The U.S. in Copenhagen: Preventing Another Toothless Tiger
By Elizabeth M. Lynch
One June 4, 2009, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee convened a hearing to discuss U.S.-China cooperation on climate change. Featuring notable China experts Elizabeth Economy, Ken Lieberthal and Bill Chandler, the panel focused on the issues that could potentially confront China as it seeks to create comprehensive climate change legislation. Perhaps most telling for the future of the United States -China cooperation on climate change, however, was the heated discussion by Senators John Kerry and Dick Lugar during the question and answer period. Their questions foreshadowed the difficulties between Democrats and Republicans that could likely derail any agreement that might emerge from December’s U.N. conference on climate change in Copenhagen.
During their testimony, the panelists, especially Ms. Economy and Mr. Lieberthal, largely focused on what they termed China’s “capacity issue” – that while the Chinese central government is sincerely committed to setting environmental targets and capping greenhouse gas emissions, it lacks the institutional and technical capabilities to achieve these targets. Mr. Lieberthal specifically discussed the technical difficulties that many Chinese municipalities and provinces face in making measurements required by the central government’s mandated environmental targets – without the knowledge of how to conduct “energy audits,” how are city governments able to determine that their buildings meet the energy-efficiency requirements of the central government? Similarly, Ms. Economy discussed the need for China to build an institutional capacity that allows it to implement and enforce the central government’s environmental reforms on a provincial, county, and city level. Only by improving accountability, transparency and rule of law will China’s environmental regulations become a reality on the local level.
This central problem of “capacity” went largely ignored by the senators attending the hearing until the tail end. In asking if China would have in place the institutional and technical capacity to provide measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) data by December 2009, Senator Kerry received an answer from Ms. Economy he did not want to hear, namely, “no.” With disbelief, he immediately repeated his question emphasizing the answer’s importance in helping to convince some of his senate colleagues that China will have reliable MRVs. Mr. Lieberthal explained that while China is providing the best numbers it has right now, absolute data is difficult to obtain because of China’s lack of capacity.
Senator Kerry’s disbelief comes at a dangerous cost. While in China last week, Senator Kerry commented that many of China’s laws and regulations surpass even those of the United States. “All of these measures that China has already undertaken are measurable, reportable and verifiable…So [getting the data] it’s not hard.” Unfortunately though, for China enforcing laws and amassing reliable data is hard. But by not dealing with the capacity issue head-on and prior to Copenhagen, Democrats allow an issue to emerge that could stymie the U.S.’s ratification of any treaty. Republican Senator Dick Lugar, in his comments at the hearing, threw down the gauntlet, noting that America’s “debate on the issue will be profoundly influenced by perceptions of China’s willingness to…agree to verifiable steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions.” Similarly, the recent passage of the Comprehensive Clean Energy Legislation before the House Energy and Commerce Committee split pretty much along party lines. While Republicans are likely motivated to protect U.S. domestic companies from having to abide by any emissions caps regardless of what other countries agree to, the Democrats, by not addressing China’s capacity issues, give the Republicans another weapon in their arsenal with which to resist ratifying a Copenhagen climate change agreement.
In order for Copenhagen to be successful, United States policymakers must better understand China’s internal dynamics. There is no doubt that the Chinese central government is committed to reducing greenhouse gases and cooperating on climate change; but by leaving the localities with the responsibility of implementation and evaluation without improving its regulatory structure or building technical support, the Chinese government will inevitably fail to keep its commitments. But the United States should not walk away from negotiating with China because of China’s present difficulties. Instead, the United States should make part of any agreement, the option to assist China with developing its capacity, both technically and institutionally. In her testimony, Ms. Economy mentioned California’s cooperation with some of China’s provinces to assist with implementation of environmental regulations. Programs like this should be expanded and the United States, in funding programs to assist China with environmental enforcement, should be looking to the local level and not just the national. Furthermore, Mr. Lieberthal discussed increasing the cooperation between U.S. companies and Chinese companies in order to increase their technical capacities to do simple things like an “energy audit.”
The United States should push China to set major targets even if difficult to achieve. However, these targets should be set to reflect the realities of China’s capabilities. And while their targets might look different from ours, any other approach to Copenhagen could lead to failure.
[...] The U.S. in Copenhagen: Preventing Another Toothless Tiger [...]