MAY 2008
Together, China and the United States pro-duce 40 percent o global greenhouse gas emis-sions. Their actions to curb or expand energy consumption will determine whether eortsto stop global climate change succeed or ail.I these two nations act to curb emissions, therest o the world can more easily coalesce ona global plan. I either ails to act, the mitiga-tion strategies adopted by the rest o the world will all ar short o averting disaster or largeparts o the earth.These two nations are now joined in whatenergy analyst Joe Romm has aptly called “amutual suicide pact.” American leaders pointto emissions growth in China and demandthat Chinese leaders take responsibility orclimate change. Chinese leaders counter that American per capita greenhouse gas emissionsare ve times theirs and say, “You created thisproblem, you do something about it.”Concern or energy security deepens thisdilemma. U.S. congressional sta expertsthink energy is twice as likely to cause confictbetween the two countries as human rights.Mainstream Americans ear that China is gob-bling up oil and driving up the price o gasoline.The Chinese ear American control o MiddleEast oil and o shipping lanes to China.However, current events are opening a win-dow or change. The United States is movingto address climate change, i only at the statelevel. Almost hal the ty states have made sig-
Bakg t Suc Pact: U.S.–CaCoopato o Cmat Cag
WilliAM ChAndler
Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment or International Peace
ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
C
ARNEGIE
n
U.S.–China climate cooperation is
the
critical step toward a global climate agreement.Yet the two countries are loced in a “suicide pact”; each reuses to act beore the other.
n
The time to act is now: or the frst time, China is considering an emissions target while halo U.S. states have set their own targets.
n
The U.S. and Chinese energy sectors have distinct structures, but both would beneft romimprovements in energy efciency.
n
Yet both countries could reach a deal—without a treaty—that could unloc the global stalemate.
n
Such a U.S.–China deal would result in the adoption o existing energy technologies to increaseefciency; joint innovation o new technologies; and an agreement to prevent the two countriesrom not taing advantage o steps taen by either.
Summar
F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
f o r t h e N e x t P r e s i d e n t
POLICY BRIEF
nicant commitments to cut carbon emissions.Crucially, Chinese leaders recently suggestedthat they might be willing to make a climatecommitment. Analysts at the Energy ResearchInstitute, a leading Chinese government think tank, suggest that China could cut its currentemissions growth rate by hal through 2020,and rom that level reduce absolute emissionsby one-third by 2050. This scenario would put within reach a global goal o stabilizing the at-mospheric concentration o carbon dioxide be-low 500 parts per million. Such a commitment would represent a proound shit in China’sposition, and it could be pivotal in reducingthe worst risks o climate change.
Thus, a path can be glimpsed to breakingthe suicide pact and achieving a bilateral break-through, i Chinese and American leaders andpolicy makers can fnd a deeper understandingo energy realities; grasp the need or immediateaction to reduce carbon emissions; and developa new, non-treaty-based approach to reachingan international agreement—and eventually even a post-Kyoto global climate accord.
A Bo Amcas
What i the Chinese used energy like Ameri-cans? Global energy use would double, andve more Saudi Arabias would be needed justto meet oil demand. China itsel would pro-duce six times as much coal as it does today.Many observers ear that this is exactly what will happen. China has tied the UnitedStates or the dubious distinction o being thelargest national source o greenhouse gas emis-sions, producing more than 18 billion tons o carbon dioxide per year. China’s population ismore than our times that o the United States,though it is growing more slowly (see gure 1). Ater decades o aggressive and unprecedentedenergy and population policies that dramati-cally reduced emissions growth, Chinese en-ergy demand has this decade surged one-thirdaster than the economy.No one can deny that the United Stateshas created ar more climate pollution thanChina. Since the beginning o the IndustrialRevolution, the United States has produced1,150 billion tons o carbon rom ossil uels,compared to China’s 310 billion tons. The av-erage Chinese produces just one-th as muchcarbon dioxide as the average American. Still,there is no argument even rom Chinese lead-ers that China’s rapid economic expansionposes a major threat to the global environmentcommensurate with America’s continued highconsumption rates. China maintains that cli-mate action should be taken on the basis o “dierentiated responsibility.” This conceptmeans that the nations that grew rich burninglots o ossil uel should take stronger action, while rapidly developing nations also share theresponsibility to act.
Suppy a dma
Reaching this type o mutual accommoda-tion needs to start with an understanding o the two countries’ baseline energy consump-tion. China today uses 65 exajoules o energy compared with 100 exajoules or the UnitedStates. Energy demand in each country isorecast to grow to 120–150 exajoules by themiddle o this century. Both reducing demandand changing the mix o energy supply sources will be crucial to climate protection.The structure o energy demand in the twoeconomies could not be more dierent (gure2). Industry takes over two-thirds o China’senergy supply and only one-third o America’s.The Chinese burn about 10 percent o theirenergy as uel or transport, while Americansconsume almost 30 percent or transport.The Chinese use 20 percent o energy in theirbuildings, compared with almost 40 percentor Americans. China in many respects re-mains a developing country with a per capitagross domestic product and energy use severaltimes lower than those o the United States.Energy intensity—the amount o energy used per unit o economic output—declineddramatically in China rom 1980 through2000 but has increased just as dramatically during the past decade. An explosion in theproduction o energy-intensive materials such
Willi Chndle
is a leadingexpert on energy and climateat the Carnegie Endowment orInternational Peace. Based inthe Washington, D.C. ofce, heleads Carnegie’s wor in thesefelds, collaborating closelyon projects with Carnegie’sMoscow, Beijing, Brussels, andBeirut ofces.Prior to joining the CarnegieEndowment, Chandler spent 35years woring in energy andenvironmental policy. He ispresident o Transition Energyand co-ounder o DEEDChina—private companies withenergy
efciency investments inChina.
He is ounder and ormerdirector o Advanced Interna-tional Studies at the JointGlobal Change ResearchInstitute (Battelle, PacifcNorthwest National Labora-tory), where he was senior stascientist and laboratory ellow.Chandler has been adjunctproessor o internationalrelations in energy andenvironment at the JohnsHopins University since 199.He served as a member o theinternational energy panel othe
U.S.
President’s Committeeo Advisors on Science andTechnology, and was a leadauthor or the Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change.
as steel, cement, and chemicals has helped uelChina’s phenomenal economic growth. Chinanow produces 35 percent o the world’s pigiron and 45 percent o its cement—most o which is used domestically. The United Statesnow imports rom China about 20 percentmore embodied energy—the energy con-sumed in product manuacturing—than itexports to China. An American is twenty times more likely to have a car than a Chinese, and the UnitedStates has weaker uel economy standardsthan China. Automobile ownership in Chinaremains low, with only orty cars per 1,000people, but it is growing very rapidly. Chinahas about 35 million cars on the road, whereasthe United States has roughly 185 million. Automobile sales in China in 2006 were upmore than 25 percent over the previous year,to more than 7 million vehicles.Households in America use vastly moreenergy than households in China. Americanhomes average two and a hal times the sizeo Chinese homes, a disparity not expectedto disappear or twenty to thirty years, i ever.Chinese appliances remain small and ecientcompared with those used by Americans.China suers what the poet Pablo Nerudacalled “the curse o coal.” I China consumedthe same total amount o energy as it doestoday but used the same energy mix as theUnited States, its carbon emissions would be20 percent lower. Coal provides only a quartero American primary energy supply but almostthree-quarters o China’s (gure 3). Casual ob-servers assume that China has no choice butto use its billions o tons o coal reserves. They overlook the act that U.S. coal reserves aremore than twice as large as China’s, and theUnited States uses coal to a ar lesser degree.For more than a decade, China has been the world’s second-largest electricity consumer, butits per capita consumption even today standsat only hal the world average and one-eighth
BREAkING THE SUICIDE PACT: U.S.–CHINA COOPERATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE3
A o-taty bas appoacca bak t suc pact.
FiGUre 1Sct Compasos o t Ut Stats a Ca, 2006
4,000
40,000
50
350
4.4
19.8
310
1,150
65
100
572
360
1,300
300
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of category
Annual GrossDomestic Productper person (dollars)Annual energyuse per person(gigajoules)Annual CO
2
per person(tonnes)Historical CO
2
Emissions(gigatons)Annualenergy use(exajoules)Annual Gross DomesticProduct growth(billion dollars)Population(millions)
ChinaUnited States
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Breaking the Suicide Pact: U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change
U.S.–China climate cooperation is the critical step toward a global climate agreement.
Yet the two countries are locked in a “suicide pact”; each refuses to act before the other.
The time to act is now: for… (More)
Yet the two countries are locked in a “suicide pact”; each refuses to act before the other.
The time to act is now: for… (More)
2.6K
Reads
4
Readcasts
3
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
