The economic crisis cast a pall over climate change talks held this month in Poland. While negotiators were hoping for concrete progress toward an international climate agreement, the world’s two largest polluters were distracted — the US with preventing a collapse of the financial system in the midst of a presidential transition and China with a slowdown in domestic investment and weakening foreign demand for its manufactured goods. With US home values and retirement savings falling and Chinese unemployment numbers rising, observers worry that neither the US nor China will have much appetite to cut emissions.
The paradox here is that the crisis presents a unique opportunity for the US and China to strike a deal that would lay the groundwork for a global climate agreement. Indeed, one of the main goals of the most recent biannual meeting of the US/China Strategic Economic Dialogue (held the week before the climate talks began) was to begin work under the “Ten Year Energy and Environment Cooperation Framework” created earlier this year.
This initiative comes on the heels of a decade in which the US abstained from international efforts to address climate change.
Its rationale was that if it acts but China doesn’t, the world will fail to meet emission-reduction targets and US industry will suffer. China has countered that its historic and per capita emissions remain well below US levels and that to cap aggregate national emissions at the same level as the US would imply a personal carbon budget in San Francisco five times greater than in Shanghai.
The Strategic Economic Dialogue sidestepped this disagreement on burden sharing and focused instead on what the two countries have in common. Both depend on imported oil for transport and on domestic coal for power generation. Both have strong state-level governments and balkanized regulatory and energy supply systems. But the structure of the two countries’ economies and what drives their energy needs — and thus greenhouse gas emissions — are very different. It is this difference that offers the best chance for addressing climate change head-on.
Economically, the US and China are mirror images, opposite sides of a massive global imbalance. Americans spend too much and save too little, leaving a US$250 billion trade deficit financed by other countries. Much of this credit comes from China, where companies and individuals save too much and consume too little, leaving a surplus of both goods and capital that flows abroad.
This macroeconomic imbalance is reflected in the two countries’ carbon footprints. In the US, more than 70 percent of carbon dioxide emissions come from consumer-related activities, whether gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles or power-hungry McMansions.
In China, more than 70 percent of emissions come from industry. Steel production alone consumes 18 percent of the nation’s energy resources, nearly twice as much as all Chinese households. The chemical industry consumes more energy than all private transportation and aluminum production rivals the commercial sector in terms of electricity demand.
In terms of brokering a climate deal, this imbalance is good news. It suggests a framework for reducing emissions that respects the development needs of China’s households, addresses US firms’ competitiveness concerns and adheres to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” embedded in international negotiations.
In recognition of its outsized historic and per capita emissions, the US should agree to economy-wide emissions reductions in line with domestic climate legislation currently being considered. China should be excused from consumer-related obligations for the time being, but assume commitments on industrial production based on the recognition that effectively reducing emissions in these sectors requires coordinated international action.
China’s leaders are already eager to rein in energy and pollution-intensive industry for reasons of national security, air and water quality, and simple economic efficiency. The production of steel, cement, chemicals, paper, and aluminum alone account for nearly half of China’s energy needs and generate nearly half of the air pollution that claims more than 300,000 lives and costs the economy close to US$100 billion each year.
Yet these five industries combined employ only 14 million people out of a total labor force of 770 million and fewer people than they did a decade ago. For a country in an employment crisis, investing in energy-intensive industry is a losing strategy. Using climate policy to discipline these industries would help rebalance the economy while taking a bite out of China’s emissions. If China imposes a carbon price for its energy-intensive manufacturing industries, the US won’t need to do so at its border, lowering risks to the international trading system on which both countries rely.
The current crisis is already unwinding some of the imbalances that drive both countries’ energy and environment challenges. US oil demand has fallen 8 percent as consumers tighten their belts, and electricity demand in China is down by 10 percent as energy-intensive industries cut production. A smart response to the crisis can perpetuate these trends.
Future US consumption will be greener and the cost of climate policy reduced, if the US recovery package includes money to weatherize homes, upgrade the electricity grid and help the auto industry improve fuel efficiency.
If China consolidates its energy-intensive manufacturing, thereby freeing up investment capital for lighter manufacturing and services, then it will emerge from the crisis with a growth model that pollutes less and employs more. If the US and China can find agreement on these issues in the midst of crisis, they will pave the way for success when climate negotiators meet again next year in Copenhagen.
Trevor Houser is a visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
RSS