Cooperation and Divergence between China and the United States in the Governance of Global Climate Change

Bo Yan＊

China and the United States are two key players in global climate governance.What about their relations in the field of climate change and how should we view these relations? An analysis of their relations in global climate governance is of great significance both for global multinational negotiations and their bilateral relations. The two parties have enhanced their cooperation on climate change since 2009 in terms of increasing willingness, broader scale, more diverse mechanisms and higher effectiveness. With the U.N. Paris Climate Conference 2015 approaching, China-US cooperation will inject much momentum into the multilateral process of reaching an ambitious agreement. However, there are also sharp divergences between China and the U.S. regarding principles, rules, and legal means. These divergences might become prominent during the Paris Conference and need to be addressed at the bilateral level.

China; the U.S.; governance of global climate change; global climate

Climate change is one of the most remarkable issues on the agenda of global governance. According to the established negotiation agenda under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Convention), a new global climate agreement is to be reached by the 21stsession of the Parties to the Convention in Paris and is scheduled to come into effect no later than 2020.At present, the multilateral climate negotiations under the Convention are all focused on this goal. China and the U.S. are two key countries in the multilateral negotiations of the United Nations with over 190 participant countries. Both countries are the largest producers of greenhouse gases in the world, and account for about 42%[1]of the total global emissions and correspondingly have major responsibilities for climate change. Besides, as the two largest economies, China and the U.S. share similar status and levels in the global economic, political, and climate negotiation patterns. They have the major impact over the process and the results of the governance of global climate change. Although the European Union has played a leading role in the governance, the relative power and status of China and the U.S. has been enhanced since 2009 with increasingly important roles which are bound to influence the process and results of the Paris Climate Conference.

Climate change is also a vital interactive field in China-U.S. relations. The two countries have adopted more proactive and cooperative attitudes in this field than ever before. And climate change is a topic of persistent significance in the meetings of the leaders of the two countries. Furthermore, the level of policy coordination and dialogue mechanisms on the issue of climate change and the specific fields for cooperation are constantly improved and broadened. Tangible results have been accomplished. These cooperative actions not only help the sustainable growth and development of the two countries, but promote economic develop and create more job opportunities and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Their specific actions to jointly cope with climate change have become an important part of and a fresh new pillar for the bilateral relations.

Although the two countries share common interests and proactively cooperate with each other in tackling climate change, there remain apparent divergences in this field, particularly their different recognition on responsibilities and capabilities in the multilateral process and different interests in the construction of a global climate system. This paper focuses on analyzing and summarizing the cooperation and divergences between the governments of the two countries in the United Nations negotiations of climate change. It also puts forward how we should understand such cooperation and divergences and makes proposals for the governance of divergences and the promotion of cooperation.

1. Cooperation between China and the U.S. in the governance of global climate change

Against the overall background of governance of global climate change, particularly since 2009, there have arisen specific characteristics and trends in the cooperation between China and the U.S., including increasing willingness, broader scale, more diverse channels and increasingly remarkable effects.

First, their willingness for cooperation is constantly enhanced.

The United Nations climate change negotiations got started in the early 1990s. China and the U.S. had more competitions than cooperation in the multilateral negotiations before 2007, and China was regarded as a strategic competitor on the issue of climate change by the Bush administration, particularly in the negotiation process in Kyoto. This gradually changed in the late period of Bush' s administration. President Bush still stressed China' s indispensible role in the negotiation, but further he realized the common interests of the two countries on this issue. President Bush also stated publicly that theU.S. and China should together do some tangible things to tackle climate change, thus the message would be delivered to other countries that both the U.S. and China took this issue seriously.[2]At the same time, China was facing huge international pressure regarding the greenhouse gas limit for major developing countries placed on the agenda of the United Nations climate negotiations. In this context, both countries were more concerned about the status of each other in the negotiations with increasingly enhanced willingness for cooperation on this issue. Climate change was becoming a topic of constant significance in the meetings of leaders of the two countries. It was one of the major topics when Mr. Hu Jintao, the President of China, met with President Bush. This trend was intensified after President Obama took office. Obama stated explicitly after his inauguration that he hoped there could be remarkable promotion of cooperation particularly on climate change and environmental protection between the U.S. and China. Meanwhile, the Chinese government noticed the change of the U.S. government' s attitude on climate change and their positive measures, believing that intensified dialogue and cooperation on climate change would be beneficial for the bilateral relations as well as cooperation and actions of the international community. Based on the above consensus, climate change remained one of the major topics in the 12 bilateral meetings between President Obama and President Hu Jintao between 2009 and 2012.

After assuming office, Mr. Xi Jinping, China' s President, stressed climate change, energy, environment, and practical cooperation in the four meetings he had with President Obama in June and September 2013, and March and November 2014. In their latest meeting, September 2015, climate change was again the major topic. Both countries issued the U.S. China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, demonstrating that both agreed on expanded bilateral practical cooperation and enhanced coordination in multilateral negotiations and jointly promoted the Paris Climate Conference.[3]

Second is the broader scale of cooperation between the two countries.

There is increasingly extensive content for cooperation in the field of climate change, including:

Both countries will constantly intensify dialogues for climate policies, including issues like climate change negotiations of the United Nations and their respective domestic climate policies.

Both focus on communication in their respective positions in the climate change negotiations of the United Nations, and are devoted to joint promotion of the multilateral negotiations for positive results, which reached a high in the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009.[4]The U.S. and the "basic four countries" including China played leading roles in the Copenhagen Agreement. Although this agreement was not passed by the General Assembly of the Parties, it played a crucial role in guiding the climate change negotiations of the United Nations. After the Copenhagen Conference, despite the divergences between China and the U.S., both countries were proactively seeking dialogue and cooperation with each other, and enhancing communication and consultations for the multilateral negotiations and construction of an international climate system. Due to the active dialogue and consultations before the meetings and adjustments in negotiation strategies, both countries promoted the Cancun Conference to reach a final agreement. In general, they adopted more proactive and cooperative measures in the climate change negotiations of the United Nations.

After the Climate Change Conference in 2011 in Durban, South Africa, China and the U.S.realized that it was urgent to reach a powerful and effective climate agreement for the years beyond 2020 and it was vital to make constructive contributions to the negotiations. As a result, led by Mr. Todd Stern, the special envoy for climate change of the U.S., and Mr. Xie Zhenhua, the special representative of climate change affairs of China, both countries kept frequent communications through the U.S.-China Working Group on Climate Change via many bilateral meetings. The policy dialogue for every aspect of the agreement beyond 2020 was enhanced and deepened through intensive bilateral consultations.[5]These enhanced policies were helpful for sharing relevant information on reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020 in the two countries, and also contributed to the successful issue of the U.S.-China Joint Declaration in November 2014. On the eve of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue in June 2015, both countries held a dialogue to intensify policies, and decided to organize additional bilateral and international meetings to prepare to successfully reach a global climate agreement in Paris.[6]In the U.S.-China Joint Declaration on Climate Change issued in November 2014, the leaders of the two countries expressed, " We will work together with other countries to make efforts to reach agreements and prepare legal documents regarding agreed outcomes which have legal effects applicable to all the Parties to the Convention."

Both countries announced their respective actions to respond to climate change beyond 2020, hoping that they "Can inject to the global climate negotiations and inspire other countries to jointly put forward powerful action targets in the first quarter of 2015." The leaders also declared they would, " Work closely to resolve the major problems hampering the success in reaching a global climate agreement during the Paris Conference."[7]

China and the U.S. also had policy dialogues regarding the inclusion of forest and land usage included in the negotiations of the Convention. The first dialogue of this initiative was carried out in the forest relevant topics of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the Convention. In order to enhance the understanding of their respective positions and promote negotiations, the two parties exchanged views on the specific issues of the negotiations.[8]

Both Parties also enhanced their dialogues on the national climate policies and organized bilateral meetings to discuss their policies about domestic climate change, including a strengthened policy dialogue on July 8, 2014. In 2015 new dialogues about domestic policies were established for information exchange of domestic actions. The first two dialogues about domestic polices took place in May and June 2015 respectively.

Third, China and the U.S. have developed specific and pragmatic cooperation in the field of climate change.

Through action initiative, the specific cooperation of the two countries regarding climate change have covered eight major economic sectors, including the first five approved by the two governments; emission reductions from heavy-duty vehicles, smart grids, carbon capture, utilization and storage, construction and industrial energy efficiency, and greenhouse gas data collection and governance. The three new sectors were approved in 2014; climate change and forestry, climate-smart low carbon cities, and industrial boiler efficiency and fuel conversion.[9]

In these areas, the two countries have developed large scale integrated demonstration projects to jointly promote the implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS).

The U.S. Department of Energy and China' s National Development and Reform Commission hosted the CCUS Seminar in Beijing in April 2014. After the Seminar, the U.S. Department of Energy and China' s National Development and Reform Commission jointly selected four projects which focused on improving oil recovery through the utilization of CO2and other useful applications, and they can also be used to the sealing storage of deep-salt-water layers on possible geological conditions.[10]

In addition, the two countries have agreed to fully cooperate in the collection and governance of greenhouse gas data as complete and accurate greenhouse gas data is the foundation of effective climate change policy. As of the end of 2014, China had announced a draft of the greenhouse gas accounting guide for 14 key industries. Under the initiative of the U.S.-China Working Group on greenhouse gas data, through a series of capability construction activities and field research in 2014, the U.S. provided technical guidance, technical knowhow, and support to help China improve its capability in collecting and managing greenhouse gas data.[11]In addition, the two countries cooperated with a common effort in improving the monitoring and reporting methods and utilization of the collected data. The oil and gas data reporting rules in the United States were important examples for China' s reference before it published the emission accounting methods of oil, gas and greenhouse gases.[12]

Forth, there are more diverse cooperation channels and participant bodies.

China and the U.S. have created diverse cooperation channels on the issue of climate change, with both multilateral and bilateral, statelevel and sub state-level cooperation. At the multilateral level there is cooperation under the large multilateral framework like conferences of the Parties to the Convention and cooperation platforms and frameworks outside the Convention. For example, China participated in the multilateral international climate system, "Asia Pacific Clean Development and Climate Partnership Program" initiated by the U.S., the "Conference on Energy and Climate Change in Major Economies," and the "Ministerial Meeting on Clean Energy." The two countries also agreed to, "Deepen their dialogue and cooperation in the complementary agreements, organizations, and meetings to the Convention, including the G20, the Montreal Protocol, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Ministerial Meeting on Clean Energy, so as to promote the related issues of climate change."[13]

The cooperation at the bilateral level has become more and more systematic. The U.S. and China have established policy dialogue systems for climate change since 2009. The U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group(CCWG), established before the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue, aims at preparing for the strategic and economic dialogues between the two countries, summarizing and clearing the existing cooperation in climate change and enhancing potential opportunities for cooperation through proper ministerial meetings and determining the new areas for specific cooperative actions. The Working Group has played a crucial role in the specific cooperation and enhancement of mutual trust, and become the primary mechanism in the promotion of constructive cooperation in climate change between the U.S. and China. Second was the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center. Established on July 15, 2009 it facilitates collaborative work between scientists and engineers of the two countries in the field of clean energy technology and provides a platformand support for the participation of relevant departments of the two countries in the cooperation of energy science and technology. Third was the U.S.-China Framework for the Ten Year Cooperation on Energy and Environment, which was reached during the Fourth Session of the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue. It compliments the China-U.S. strategic and economic dialogues, and plays a coordinating role through regular dialogues and specific projects. Seven major fields were determined for cooperation including; clean air and water, clean and efficient transport, clean, efficient and guaranteed power, energy efficiency, wetlands conservation, and protected areas/natural reserves. It launched the enhancement of energy and environmental cooperation at the highest level between the two countries.[14]The above Working Group mechanisms are complementary to the Clean Energy Research Center and the Framework for the Ten Year Cooperation on Energy and Environment. These institutional arrangements show a more powerful joint commitment to global climate challenges between the two countries than ever before.

At the sub state-level, China and the U.S., "Recognize and appreciate the vital roles of provinces, states, and cities in tackling climate change, supporting the implementation of national actions, accelerating the long-term transformation to low-carbon livable societies, and specific cooperation."[15]The Climate-Smart/Low-Carbon Cities Initiative under the CCWG was launched in November 2014. In the following several months, the two countries had regular exchanges, developed the initiative and formally reached a two-track execution plan. In the first track, the First Session of U.S.-China Climate Leadership Summit was opened in September 2015, during which the U.S.-China Declaration on Climate Leadership was passed. In the Declaration, the governors of states and provinces, sheriffs and mayors from China and the U.S. planned to enhance actions on reduction of carbon emissions, improvements of climate adaptation abilities, and experience sharing and bilateral cooperation. The Chinese provinces and cities put forward the peak initiative, and the American states, counties and cities set targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions for the medium and long terms, so as to lead their own countries in dealing with climate change.[16]They also emphasized the crucial role of enterprises in the promotion of low carbon development. Eight pairs of related enterprises and research institutions signed project cooperation documents committed to cooperation in areas related to carbon capture, utilization and storage, reduction of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) and low carbon transition in cities and the cement industry.[17]

Fifth, there are additional prominent effects in climate cooperation between the two countries.

They have achieved substantial results in the field of climate change, fully exchanged views via various platforms and mechanisms, enhanced mutual understanding and improved political trust. Specifically, they have more understanding and respect for each other and for the efforts and achievements and positive policy adjustments made to deal with climate change. They have discussed the significant divergences to policy initiatives based on national conditions, stage of development, historical responsibilities, and present capabilities believing that the two countries should adopt positive actions towards climate change according to respective responsibilities and capabilities.

Because of this favorable political basis and several years of interactions, institutional cooperation results have been achieved and the cooperation expectation has been stabilized in the field of climate change between China and the U.S.This is reflected in a series of bilateral agreements on climate change cooperation, including the U.S.-China Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework (June 2008), the U.S.-China Memorandum of Understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment (July 2009), the U.S.-China Joint Statement (January 2011), the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change (April 2013), the Joint Announcement on Climate Change (February 2014), the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change (November 2014) and the U.S.-China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change (September 2015). These inter governmental agreements have established the basic framework for cooperation in the fields of climate change and energy cooperation. They show the fundamental political consensus of the two Parties, determine the specific areas of cooperation, indicate the strength and breadth of climate cooperation, and start the continuous cooperation efforts and continue to determine the process of new initiatives, and expand the cooperation on climate change.

In particular, the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change, issued during President Obama' s visit to China, is of profound significance. In the Announcement, the U.S. intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level by 2025. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030, and also intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. The signing of this Announcement has important bilateral and multilateral implications. At the bilateral level, the two countries jointly announced their respective emission reduction targets beyond 2020. Thus the expectations of the cooperative actions of greenhouse gas emissions of the two largest countries have been defined, marking the convergence of the two paths toward the mitigation of global climate change. Because of this agreement between the U.S. and China, there has been a broad positive impact at the global multilateral level. This announcement also points out that the Agreement, "common but differentiated responsibilities and the ability to rule" (principle of common area). The parties have reached a political compromise and a mutual understanding on the issue of "common but differentiated responsibilities and the ability to rule," sending a positive signal to the process of the multilateral climate negotiations.

2. Divergences in governance of global climate change between China and the U.S.

China-U.S. divergences in the governance of global climate change mainly concern issues regarding the construction of international climate mechanisms. Their divergences mainly reflect in the allocation principles and rules of global carbon emissions. As a matter of fact, they are fighting for future development space and competitiveness.

With the approaching Paris Conference on Climate Change, the divergences are becoming increasingly clear and are an extension of the divergences in the U.N. negotiations on climate change during the past two decades.

The following three issues are particularly important.

First is the divergence in the principles of the Convention, particularly the "Principle of common area." The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, issued in 1992 and which came into effect in 1994, illustrates the ultimate goals and the guiding principles of the international climate change governance mechanism. In Article3.1 of the Convention, "fair" and "The principles of the equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities" are stipulated. The establishment of the principles is the result of the compromise between the two camps of the developed countries and the developing countries in the early 1990s, which reflects the international community' s attempt to solve the problem of "environmental governance" and "economic development".

With the evolution of the international economic and political development and emission pattern, the U.S. delivered a new interpretation regarding, "The principles of the equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and the ability to rule" (hereinafter referred to as the "principle of common area") after the Bali Conference on Climate Change in December 2007. This new interpretation stated that the major developing countries should take concerted actions with the developed countries; the developing countries should be classified according to the scale of their economy, emission levels and energy utilization; and the respective responsibilities should be determined with the small developing countries and the least developed countries having different responsibilities from those relatively large and rapidly developing countries.[18]This attempt by the Bush administration to reconstruct the principle of common area has been continued during the Obama administration.

Although the U.S. agrees that the principles of the Convention should be embodied in the Global Climate Agreement 2015, particularly the "common but differentiated" principle, it argues that the meaning of the "principle of common area" in the Agreement should be interpreted dynamically and applied in a new way. In the negotiations of the U.N. Doha Conference on Climate Change, the U.S. put forward two key conditions that should be met to reach a new international climate agreement. (1) The agreement should be applicable to all countries; (2) In this agreement the rich and the poor countries should assume different responsibilities, to better represent the real world than the Kyoto Protocol. To achieve these, the U.S. stresses that the distribution of responsibilities should be based on the practical, applicable and real considerations of the national strength of each country.[19]

The U.S. demonstrates in the proposal of the elements of climate Agreement 2015, "There is no doubt that they (the principles of the Convention, including but not limited to the "principle of common area") will continue to be applicable in the future activities thereof. The problem is the meaning of the principles especially the "principle of common area" should be clarified when it comes to the period beyond 2020. Our view is that there will be differences in the efforts and actions of all the Parties to the Convention due to a series of factors like the national situation, development level, opportunities for slowing down emissions and the capabilities of the countries."[20]

Associated with this, in the Convention the Parties hereto are classified into Annex I and non Annex I – the dichotomy, which in the view of the U.S., is considered applicable to the world of 1992, but is apparently irrational or unfeasible to the world beyond 2020, the U.S. puts forward that such classification and distinction should not be continued to apply in the new agreement due to the huge and dynamic changes of the greenhouse gas emission and economic development of the countries. In fact, such dichotomy is hard to maintain and is untenable.

In contrast, China believes that the negotiation process and results should be fully in accordance with the principles of the "Convention" particularly the "principle of fairness" and the "principle ofcommon area". China stresses that "the annex to the Convention should continue to play a major role and be applicable beyond 2020," and believes the dichotomy is still applicable, which divides the Parties to the Convention into Annex I and non Annex I, and should be applicable in the new agreement, namely the developed countries should bear the primary responsibility for the emission reduction of greenhouse gases.[21]China points out in the newly released position paper that, "To reach the Agreement 2015, the Parties negotiate under the Convention with the guidance of the principles of the Convention to further enhance the comprehensive, effective and sustained implementation and achieve the objectives of the Convention. The results of the negotiations should follow the principles of the equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and fairness, give full consideration to divergences in historical responsibilities, conditions, stage of development and capabilities of the developed and developing countries, and reflect all the factors in a comprehensive and balanced way like mitigation, adaptation, capital, technology development and transfer, capability building, and the transparency of actions and support."[22]

Although China and the U.S. have expressed that the two parties, "…are committed to reaching an ambitious 2015 agreement that reflects the principles of the equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in light of different national circumstances" through the release of a joint announcement, they have not reached a consensus on the specific reflection and application of the "principle of common area" in the 2015 agreement. As a matter of fact, right after the release of the announcement, in the U.N. Lima Conference on Climate Change in December of the same year, China and the U.S. still had evident divergences in the "principle of common area" and the negotiation at the last stage even came to a deadlock.

Second is the divergence in the specific mitigation rules for global climate governance.

The rules refer to the specific action standards to address climate change prescribed for each country, including the sharing of responsibilities, transparency, adaptation, capital, and technology. The core divergence between the two countries is whether the new rules of the sharing of responsibilities and transparency should reflect the "principle of common area" in the original applicable way.

Divergences in mitigation rules were evident in the negotiation process in Kyoto. In the Kyoto Protocol the "asymmetric commitment" rules of the developed and developing countries in the mitigation actions are defined and the binding targets and schedule for emissions reduction were established. But the U.S. opted out of the Protocol on the grounds that the major developing countries have not taken similar responsibilities to reduce their emissions. It means the U.S. and other Parties hereto including China have fundamental divergences in this regard. During the U.N. Doha Conference on Climate Change 2012, the Parties jointly decided to extend the Protocol to the second commitment period, but the U.S. was still outside the Protocol.

For the likely to be reached Climate Agreement 2015, China and the U.S. believe that "differentiated" should be embodied in the related factors in the agreement in an "appropriate manner,"[23]but they have apparent divergences in how to embody the "differentiated" part. For example, for the mitigation rule in the Climate Agreement 2015, the U.S. put forward: (1) The Parties to the new agreement shall follow the same schedule to reflect their contribution to the globallimit or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. (2) Each Party shall provide the information to help understand the schedule. The contribution through intended national determination is specific and clear. They shall provide information of the same type to be applicable to the intended self-determined contribution committed by the countries. (3) Each Party shall report its progress of the schedule regularly. Reports shall be prepared in a unified and flexible system. (4) The specific provisions shall be established for the specific aspect of accounting, and shall be applicable to all the Parties hereto. (5) In the agreement, examination and review of implementation of the schedule of the Parties shall be included. Based on a single system, appropriate differentiation shall be allowed for examination and review on the basis of capability and national conditions.[24]It can be seen that on the core issue of mitigation, the U.S. actually proposes that the major developing countries like China should follow the unified and common rules with the developed countries. It is emphasized that the intended self-determined reduction contribution of all the countries should be quantifiable, clear and measurable; despite the differentiation in examination and review, all the countries should abide by the unified system. As a matter of fact, the common responsibilities are enhanced with the differentiated responsibilities understated.

In contrast, in mitigation, China recognizes, "It should be clarified that in 2015 all the Parties should prepare and implement plans and measures to reduce or control the emission of greenhouse gases from 2020 to 2030, to promote international cooperation in mitigation." However, China stressed that the commitment to emission reduction of the developed and developing countries must be differentiated according to "the principle of common area". "The developed countries, according to their historical responsibilities, should make the commitment to reach the powerful absolute quantity in emission reduction as of 2030 in the global economy. The developing countries, under the sustainable development framework, should adopt various measures to enhance mitigation actions, with the support of capital, technology and capability of the developed countries."[25]In the aspect of the transparency of actions and support, China believes that Agreement 2015 should clearly require all the Parties to increase the transparency of enhanced actions of all the Parties according to the Convention and the decisions of the Parties' meetings. But China still insists on the application of the "principle of common area" between the developed and developing countries, namely, "In accordance with the requirements of the Convention and the related rules of the Kyoto Protocol, the developed countries should increase their transparency of reduction actions and identify the rules of enhancing the developed countries' transparency and related examinations in providing capital, technologies, and capability support through the existing report and examination system. With the support of capital, technologies and capability of the developed countries, the developing countries should increase their transparency of enhancing actions through the existing transparency arrangements, in a non-invasive, non-punitive and sovereignty respected manner."[26]In fact, in the Bonn negotiation in June 2015, China was in favor of the term "differentiated commitment/ contribution" in the text, while the U.S. preferred "commitment/contribution/action."[27]In terms of transparency, the latter was in favor of "criticize by roll call" to urge all the countries to cut emissions, while the former was opposed to it and believed the emission reduction should be realized throughsharing the best practice and cooperation with the identified divergences in the implementation of the Agreement.[28]

Third is the divergence in the legal form of the global climate Agreement 2015.

Both China and the U.S. hope that an agreement can be reached during the Paris Conference on Climate Change. Their positions are more flexible than that of the European Union as the EU is committed to reaching a rule-based, legally binding solution and is generally involved in seeking a fresh new climate agreement.

In the aspect of the form of law, China explicitly puts forward," The Agreement 2015 should be a legally binding convention implementation agreement, where core agreement plus meeting decisions of the Parties are applicable; factors should be reflected in the core agreement in a balanced manner like mitigation, adaptation, capital, technology development and transfer, capability construction, and transparency of action and support, related technical details and procedures and rules can be clarified by meeting decisions of the Parties. The intended self-determined contribution of the developed and developing countries can be listed in an appropriate manner as the results of the Paris Conference."[29]

The U.S. seeks an "ambitious, inclusive and flexible"[30]new Agreement 2015. For the form of law, the U.S. believes that certain factors in the agreement should be internationally binding. For example, the Parties should maintain a certain specific commitment, provide clarified information, report implementation progress, follow accounting provisions, and receive examination by other Parties according to the schedule. For the U.S., a key issue is the legal nature of the intended self-determined contribution to emission reduction of each country. In regard to that, three proposals were made by the U.S. First, the intended self-determined contribution of a country should be binding by international laws; second, it is not binding at international level; thirdly, an integration of proposal II and the followings are possible, namely the significance and legal effect (such as laws, regulations, etc.) of domestic measures should be emphasized, which act as a support to the international contribution of the Parties. The U.S. believes that to make reasonable choices depends on the possibility of the proposal to promote the achievement of ambitious goals, careful domestic implementation, extensive participation and the duration of the agreement.[31]

It can be seen that the U.S. stresses the extensiveness and universality of the Agreement 2015 and the major developing countries should be legally bound in the same nature as that of the developed countries in terms of emission reduction. Meanwhile, the U.S. has a flexible position regarding the form of the law of the Agreement 2015. There is no doubt that, compared to China, the U.S. places more emphasis on the unified legal nature of the intended selfdetermined contribution to emission reduction of all the countries, but the legal nature like adaptation, capital, technology development and transfer, capability construction are taken lightly. At the same time, for the U.S., the international convention must be approved by a two thirds majority of votes in the Senate to be binding to the U.S. Therefore, in order to meet this requirement, the U.S. representatives have a more practical choice to make efforts to promote the convention to develop into a mixed agreement.

3. How should we understand China-U.S. cooperation and divergences

in climate change?

A preliminary judgment can be made from the above analysis, namely that China and the U.S. have reached a relatively high level of cooperation on climate change and the cooperation is greater than the divergences. The increasingly extensive cooperation content, more diverse cooperation levels and channels and the increasingly apparent cooperation effect depend on the increasingly strong willingness for cooperation between the two countries. In the recent years, China and the U.S. have an enhanced willingness for cooperation on climate change, which is rooted in the deepened understanding of their common interests in tackling climate change. Climate change has practical negative impact like temperature rise, increase of extreme weather events, sea level rise and so on. The two countries have reached scientific and political consensus on the severity and causes of this issue and believe that it, as a complicated issue, involves domestic society and economy. There exists the cognitive foundation to tackle climate change. Second, China and the U.S. are the largest energy consuming countries in the world, and consume the most quantity of primary energy like oil, coal, and natural gas. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is helpful for the transformation and upgrading of the two countries' economies and eliminating their reliance on fossil fuel energy. Moreover, as the largest clean energy investors, they take the lead globally in the low carbon energy like solar, nuclear and wind. The development of these industries can bring considerable economic benefits to the two parties in dealing with climate change. Third, China and the U.S. are facing similar pressure and situation in the U.N. negotiations on climate change. On one hand, both are countries of the largest emissions of greenhouse gases annually. Despite their enhanced power and positions in the U.N. negotiations, they are facing the common pressure of more substantive commitments and larger contribution required by the international community; on the other hand, they, to some extent, act as partners with each other in the multilateral negotiations, so it is undoubtedly a wise choice to jointly cope with the issue of climate change.

In addition, both China and the U.S. hope that climate change will become an important interactive area of their bilateral relations, and play an active role in promoting the overall relations. Zhang Gaoli, the special envoy of President Xi Jinping and the Vice Premier of the State Council, when meeting President Obama during the U.N. Climate Summit said that the heads of the two countries had reached important consensus, and China was ready to continue to work together with the U.S. to make their joint efforts in tackling climate change and build it into a highlight of the construction of a new type of relations between China and the U.S.

Obama said the U.S.-China relationship is the most important in the 21stcentury. The U.S. attached great importance to enhancing cooperation with China in coping with climate change and hoped that progress could be achieved in various aspects. Roy Stapleton, the former U.S. ambassador to China, said, "Both the U.S. and China are facing pressure to take action on global warming, which is exactly in line with the visions of the two countries, namely to expand cooperation to try to curb and reverse the increasingly escalating strategic confrontation." These statements have reflected the motivation of the two parties to promote bilateral relations through enhancing climate cooperation.

In fact, the cooperation between China and the U.S. on climate change is indeed vital for the construction of new relations between the twocountries. The field of climate change has become "a new pillar of bilateral relations", and established the new foundation of common interests and cooperation fields for the construction of a new type of China-U.S. relationship, and laid a new sustained basis for the positive development of relations in the future. Compared with the divergences between the two countries in other fields, China and the U.S. have more consensuses in global climate change, and are more likely to cooperate, which can inject new meaning and motivation to the bilateral relations. Besides, it has a positive role in promoting the overall development of the relationship. Therefore, the good political trust built in this field will play a role boost and buffer China-U.S. relations.

In short, there are various new characteristics in the cooperation of climate change between China and the U.S. which are the results of joint actions of their participation in the multilateral negotiations of the U.N. and their seeking of a positive development of bilateral relations. But at the same time, as shown above, there are clear divergences in the negotiations of the U.N. on climate change. The direct reason is their divergence in the evaluation and determination of their responsibilities and capabilities to cope with global climate change. The U.S. believes that the emerging countries particularly China have undergone huge and even tremendous changes in their responsibilities and capabilities to cope with climate change, therefore, it is necessary to promote the formulation of new rules and establish a completely new climate mechanism through reinterpretation and application of the "principle of common area" to change the "differentiated" characteristic for the developed and developing countries in the original mechanism. On the one hand, it emphasizes the increasing responsibilities of the emerging countries in global climate change; on the other hand, it ignores or purposely understates the responsibilities of historical emissions of the developed countries. So, based on the Warsaw Conference on Climate Change 2013, when China and India expressed their support for the reference methods for historical responsibilities proposed by Brazil, the developed countries like the U.S., the European Union were against this discussion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. believes that China' s capability has changed greatly with the long-term and rapid economic growth and the upgrading of its international political status. To this end, it emphasizes that China has been completely different from other developing countries and should not continue to be regarded as a developing country. The U.S. firmly believes that, as an emerging country, China has greater capability to make more commitment. Although China has taken actions to address climate change and developed and implemented the relevant policies, the U.S. believes that with the upgrading of China' s responsibility and capability in climate change, it should take more ambitious and comparable mitigation obligations as the developed countries at the international level, and in the new climate mechanism China should be bound to related rules of transparency.[32]

In contrast, China stresses the historical responsibilities of the developed countries on emissions since the greenhouse gas emission to the atmosphere is a long term accumulation, as a basic scientific fact. The Chinese scientists simulated the climate change due to carbon emission from 1850 to 2005 on the super computer by the new generation of "earth system model" . They discovered that the emissions of developed countries are three times as much as that of the developing countries; while in the contribution to climate warming, the former' s is twice that of thelatter.[33]According to the carbon-environmental Kuznets curve theory, the emissions of China and the U.S. are different in nature. The former is still at the upward phase of the "inverted U curve" (along with economic growth and development), while the latter (representative of the developed countries) is at the downward phase of the curve.[34]Since the development path of the developed countries has been copied in the world, it is inevitable for China to experience the sameincrease of greenhouse gas emissions.[35]

From the perspective of capability, China believes that it is still the largest developing country in the world despite its historical progress in development including its second place in the world in terms of economic output. Based on the huge population of 1.3 billion, China' s GDP per capita ranks eightieth worldwide. According to the standards of the World Bank, there are still over 200 million people living below the poverty line in China, which is almost equal to the total population of France, Germany and the U.K.[36]

From the perspective of fundamental goals, the divergences between China and the U.S. show that both sides hope the global climate change governance mechanism make changes in favor of their own interests. The U.S. in fact tries to transform the exiting international mechanism which reflects the interests of the developing countries and as a result it believes these countries will assume more responsibilities of international emission reduction. In this way, a more favorable competitive environment will be created for the U.S. While China tries to extend this international mechanism with more reflection of interests of the developing countries, and worries that the international climate mechanism, changed according to preference of the U.S., will curb its development space and damage its development rights.[37]

In the field of global climate change governance, especially in the United Nations climate change negotiations, cooperation between China and the U.S. is greater than divergences. This paper mainly summarizes and analyzes the cooperation and divergences at the government level. In the future, more attention should be paid to the influence of the domestic political and economic strength of the two countries on the changes of their climate policies.

Under the current general background, although the ultimate result of the negotiations on climate change Agreement 2015 depends on the large multilateral process of more than 190 countries, the China-U.S. relations and the negotiation strategy still play a critical role. China and the U.S. should abide by the principle "no conflict, no confrontation" in the multilateral negotiations, determine their own policies, positions, and bottom lines, and get to know those of each other, avoid public accusations, thus creating a good atmosphere for the promotion of international climate negotiations. This is the lowest level of the target. Meanwhile, they should respect the positions of each other on the multilateral diplomatic occasions, and strive for a win-win situation. The coordination should be enhanced in the specific rules and factors of the global climate Agreement 2015, try to find the common position which is "not entirely satisfactory but acceptable by the two parties" and jointly advance the agreement to be reached. At the bilateral level, the two countries should further improve and coordinate the existing climate cooperation mechanism of all levels between China and the U.S., continuing the cooperation in the reduction of domestic emissions of greenhouse gases. As the largest countries of investments in renewable energy and development of renewable energy across the globe, China andthe U.S., in fact, have benefitted from massive mutual investment in renewable energy and the partnership, while they still need to make efforts to promote the development of the following areas to achieve tangible results, including new energy vehicles, smart grids, carbon capture, utilization and storage, clean coal technology, greenhouse gas data collection and management, energy saving and efficiency in industry and building. There is still much room for cooperation in the areas like shale gas, nuclear power, renewable energy, and low carbon environmental protection technology.

In view of the current background of multilateral climate negotiations and the special status of China and the U.S., the two countries should further enhance dialogues on climate change policies and exchanges with each other about the related information of the control on emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020. Moreover, they can further clarify the relations between climate change, smog and people' s health through collaborative research, and reduce emissions through respective and healthy joint climate plans to win more domestic support.

China and the U.S. should further enhance dialogues on climate change policies and exchanges the related information of the control on emissions of greenhouse gases.

This paper has been translated and reprinted with the permission of Journal of SJTU (Philosophy and Social Sciences), No.1, Vol.24, General No.107, Jan. 2016

[1] Data source: World Bank, http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT/countries

[2] Zhang Lijun. The Consultation and Cooperation on Climate Change between China and the U.S. [M] . Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2008, page 36-37.

[3] The U.S.- China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change [N] . People' s Daily, 2015- 9-26(3).

[4] Bo Yan, The Trilateral Relations between China, the U.S. and Europe in Global Climate Change Governance [M] . Shanghai: Shanghai People' s Publishing House, 2012, page 200- 204.

[5] The Report of the Sixth Round of China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Submitted by the China-U.S. Climate Change Working Group, July 9th, 2014.

[6] The Executive Summary Report of the Seventh Round of China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Submitted by the China-U.S. Climate Change Working Group, June 23rd, 2015.

[7] The U.S.-China Joint Declaration on Climate Change, November 2014.

[8] The Executive Summary Report of the Seventh Round of China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Submitted by the China-U.S. Climate Change Working Group, June 23rd, 2015.

[9] The Report of the Seventh Round of China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Submitted by the China-U.S. Climate Change Working Group, June 23rd, 2015.

[10] The four projects: 1. Yanchang Petroleum, West Virginia University, University of Wyoming and American companies; 2. Shengli Oil Field Branch of China Petroleum& Chemical Corporation, Sinopec Petroleum Engineering Construction Co., Ltd., Schlumberger Company, and University of Kentucky; 3. Shanxi International Energy Group(SIEG), Air Products and Chemicals Inc. and West Virginia University; 4. Huaneng Clean Energy Research Institute (CERI) and Summit Power Group. These projects play a crucial role in proving the technical and business feasibility of CCS/CCUS and will accelerate the emergence of related markets and an extensive arrangement.

[11] The Report of the Seventh Round of China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Submitted by the China-U.S. Climate Change Working Group, June 23rd, 2015.

[12] The Report of the Seventh Round of China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Submitted by the China-U.S. Climate Change Working Group, June 23rd, 2015.

[13] The U.S.-China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change [N] . People' s Daily, 2015- 9-26(3).

[14] U.S.-China Framework for the Ten Year Cooperation on Energy and Environment: Jointly Create a Green Future Path: U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Environment in the Ten Year Framework---2008-2018, http://tyf.ndrc.gov.cn/.

[15] The U.S.-China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change [N] . People' s Daily, 2015- 9-26(3).

[16] The U.S.-China Declaration on Climate Leadership of the First Summit of U.S.-China Climate- Smart/ Low- Carbon Cities, September 15th2015.

[17] The Report of the Sixth Round of China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue Submitted by the China- U.S. Climate Change Working Group, July 9th2014.

[18] White House Statement by the Press Secretary, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release/2007/12/20071215-1

[19] IISD: Summary of The Doha Climate Change Conference, in Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2012, 12(567), http://www.iisd.ca/ voll2/enb12567e.pdf.

[20] U.S. Submission on Elements of the 2015 Agreement, http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/7398.php

[21] IISD: Summary of the Doha Climate Change Conference, in Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2012, 12(567), http://www.iisd.ca/ vol12/enb12567e.html.

[22] Enhanced Actions on Climate Change: China' s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, June 2015.

[23] The U.S.-China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change [N]. People' s Daily, 2015- 9- 26- 3

[24] U.S. Submission on Elements of the 2015 Agreement, http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/7398.php.

[25] Enhanced Actions on Climate Change: China' s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, June 2015.

[26] Enhanced Actions on Climate Change: China' s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, June 2015.

[27] IISD: Summary of the Bonn Climate Change Conference, in Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 14 June 2015, 12(638), http://www. iisd.ca/voll2/enb12638e.html.

[28] IISD: Summary of the Bonn Climate Change Conference, in Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 6 September, 2015, 12(644), http:// www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12644e.html.

[29] Enhanced Actions on Climate Change: China' s Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, June 2015.

[30] Todd D. Stern," The Shape of a New International Climate Agreement", Remarks made at Chatham House London, United Kingdom, October 22, 2013. http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/remarks/2013/215720.

[31] U.S. Submission on Elements of the 2015 Agreement, http://unfccc.int/bodies/awg/items/7398.php.

[32] Bo Yan and Gao Xiang. Global Climate Agreement 2015: the Divergences between China and the European Union [J]. Contemporary International Relations, 2014, (11), page 45- 51.

[33] Zhang Yi. The First Time of Account Clearing for Carbon Emissions for 150 Years [N] . Wenhui Daily, September 8th, 2014.

[34] J.Ang. CO2emissions, energy consumption, and output in France, Energy Policy, 2007, 35: 4772- 4778.

[35] Wen Quan, Warsaw is about to begin negotiations for a new global climate agreement. Outlook News Weekly October 28, 2013, http://www.chinanews.com/gn/2013/10-28/5430491.shtml.

[36] President Xi Jinping' s Speech at the College of Europe in Bruges, April 1st2014, Bruges. http://www.china.org.cn/ Chinese/2014- 04/04/content_32005938.htm.

[37] Bo Yan and Gao Xiang. Global Climate Agreement 2015: the Divergences between China and the European Union [J] Contemporary International Relations, 2014, (11) page 45- 51.

*Bo Yan, professor, the School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University.

Fund project: China Clean Development Mechanism Fund Grant Program (2013020), The Talents Program of Shanghai Pujiang of 2014(14PJC003), the Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Program of Shanghai of 2012(2012BGJ003)