are being constructed; and between the major population hubs, a web of high-speed rail lines is being laid. China has promulgated national goals for increasing percentages of its electric power to be generated through renewable sources, and electric vehicle R&D has received large government subsidies. All of these efforts will help China reduce its dependence on foreign oil and lower its carbon emissions.

China undoubtedly leads all other developing countries and the United States in the absolute amount of carbon emissions it has prevented from entering the atmosphere as a result of government actions and policies developed over the last several years. That it can and should do more does not invalidate the fact that it has provided more leadership on climate change than the United States. If America hasn’t been able to cure its own addiction to foreign oil over the last 40 years, why would I look to it to save the world from its carbon binge?