Wang Yanjia, William Chandler
{
"authors": [
"William Chandler"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "AP",
"programs": [
"Asia",
"Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"China",
"East Asia"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Climate Change",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Breaking the Suicide Pact: U.S.–China Cooperation on Climate Change
U.S.–China climate cooperation is the crucial step toward a global climate agreement. Together both nations produce 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet they remain locked in a “suicide pact” -- each demanding that the other take responsibility.
Source: Carnegie Endowment
IMGXYZ1248IMGZYX The United States and China must make accommodations to curb greenhouse gas emissions if both countries are to break their “suicide pact” of self-destructive, energy-using behavior. Together they produce 40 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet both countries demand that the other take responsibility for climate change, meanwhile the threat of environmental disaster grows. For the first time, China is considering an emissions target while half of U.S. states have set their own targets—the time for a deal is now.
In Breaking the Suicide Pact: U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change, William Chandler, director of the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program, identifies practical, non treaty-based approaches both countries could take to cut their carbon dioxide emissions across economic sectors—with little financial impact. He argues that China and the United States should work together to set individual, national goals and achieve them through domestically enforceable measures and international agreements that prevent either nation from taking advantage of steps taken by the other.
Key Recommendations for U.S.-China Cooperation:
- Eliminate subsidies that discourage energy efficiency.
- Provide tax breaks for investment in efficiency and low-carbon energy and impose tax penalties on high-carbon energy.
- Make climate cooperation integral to trade policy, such as jointly setting production standards to limit the energy used to manufacture exports.
- Create partnerships between Chinese provincial officials and leaders in U.S. states on the forefront of climate change prevention to improve implementation of innovative energy policies.
- Promote market penetration of existing carbon emission reduction technologies and encourage development of new technologies by linking American laboratories more closely to Chinese markets to share research and development costs.
- Encourage banks in China to remove the regulatory cap on interest rates for energy-efficiency investments.
“U.S.–China collaboration poses no threat to the climate leadership of any region or nation or to global cooperation. It is a complement, not a challenge, to existing and planned emissions cap and trade systems. This act of mutual self-preservation would help the United States and China to avert climate disaster and the eventual sanctions of other nations if they do not act, and lay the groundwork for successful global action,” concludes Chandler.
About the Author
William Chandler is the director of the Carnegie Energy and Climate Program and has spent over 35 years working in energy and environmental policy.
About the Author
Former Adjunct Senior Associate, Energy and Climate Program
Chandler is a leading expert on energy and climate. As an adjunct senior associate in the Energy and Climate Program he supports Carnegie’s work in these fields, collaborating closely on projects with Carnegie’s offices in Moscow, Beijing, Brussels, and Beirut.
- Understanding Energy Intensity Data in ChinaOther
- President Obama's Chances of Success in CopenhagenQ&A
William Chandler, Taiya M. Smith
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital AmbitionsCommentary
Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.
Aruzhan Meirkhanova
- The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for RussiaCommentary
Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.
Ruslan Suleymanov
- Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria ConundrumCommentary
Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.
Vladimir Solovyov
- Lukashenko’s Bromance With Trump Has a Sell-By DateCommentary
Lukashenko is willing to make big sacrifices for an invitation to Mar-a-Lago or the White House. He also knows that the clock is ticking: he must squeeze as much out of the Trump administration as he can before congressional elections in November leave Trump hamstrung or distracted.
Artyom Shraibman
- What the Russian Energy Sector Stands to Gain From War in the Middle EastCommentary
The future trajectory of the U.S.-Iran war remains uncertain, but its impact on global energy trade flows and ties will be far-reaching. Moscow is likely to become a key beneficiary of these changes; the crisis in the Gulf also strengthens Russia’s hand in its relationships with China and India, where advantages might prove more durable.
Sergey Vakulenko