Question: Will shared concerns on climate change and the environment help improve relations between China and the international community?

Isabel Hilton

John Kerry, the US climate envoy, speaking at Kew Gardens in London in July, told China that it needed to contribute more to global mitigation efforts. As large areas of the United States burn and much of central China drowns, it is hard to argue with the proposition that more effort is urgently needed, including from China. Just 100 days from COP26, the critical climate conference in Glasgow, warnings are mounting that the world is wildly off track on its Paris Agreement targets, yet last week’s G-20 meeting in Italy failed to produce the agreement that the world needs: Australia, Brazil, Russia and, yes, China refused to endorse either the much overdue phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies or a rapid shut down of coal. As the disintegration of our climate stability speeds up, major emitters like the US and China, along with every developed and many developing countries need to do more. The real question, though, is whether China will be more inclined to greater effort after a public dressing down from a senior US official? The smart money says a resounding no.

The Paris Agreement was helped into existence by a 2015 agreement between Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping to work together to achieve a deal. It was a rare positive aspect of a relationship that was already tense. Today, climate discussions with China are conducted within a framework of hostility on both sides — subject to fringe ultra-nationalist attacks in both the US and China. John Kerry is battling to keep climate communication open with his veteran counterpart Xie Zhenhua, in the teeth of intransigence from Republicans, the lower key reluctance of the Biden State Department and China’s Foreign Ministry, all to break what Kerry calls the climate “suicide pact.” If the Obama-Xi deal brought the US and China together for a common purpose, today that purpose is threatened by domestic politics in both countries. The urgency of the task is written on the faces of Zhengzhou’s flood survivors and of those who mourn, as clearly as on the faces of US citizens whose homes have been swallowed by fire. Climate change could be the route to a more constructive relationship, but the signs so far are not good.

Isabel Hilton is a London-based international journalist and broadcaster. She is the author and co-author of several books and is founder and editor of chinadialogue.net, a non-profit, fully bilingual online publication based in London, Beijing, and Delhi that focuses on the environment and climate change. Hilton holds two honorary doctorates and was awarded the OBE for her work in raising environmental awareness in China.

Christine Loh

The world has signed on to a “Date with Destiny”. In response to the Paris Agreement, governments around the world have pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050-60. This represents a revolution since fossil fuels still provide 83% of the world’s energy. China is the largest carbon emitter, still with 57% coal in its energy mix. Its commitment to achieve peak carbon by 2030 and neutrality by 2060 is extremely ambitious, especially since its energy needs are still rising. China’s efforts are driven by an acceptance of science, and a vision of a sustainable pathway over the next four decades. To decarbonize at speed and scale, it has to transform its economy by ramping down the use of fossil fuels, develop carbon capture technologies, as well as invest heavily in renewables and nuclear, as well as new fuels, such as hydrogen, ammonia and biofuels. As the biggest manufacturing economy in the world, it also has to become “circular” in using resources, that is linking design-production-recycling-remanufacturing into the production chain. Saving energy and water is critical – China is planning to massively improve efficiency aiming at the best standards in the world. It has homegrown strengths in the digital economy, which is essential in managing sustainability. As an agricultural economy, having to feed 1.4 billion people, China is also investing in lowering carbon from this sector, as well as reducing food waste. Restoring ecosystems and biodiversity is now a top priority.

Developing economies are interested in China’s multifaceted policies that reduce poverty and achieve environmental outcomes. South-South dialogues are on-going, as there are similarities among their economies. These positive exchanges may be less visible to developed economies, as media focus centers around climate dialogue between China and the large, developed economies, especially the US and EU. China’s success is vital from the perspective of keeping global temperature rise from preindustrial times to 1.5°C. Of note is its willingness to trial a range of difficult initiatives, including emissions trading and green accounting through piloting Gross Environmental Product (GEP). China has also evinced enthusiasm for cooperation, such as with the EU on GEP, which at a minimum means developed economies should want to keep communication lines open, even when geopolitics is unfavorable. To meet the world’s Date with Destiny, we need “All-Hands-on-Deck”, especially China’s.

Christine Loh is Chief Development Strategist, Institute for the Environment at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. She was previously a Hong Kong legislator and Undersecretary for the Environment, and former CEO of the non-profit think tank Civic Exchange.

Heidi Wang-Kaeding

Efforts to engage China on climate and environmental issues are hindered by two persistent myths that are worth dispelling. The first myth is that the international community and foreign governments need to appease the Chinese government to get China on board in global climate governance. The reasoning behind the myth is the sheer size and impact of China’s carbon emissions. This statement fails to acknowledge the domestic motivation which drives the ruling Communist Party to make an international commitment. The domestic debate of climate change shifted from a scientific debate to a political debate back in the 1990s. It is in the interest of the ruling elites to urgently address the climate crisis and mitigate its adverse impact. China faces significant threats from sea level rise, as Shanghai is declared the most vulnerable city in the world to serious flooding. The ruling elites in China are fully aware of the climate risk. To maintain domestic legitimacy, ignoring climate risk is simply not an option for the Chinese government. Failure to address climate risk undermines the control of the CCP and the economic prosperity promised to its population.

The second myth is that the Chinese government can hold the international community hostage by imposing conditions on climate negotiation. This statement extrapolates the Chinese government’s behaviour in economic statecraft to the domain of global climate politics. Yet, if we look back to the history of China’s environmental diplomacy, the tactic linkage between human rights and environmental issues has also been deployed and used by the Chinese government. The notion of environmental diplomacy was elevated to the diplomatic and political agenda in the aftermath of the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989. The economic sanctions imposed by the US, its allies and the international community pushed the Chinese government into utilising environmental issues to build a positive image. Environmental issues are used as an icebreaker issue to reconnect China with the rest of the world. In other words, pressure on human rights violations has provided a normative and moral incentive for the Chinese government to perform better in the global environmental regime. Human rights and climate change are not a dichotomy and competing issues fighting for our attention. They are artificially pitted against each other as a diplomatic performance.

Heidi Wang-Kaeding is an Assistant Professor in International Relations at Keele University and a co-founder of the Hong Kong Studies Association. Her work focuses primarily on global environmental governance, economic statecraft in East Asia, and the role of emotions in international politics.

Jill Atkins and Longxiang Zhao

An important area of cooperation and shared interest for China and the international community is on biodiversity and the increasingly important discipline of ‘extinction accounting’. Extinction accounting provides a framework for organisations to report on how they are protecting species and biodiversity. The framework encourages organisations to demonstrate how they are acting to save species and the outcomes of these actions. Reducing local extinction rates is a practicable target for companies to disclose and is a globally relevant metric. In China, for example, saving pandas saves an iconic species for its intrinsic value, and from a political, economic and societal perspective, also represents a ‘win-win’ situation. Saving pandas in China, or orangutans in Borneo demonstrates deep commitment to ecological values and manages species-specific financial risk. Extinction accounting enhances the international reputation of a country, confirms ‘we are all in this together’, and more importantly, saves species. As a case study, the panda also has relevance and lessons for all countries.

Pandas? Black and white. Cuddly. WWF Emblem. Chinese animal. Threatened with extinction. National boundaries and notions of developing versus developed economies divide countries but biodiversity collapse is a leveller. All countries face threats from climate change but also from species extinctions. Giant pandas are an interesting case in point given their international profile. Pandas face extinction due to human-induced habitat loss and climate change. Pandas have long been China’s national treasure and pandas are ‘loaned’ by the Chinese government around the world as a tool of diplomacy. Their potential extinction would be detrimental in so many ways: as an ecological disaster but also damaging to the country’s ecological reputation. There have been substantial initiatives aimed at saving pandas and growing their populations, from the Chinese government, international NGOs (e.g., WWF), and Chinese wildlife NGOs (e.g., Shanshui). These efforts have shifted pandas from an ‘endangered’ classification to ‘vulnerable’. Like the ‘Curate’s Egg’ this news is ‘good in parts’. Great panda numbers are higher but worrying they may now not be afforded the same protections. Threats to panda habitat persist and companies still need to contribute to panda protection. We recommend ‘extinction accounting’ as a means of preventing panda extinction, but more importantly it can also be used as a common tool for addressing species extinction in countries around the world.

Jill Atkins holds a Chair in Financial Management at Sheffield University Management School and is also a visiting professor at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Her research focuses on responsible investment, stakeholder accountability, social accounting, integrated reporting and corporate governance. A new book co-edited by Jill Atkins and Martina Macpherson titled “Extinction Governance, Finance and Accounting: Implementing a Species Protection Action Plan for the Financial Markets” is due out in 2021 by Routledge.

Longxiang Zhao is a Research Associate in Sustainable Accounting & Finance at Loughborough University’s School of Business and Economics. His PhD thesis focused on biodiversity accounting and accountability in a Chinese context.

Douglas A. Jaffe

Separating geopolitics and ideology from a shared commitment to stewardship is a challenge in these polarizing times. The jury is out on whether meaningful cooperation on climate and environmental issues can be achieved but there are powerful and self-serving reasons to believe progress is possible. If we remove the better angels of our nature as motivation and focus purely on economic, soft power and technological reasons for pursuing a “green” agenda, there are benefits for first movers. If China and other powers are destined to be strategic competitors, then let them compete for the benefit of the planet. Channel that competition into building and monetizing new technologies necessary to move into a post-carbon economy. Improve your own country’s environment and promote your progress shamelessly and vocally. Instead of making shrill pronouncements about the superiority of your political system, occupy the moral high ground by surpassing competitors with cleaner water, reduced carbon footprint, renewable energy, commitment to biodiversity, green finance, or other positive steps that position your country, economy and ideology favorably, while benefiting us all.

Fortunately, action is not wholly dependent on governments or the ability of countries to cooperate. It helps and can prevent regulatory arbitrage, but it is just one channel. Citizens across the world make choices that shift demand, and companies respond accordingly. The desire for sustainably sourced/packaged goods, green financial products, and a clean environment is bottom-up change that even the most autocratic of governments, or ignorant of political parties, must respect. The customer is still king. Unfortunately, governments can still be part of the problem. For example, will the race for green technology fall prey to the move towards tech decoupling? Can we achieve climate and environmental goals without open access to semiconductors, advanced software, polysilicon or other “sensitive” technologies/materials that politicians may deem critical to national security? Will the vitally important academic and research collaboration necessary for innovation and knowledge transfer be stifled by fear and bigotry? If the health of the planet does fall prey to our worst impulses and the world splits into competing camps, perhaps one saving grace may be that savvy developing nations can play off the superpowers to their own benefit and develop a competitive advantage in terms of better long-term planning and execution of their green strategies.