As Chinese President Hu Jintao (
These issues will dominate the headlines, but they pale in comparison to another problem that is on neither side's agenda: global warming. That is a pity, because as British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently observed, in the long term, "there is no issue more important than climate change," and there can be no agreement to reduce it "that doesn't involve China, America and India."
Moreover, climate change is no longer such a long-term problem, and only the lunatic fringe remains in doubt about whether the escalating use of carbon-based fuels is responsible for global warming. Indeed, recent assessments by the British Antarctic Survey suggest that temperatures over the Antarctic have increased by 3.6oC since the early 1970s, and that warming is taking place far faster than researchers had hitherto believed. Similarly, the journal Science reports that new studies show that ocean levels may rise much more rapidly and precipitously than anticipated.
Although the US and China are the world's two primary producers of greenhouse gases -- the US being the largest -- neither has signed the Kyoto Protocol, which commits countries to cut their average greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012 to 5 percent below 1990 levels. With China and the US out of the picture, the problem will likely get far worse before it gets better.
The increasing climate-change danger is mainly the result of developments in China. The country derives almost 76 percent of its energy needs from coal, burning almost 2 billion tonnes of it last month, with consumption set to rise to 2.4 billion tonnes by 2010. Moreover, car production soared from only 640,000 in 2000 to 3.1 million last year, and annual growth is expected to continue rising by 80 percent. Petroleum-independent until 1993, China now consumes more and more imported petroleum every year, and power consumption is predicted to double by 2025, requiring an average of one new coal-fired plant to come on line each week.
Small wonder, then, that the water in 75 percent of China's rivers is undrinkable, that the country is home to seven of the world's most polluted cities, and that one can often live in Beijing or Shanghai for weeks without ever seeing the sun. Indeed, China is on the precipice of becoming an environmental wasteland.
Unlike US President George W. Bush's administration, which remains cavalier in its disregard for the warning signs of climate danger both at home and globally, Hu's leadership has begun to evince a hopeful assertiveness, at least in domestic environmental policy. There is a paradox here: While China's central government is trying to provide national environmental leadership, local governments have often resisted. In the US, it is the federal government that has been weak -- even retrograde -- in providing environmental leadership, while states such as California have led the way with higher standards.
While US Vice President Dick Cheney denigrates the idea of energy conservation, China's leaders have adopted a new five-year plan that commits the country to cut energy use by one-fifth, industrial pollution by one-tenth, and industrial water consumption by one-third.
A 12 percent tax increase has been imposed on gas-guzzling cars, along with reductions for cars with small engines, and a new 5 percent tax is being levied on wooden flooring and even chopsticks, which are estimated to use 2 million cubic meters of timber each year.
Nevertheless, because both Hu and Bush fear the economic effects of reducing their country's carbon emissions, each has hidden behind the non-participation of the other to justify absence from international efforts and failure to assume a global leadership role. Having awakened to the environmental threat, the next challenge for Hu is to begin translating some of China's new awareness and boldness into its foreign policy -- exactly what the US has failed to do.
It would be a pity if China, the new industrial hub of the world, overlooked the benefits of capitalizing economically on the multinational effort to control carbon emissions that is inevitable if the global environment is to remain hospitable. Indeed, any national leadership that anticipates the new research, development, manufacturing and trade possibilities that will grow out of this new imperative may find itself positioned for exactly the kind of sustained economic growth that every country seeks.
If the US and China were to team up to address the challenge of climate change, the results might not only be a more congenial climate and a better Sino-US relationship, but also new and vibrant economic sectors in both countries. If climate change were on the agenda for Hu's upcoming trip, the meeting, whether or not it is designated a "state visit," could be one of historic consequence.
Orville Schell, a renowned expert on China, is dean of the School of Journalism at the University of California-Berkeley.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS