Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

Will there be a China–US deal on climate change?

Reading Time: 5 mins

In Brief

For many years China and the United States have faced off over climate change. Now, climate change action is one of the few things the two powers can agree on. A new view on the benefits of climate action goes some way to explain this shift.


  • A
  • A
  • A


  • A
  • A
  • A

Since the start of international climate negotiations, China has insisted that rich countries must act first to cut emissions and should pay for the costs of emissions reductions in China and other developing countries. Meanwhile, the United States has insisted that China, and other developing countries, must be part of action on climate change and used China’s apparent inaction to excuse their own.

Things began to change with the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, where China pledged to cut the emissions intensity of its economy by 40-45 per cent from 2005 to 2020. The US pledged to cut its absolute emissions levels by 17 per cent over the same time period.

Many doubted that countries would comply with their pledges at Copenhagen because they were not legally binding. But both China and the US are now on track to meet their targets.

This creates confidence that deeper reductions are possible for the 2020s. Much deeper cuts are needed to effectively address climate change, and new analysis done in 15 major countries under the Pathways to Deep Decarbonization project shows that this is possible.

All countries have been called on to submit their pledges for the post-2020 period by the end of March 2015, to become part of a new climate agreement at the December 2015 Paris Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The US and China see themselves as leaders in this process. It is understood that Chinese and US experts are working in tandem on analysis for the pledges, and it is widely thought that they are planning early announcements, possibly before the end of the year. The two largest emitters revealing their pledges early would set the global benchmark. The fact that there are few other issues the two countries agree on may help make climate change a priority in bilateral relations.

At the 2014 UN climate summit on 23 September, China announced that its future commitments will result in a peak of its carbon dioxide emissions ‘as soon as possible’ and re-affirmed the commitment to a national carbon market.

Behind the change is not so much altruism about limiting future climate change, but a new facet of national self interest driven by circumstances and, to some extent, a change in perceptions.

For China, urban air pollution has become an issue of high importance. Coal plants in and near the northern and coastal cities are being closed down. Bans on low quality coal have been brought in.

As well as air pollution, China’s policy change is about physical and economic energy security. China imports an increasingly large share of its oil, coal and gas. An energy system running on fossil fuels is vulnerable to trade disruptions and fuel price fluctuations. Greater energy efficiency and more renewable energy is the answer.

China is also motivated by the prospect of becoming a leader in emerging energy technologies. China has become the world’s largest producer of solar panels and wind turbines. And the race is on for global leadership in transformative energy technologies such as electric cars and smart electricity grids.

Across the Pacific, new methods for extracting gas and oil are revolutionising the energy sector, with large volumes of cheap unconventional gas displacing coal. This makes it easy to cut carbon emissions from coal combustion and underpins the Obama administration’s new regulatory standards for power stations. There is also sizeable investment in improving energy efficiency and deploying renewable energy generators, both of which may offer large and easily accessible emissions reductions in America.

As pointed out by the New Climate Economy group climate change action is also in the economic self interest of nations. Actions to cut emissions can enhance economic growth by raising efficiency in the use of resource, investment in low-carbon infrastructure and stimulating innovation. In this view, there is not necessarily a trade-off between growth and climate protection, not even in the short term.

This perspective gels with the vision put forward by China’s leadership — that is, that China should shift to a more balanced and sustainable model of growth that also improves environmental outcomes. The New Climate Economy report was launched in Beijing with speeches by very senior politicians last month.

But fossil fuel producers and exporters are not so easily convinced. With very large amounts of fossil fuel money highly concentrated in the hands of owners of large installations and mines, it is no wonder that there is a powerful backlash against the idea that a transition away from fossil fuels is not just possible but desirable.

Australia and Canada, under their present governments, are examples of fossil fuel politics. With Australia’s climate pendulum having swung to an extreme, the Abbott government has recently defended brown coal, the world’s dirtiest large-scale fuel, as an energy source of the future.

The alternatives are plentiful. As shown in our contribution to the Pathways to Deep Decarbonization report, Australia can be an energy superpower in a low-carbon world. Australia has overwhelming potential for renewable energy. A low-carbon world economy would be eminently in Australia’s interest, as it is one of the developed nations most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

This is not to belittle the magnitude of the task of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. It would need to be done with care, balancing interests across different groups, and in the context of widespread international action.

The question is whether and to what extent the superpowers will choose to push for change in the fossil fuel supplying countries. We will see the outcome when Australia and Canada announce their post-2020 climate pledges — just don’t expect them to go first.

Frank Jotzo is Director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, the Australian National University.

2 responses to “Will there be a China–US deal on climate change?”

  1. It is incumbent on China to take action on carbon emissions, but its promise to cut emission intensity is pathetic. It has already achieved that objective, so repeating that promise is hardly a breakthrough.

    Despite this, China is the largest CO2 emitter in the world, and its emissions are certainly much higher per person than the world average. It needs to take action, for its own sake, and for the world’s sake. Frank don’t let China off the hook by praising it for its soft targets.

    China will take action, I am sure, but will it be enough? Without China’s deliberate action we might as well all shut up shop on the carbon reduction front.

    Even though the US planned reductions are not enough, with expected “over-achievement” in the US, which is inevitable, the final result could be close enough to make the task manageable for them.

    China, and the rest of the world, needs to cut CO2 emissions by an amount equal to 2% of 2014 emissions each year until atmospheric levels of CO2 stabilise.

    This is a long-term task, for which firm and deliberate action is required.

    Let us hope that China is an adult in the face of this crisis, but phony promises do not encourage much confidence!

    If China takes action, we can send the alarmists to their beds to cry themselves to sleep, while the adults get on with cutting emissions progressively and deliberately.

    • Dear Graham, you are right to point out that China’s per capita emissions are already above the global average and that reductions in absolute emissions are necessary in China, and quite soon.

      We have a recent paper ( showing a scenario where China’s emissions intensity falls by 5% to 5.4% per year in future in order to achieve a peak in emissions by 2030 (compared to 4.3% per year from 2005-13).

      It’s simple of course: emissions intensity needs to decline faster than GDP grows. An emissions intensity target is fine, as long as it is ambitious enough.

      Is China’s 2020 target soft? No. China is roughly on track to meet it, but not without policy effort. Take a close look at policy intervention in power, industry and transport and you see more effort in many aspects than in a number of developed countries.

      Of course China starts from a low base: very high energy intensity of the economy, high carbon intensity of energy supply. That in turn provides decades’ worth of opportunity to continuously do better.

      China needs to do more. It can, and there’s reason for optimism that it will.

Support Quality Analysis

The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.