Climate Change

Rain (AM and PM) 5° London Hi 9°C / Lo 7°C

United on climate change: Obama's Chinese revolution

US President wants the world's two biggest polluters to form a partnership in the battle against global warming. Geoffrey Lean reports

Metal fatigue Capital Iron and Steel on the outskirts of Beijing is one of the country's biggest polluters

EPA

Metal fatigue Capital Iron and Steel on the outskirts of Beijing is one of the country's biggest polluters

Barack Obama is to invite China to join the United States in an effort by the world's two biggest polluters to stop global warming running out of control.

Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, is to raise the prospect of a "strong, constructive partnership" to combat climate change on a visit to Beijing next week, and the President is seriously considering a proposal from many of his most senior advisers to hold a summit with the Chinese leadership to launch the plan.

Last week, China's ambassador to the US, Zhou Wenzhong, made it clear that his government would welcome "co-operation on energy and climate change" with the US. Such unprecedented teamwork would transform the world's prospects for agreeing radical measures to combat global warming, and – senior Obama administration officials believe – lay the foundation of a new relationship between the two most powerful countries in the world.

For years, progress towards negotiating a new international climate change treaty has been bedevilled by the two superpowers, each refusing to commit itself to action unless the other goes first, and mutual suspicion has been growing. Between them, the US and China produce over 40 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide. About two years ago, China overtook the world's largest economy as the planet's biggest polluter. But Americans still emit more than four times as much of the gas per person as their Chinese counterparts.

Neither country has to reduce its emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. China, like other developing countries, is excused the reduction targets placed on industrialised nations. Former president George Bush rejected the treaty partly because of China's exemption.

The stand-off has dogged negotiations on a new, much tougher treaty as the US has been unwilling to agree to any targets until China commits itself to act on its emissions. China, for its part, has insisted the US act first as it has made a far greater contribution to the crisis, spewing out more than three times as much carbon dioxide over the past two centuries.

The arrival of President Obama – and increasing concern about climate change within the Chinese leadership – has provided an unprecedented opportunity to break the deadlock.

Both the President and Mrs Clinton have made it clear that combating climate change is among their highest priorities, and top Chinese officials are now indicating that their government is ready to work with them. Both countries have included "Green New Deal" measures, amounting to scores of billions of dollars, in their stimulus packages.

Mrs Clinton will visit Beijing for two days on 20 February, on her first overseas tour as Secretary of State, with the climate and financial crises at the top of her agenda.

Todd Stern, her special envoy for climate change, said last week; "Secretary Clinton is keenly aware that the United States, as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, and China, as the largest emitter going forward, need to develop a strong, constructive partnership to build the kind of clean energy economies that will allow us to put the brakes on global climate change. We need to put finger-pointing aside and focus on how our two leading nations can work together productively to solve the problem."

The Chinese ambassador to the US sounded much the same note and appealed to American commercial self-interest in helping his country tackle global warming. "Co-operation between our two countries on energy and environmental issues will enable China to respond to energy and climate change issues more effectively, while at the same time offering enormous business opportunities and considerable return to American investors," he said.

He was speaking at the Brookings Institution launch of one of two important reports on the prospects of a US-China partnership on climate and clean energy – published on Thursday by experts with enormous influence in the new White House – which both called on Mr Obama to hold a summit with the Chinese leadership on the issue.

The Brookings report is written by two of its fellows, David Sandalow and Professor Kenneth Lieberthal, who both worked in the Clinton White House and have been tipped for senior posts in the new administration.

The second report, published by the Asia Society and the Pew Foundation, has an even more impressive pedigree. It was produced by a committee chaired by Steven Chu, the new US Energy Secretary, and John Thornton, tipped as the new ambassador to China, and carries a forward by Richard Holbrooke, appointed as the President's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. It has contributions from Mr Stern and Professor John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Kyoto Protocol is dead in the water
[info]chadi_salim wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 03:10 am (UTC)
Why the climate change came to the spotlight only recently when it has been taking its toll on our planet for decades? Why now?. Why talk about reduction in gass emission when the US is involved in two full-blown wars and is spewig out tons and tons of lethal gas into our planet. This is certainly undoing all the results that we achieved in the Kyoto Protocol. The fact is that this is a smoke screen, intended to preserve hegemony & dominance of the superpower. No state will abide by the Protocol since this means maintaining the status quo, implying that the US will maintain its position as a superpower, which will hinder the developing states from changing the interational order. The consequences are no committment from any country whatsoever and further damage to our planet and further misery,deaths and disasters to us all.
More empty rhetoric
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 04:37 am (UTC)
More empty rhetoric from the new king of spin.

The packages designed to stimulate consumption are entirely at odds with any professed desire to save the planet for the next generation.

Hypocrisy rules, as always.

Anyway, this is nonsense: 'to stop global warming running out of control'. Global warming is already running out of control; numerous positive feedback mechanisms have already been triggered.
Re: More empty rhetoric
[info]jfkc wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC)
Do not despair. If you take into account that his predecessor denied the problem of global warming even exist for the nine years he was in power, no. 44 has been an improvement, spin or no spin. There may even be a minute chance that the Chinese will talk to him about it.
[info]avalonianmystic wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 11:26 am (UTC)
Why do you treat the theory of man caused global warming as a substantiated fact when it is'nt so? All the real environmental problems caused by man have to take a second seat.
[info]roy_e_salford wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 01:26 pm (UTC)
Would it not be easier to 'sell' global warming if it was not as stridently lectured at us? Surely an appeal to improve the quality of the air we breathe would make more sense!
what it will take?
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 08:32 pm (UTC)
It truly amazes me that when the ice sheets of the Arctic and Antarctic have been melting at unprecedented rates and Australia has recorded its highest temperatures ever, people still pretend nothing is wrong or that humans are not to blame.

We have to wonder just what it will take to wake people up to what is happening. Certainly few people seem to understand crucial importance of the Precutionary Principle.

We are talking about whether the next generation will have a planet to live on, yet the denial and platitudes continue.

The classic film 'The Day the Earth Caught Fire' should be compulsory viewing, along with 'On the Beach', 'Solylent Green', '1984' and the much more recent 'Global Dimming'.
Re: what it will take?
[info]dinosaur_senior wrote:
Sunday, 8 February 2009 at 11:16 pm (UTC)
You are right. But people will always avoid what is uncomfortable, especially if it also seems insoluble. The option that the experts have got it wrong is a lot more attractive. This is why Obama's election is encouraging. I truly think he gets it. Let's hope he doesn't turn out to be another Blair-type con-artist.
global warming does not exist
[info]replikantx wrote:
Monday, 9 February 2009 at 12:01 am (UTC)
there has never been a globel warming and there will never be one,

"Global warming" was invented by the scientists and the goverment is supporting it in order to keep everyone in business.

Global warming is a huge money making business supported by the scientists and goverment.

wake up people, the earth temperatur is below the average right now
Re: global warming does not exist
[info]had_it wrote:
Monday, 9 February 2009 at 06:47 pm (UTC)
Right. Anyone who has seen all the glaciers still covering 1/2 of Europe and all of Canada knows that "there has never been a globel warming and there will never be one."

Just as anyone who has seen the sudden and dramatic fall in greenhouse gases registered by every signatory of the Kyoto protocols knows that interntional agreements are the right solution to the problem
climate and financial crises
[info]steveco wrote:
Monday, 9 February 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
It needs to be said that the two crises occupying the worlds attention are related. Life is never going back to days of cheap flights and big fat jeeps. The economic crisis is a manifestation of the deeper underlying ecological malaise that underpines our lifestyle choices. The true costs of our selfishness can no longer be externalized onto the environment - this is an outdated economic perception. By internalizing the carbon costs, the true price of our lifestyles is revealed. Why are we still expanding airports, building coal-fired power stations without the CCS technology required, etc...? All these will have to have the full cost of their carbon output internalized, making them unaffordable. Why can't our politicians see this?
Re: climate and financial crises
[info]had_it wrote:
Monday, 9 February 2009 at 06:52 pm (UTC)
Because they want more than 3% of our votes.
What does it matter, global warming or not?
[info]byebyebushboy wrote:
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 at 08:54 am (UTC)
We all know the regions our current energy sources come from, they are unstable at best. Diversified energy sources are more secure than one source, so why don't we come to realize how vulnerable oil makes all of us. Look at it this way the jobs and health benifits of cleaning up tera-ferma make sense, and you who are spoutiing off " theres no such thing as global warming" I say to you, it doesn't matter if earth is warming or not, wake up and smell the coffee!

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date