Fletcher Features
Professor Gallagher Addresses U.S.-China Impasse at the First Converging on Copenhagen Series Lecture
The U.S. and China account for over half of the world’s carbon emissions, but their efforts on climate change negotiations have stalled over the issue of binding targets. If these two countries fail to agree on emissions cuts, the global consequences could be disastrous – so what can be done to break the impasse?
Professor Kelly Sims Gallagher, Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, addressed this dilemma at the first lecture of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy’s (CIERP) Converging on Copenhagen Speaker Series on September 30 at Fletcher. “The fact that neither of these countries will commit to reducing emissions now is a major problem,” she said.
Gallagher stressed the importance of acting quickly, especially given uncertainties about the impact of global warming. “The historical precedent is that developed countries go first to address the issues and there is typically a lag for developing countries,” she noted, “[but] the uncomfortable truth for climate change is that allowing a lag for developing countries is inconsistent with the science.”
“I believe that the two core issues as the center of the US-China dynamic are competitiveness and barriers to technology transfer,” Gallagher said. She indicated that China’s concern centers on maintaining its rate of development, while the U.S. worries that climate change regulation will prompt the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to developing countries.
As for technology transfers, it is important to recognize the problem of financing. “There is a cost to moving to cleaner technologies,” Gallagher argued. “When you are asking China to accelerate action, you’re implying that you’re asking them to pay a lot more for these technologies.”
On the bright side, Gallagher pointed out, both countries have made progress on climate change issues. China included an aggressive energy intensity target in its current Five Year Plan, and U.S. Senate recently introduced a bill aimed at boosting R&D investment and raising energy standards on appliances.
The U.S. and China have common interests on this issue. Both are concerned about the impact of climate change, but seek to maintain their economic competitiveness: the U.S. industrial base is not well positioned for the low-carbon economy, while China is heavily reliant on coal and needs to maintain economic growth.
So is a deal possible? “First I would argue that both countries, and ideally first the U.S., needs to commit to significant and specific greenhouse gas reduction policies,” Gallagher said. Then you need to address concerns about competitiveness and leakage, or the tendency of energy-intensive industries to move to less regulated countries.
Gallagher’s big idea for breaking the impasse is the creation of a Carbon Mitigation Fund (CMF) to support the deployment and implementation of low carbon energy technologies in developing countries. She outlined criteria for the CMF and explained how it could finance worthy projects.
The CMF would be financed by the largest per-capita fossil fuel-CO2 emitters. Eighty percent of the world’s emissions come from just 20 countries, so requiring these countries to contribute makes sense. Furthermore, Gallagher argues, using a per-capita emissions metric would address the U.S. and China’s competitiveness concerns by eliminating leakages and improving equity. It would also “overcome some of the biggest technology-transfer barriers by providing certain, predictable financing,” Gallagher said.
The CMF would not solve all the problems in the climate change debate, Gallagher acknowledged. One audience member pointed out that it would be difficult to gain the support of small countries with large per-capita emissions who would be expected to pay as much as the United States. Nonetheless, Gallagher’s analysis illuminated some of the most important hurdles to getting the climate change negotiations moving. It is exactly the kind of innovative thinking that will be needed to make progress at Copenhagen and in the years ahead.
To find out more about the issues that will be addressed at Copenhagen, come to one of the upcoming Converging on Copenhagen lectures, which will be held throughout the fall semester.
Linnea Duvall, F10