The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

9,853 Members

Post

Is the US-China Climate Change Deal a Game-Changer? An Interview with MIT's Valerie Karplus

Full Spectrum: Energy Analysis and Commentary with Jesse Jenkins

Even before world leaders descended on Lima, Peru this week for United Nations-sponsored climate negotiations, climate diplomacy made global headlines with the joint announcement of a partnership between the world’s two largest carbon emitters: the United States and China.

The joint pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions and collaborate on clean energy technology development has been hailed as a potential sea change in the tone and substance of international climate mitigation efforts. 

Professor Valerie KarplusTo dig in to the details of this U.S.-China climate partnership, I caught up this week with Valerie Karplus, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management and Director of the Tsinghua-MIT China Energy Program.

An expert on both American and Chinese energy and climate policy, Prof. Karplus and I explored what the climate deal means for domestic energy policy in each nation, chatted about the major drivers of emissions growth in China, and considered implications of the new emissions pledges for international climate negotiations. Read on for our interview…

Jesse Jenkins: Professor Karplus, thanks for speaking with me. To start off, please walk us through the high level takeaways of the recently announced U.S.-China bilateral climate change deal? 

Valerie Karplus: The U.S.-China climate deal is first and foremost a major breakthrough in global climate change negotiations. It formalizes commitments on both sides that will be important to reducing emissions over the longer term: China has pledged to reverse its rising emissions trajectory by 2030 at latest and increase its non-fossil energy share to 20%, while the U.S. has committed to reducing emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

The deal also includes a renewed commitment to engage in joint research and development on building energy efficiency, alternative fuel vehicles, clean coal, and a newly added focus on the energy-water nexus.

This deal also breaks the cycle of each nation waiting for the other to act first, and it invites other nations—especially developing nations that previously viewed commitments as premature or unfair—to declare contributions to the global effort.

Do the emissions reduction pledges announced as part of this deal amount to a step change in climate policy for either nation, or do the pledges essentially amount to a codification of business as usual plans in China and the United States? How will the deal affect domestic policies in each country?

Any pledge to reduce emissions at the global level is only as strong as the domestic incentives to implement it. We also need to be very careful when defining “business-as-usual.”

On many fronts, the pledge by both countries represents substantial additional effort to reduce emissions below future trajectories extrapolated on the basis of the 2000-2010 time period.

China has strong domestic incentives to follow through on its pledge. Air quality and environmental degradation more broadly is undermining economic growth and public confidence in China, and measures that clean up the air will offer substantial carbon reduction benefits in the near term. China is also planning to introduce an emissions trading system for carbon on a national scale starting in 2016. The goal of this system is to incentivize reductions in carbon dioxide—including efforts to improve energy efficiency—in a cost-effective manner. It also provides an opportunity for China’s leaders to centralize the governance of its energy system, in ways that leaders expect will improve coordination and technology deployment.

While China had laid the groundwork for these actions prior to the deal, the level of effort required is substantial. According to analysis carried out jointly by MIT and Tsinghua University, implementing the plan will require a carbon price that rises to $30/ton in 2030, alongside accelerated nuclear and renewable energy deployment efforts.

Energy demand and primary energy supply in China: three scenarios
China energy demand and primary energy supply under three scenarios. 
Source: Zhang & Karplus et al., 2014 (MIT).

On the U.S. side, the level of effort is also substantial. The main difference compared to the Chinese pledge is that mechanisms needed to implement the pledge do not yet exist, and offers an opportunity for a hard look at what new or strengthened instruments will be needed to support the U.S. goal. Implementing the U.S. pledge is likely to be more difficult for political, not technical, reasons.

What’s the backstory on this partnership? The U.S. and China have long been at odds over emissions pledges in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. How did they arrive at this bilateral deal?

In many areas, U.S. and Chinese positions differ widely, despite overarching commitments to strengthen the bilateral relationship. In the search for areas to advance cooperation, climate change stands out as a bright spot.

China’s policy orientation has changed, too. Over the past several years, air quality has emerged as a threat to social stability, as ever-wealthier citizens refuse to live in polluted cities. Mid-level bureaucrats with the power to shape policy agendas have stronger incentives to act on environmental concerns than ever before.

When President Xi Jingping came into office in 2012, he signaled a tolerance for slower growth in line with broader efforts to develop an “ecological civilization.” As the likely impact of new measures to address air quality and energy management domestically on CO2 emissions became clear, they lent greater confidence to a Chinese climate pledge on the global stage. As China is now the world’s number one greenhouse gas emitter, many in the country are eager to see China lead efforts to address the climate problem.

On the U.S. side, the opportunity to break the cycle of “we won’t move before China does” overcomes a longstanding objection to U.S. action while stepping up domestic pressure to move to cleaner sources of energy. So the climate deal is the product of converging interests on both sides.

China has committed to stop the growth of its emissions by 2030, achieving a “peak” in emissions by that date. But they haven’t yet specified what level annual emissions will peak at—or what trajectory they’ll be on after that. Given China’s rapid emissions growth recently, what level they halt emissions at could vary quite a lot. Walk us through what might determine what level China’s emissions peak at and what the implications might be for global climate mitigation efforts?

Key factors that determine when China’s emissions will peak include: future economic growth, changes in the structure of China’s economy, and the extent to which the economy continues to rely on coal.

In our MIT-Tsinghua China Energy Outlook, we find that newly announced air quality and climate policy measures—if implemented fully—would result in a peak in CO2 emissions in China at around 10 billion metric tons in 2030. This is about 20% above China’s current CO2 emissions levels. However, more important than the peak is the rate and extent of CO2 emissions reductions after the peak is reached, which will depend on the rate of improvements in underlying energy efficiency as well as alternative energy deployment.

China CO2 emissions trajectories under three scenarios
China CO2 emissions under three scenarios. 
Source: Zhang & Karplus et al., 2014 (MIT).

The implications of the agreement for global climate change mitigation efforts are potentially game changing, if the U.S.-China commitment prompts other large (and future large) emitters to develop commitments to be codified in a post-2020 climate agreement in Paris in 2015. To realize this outcome, it is essential that future commitments be developed at the current talks in Lima or shortly thereafter. It is important that this deal be seen not as a China-U.S. initiative but as part of a broader global effort that reflects the redoubled yet tailored domestic actions of emitters large and small.

Will the U.S.-China partnership change the tenor or substance of negotiations at the UNFCCC COP20 negotiations, now underway in Lima, Peru? Do you think the partnership will lead to greater ambition for other nations or a stronger deal at Lima or Paris in 2015? Or has the UNFCCC become a sideshow, with bilateral or multilateral negotiations between major emitters driving the show, and the UN process simply codifying these commitments on a global stage?

The U.S.-China announcement raises expectations for the Lima talks this week, and it invites all parties to move past the historical developed-developing country distinction when it comes to defining emissions reduction pledges. The agreement further has the potential to set a clear precedent for using existing domestic commitments and objectives to shape pledges tailored to each country’s individual situation. This flexibility is likely to be critical given differences in national circumstances.

A desirable outcome from the Lima talks would be clear agreement on the nature—and if possible, preliminary text—of each country’s nationally-determined contribution (NDC) to global mitigation efforts. A sober look at the reductions achieved by the sum of national efforts will allow careful assessment of how close—or how far—we are as a planet to reaching acceptable levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The UNFCCC will have a critical role to play in coordinating and standardizing procedures for evaluating progress toward these commitments, as well as providing the accounting and accountability needed to inspire more aggressive commitments over time.

Content Discussion

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on December 11, 2014

Air quality and environmental degradation more broadly is undermining economic growth and public confidence in China, and measures that clean up the air will offer substantial carbon reduction benefits in the near term.”

What could the professor have meant by this statement, which seems to make no sense to me.

Measures that ‘clean up the air’ in the near term in China consist of installing basic air polution control measures on China’s existing coal fired power plants, which could be done fairly quickly. The policy to do this was already in place in China before the ‘game changing’ deal with the US. Moreover, such measures offer zero carbon reduction benefits. Arguably, such measures increase co2 emissions because they (slightly) reduce the efficiency of the unmitigated coal power plant.

Bob Bingham's picture
Bob Bingham on December 11, 2014

I am still not convinced that the USA has any real comitment to climate change. It is a country powered by coal and oil and most of its government, industryand the media are fully comitted to this policy. http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/blog/un-climate-change-negotiations

Jesse Jenkins's picture
Jesse Jenkins on December 13, 2014

Joris, Prof. Karplus sent the following reply to your comment via email:

I’m happy to respond — basically there is a great and cost-effective opportunity to reduce coal for both air quality and climate goals. Correctly noted is the fact that scrubbers do not remove CO2 from coal and may even contribute to the climate problem. This will become important once cost effective coal reduction opportunities run short and necessitates a carbon price (as I will argue in an upcoming piece for the Paulson Institute in January).

Nathan Wilson's picture
Nathan Wilson on December 13, 2014

That’s a great point.  We in the environment community hope that China will clean up its air by replacing coal combustions with solar, wind, nuclear power, and perhaps a bit of fossil gas.  

But they have already announced the intention to use a lot of fossil gas and their primary coal strategy to date has been to replace small, dirty, and inefficient coal burners with larger, more efficient, and slightly cleaner ones.  Also they are considering moving their coal fired plants farther from cities, and may even make widespread use of mine-mouth coal-to-methane (which would be less efficient and hence produce more CO2 than direct coal combustion). 

Bob Bingham's picture
Bob Bingham on December 13, 2014

China needs a huge amount of energy very quickly and are using coal but they also have massive hydro systems and are probably the biggest in the world for wind and solar. Instead of arguing who is the biggest polluter each country needs to recognise the problem and install renewables to limit CO2 production. Europe has done it and so can China and the USA. Its probably easier for China to make the change because they are still building the system. 

Bob Bingham's picture
Bob Bingham on December 13, 2014

The average European produces 8 tons of CO2 a year and the average American about 20 tons. I suspect that the Europeans do not burn as much coal when making electricity and their cars and houses are more efficient. They started on a massive clean up fifty years ago and it is now paying dividends.

Joris van Dorp's picture
Joris van Dorp on December 16, 2014

Thanks Jesse and prof. Karplus,

I’m still wondering which particular measures which ‘clean up the air’ offer ‘substantial carbon reductions in the near term’ in China.

Adding PV and Wind in China will offer some carbon reductions of course, but not ‘substantially’ so, and certainly not ‘in the near term’.

Adding pollution control to existing coal plants, or replacing them with cleaner plants, or moving them away from cities, etc. will offer substantial near-term benefits for cleaner air, but no carbon reductions.

So I am still very puzzled and intrigued.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on December 16, 2014

“poor” Germany, where people live ~2 years longer than in USA,
made great progress emitting now >27% less than the 1990 Kyoto level.
And it has a long term program to decrease further for the next 35years (until 2050).

USA made negative progress, emitting now more than in 1990
And USA has no long term program.

Bas Gresnigt's picture
Bas Gresnigt on December 17, 2014

That’s one of the benefits of a good tax >50% on electricity.
No one will heat his house with it.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

We are always happy to have new members join us in that mission. If you have the knowledge to share, it is easy to post on Energy Central. Once your post is approved, it will be published on our website (with more than 100,000 users/month) and may also be published in one of our newsletters (which have between 10,000 and 60,000 circulation).

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »