NRDC Offers Tips to Secretary Clinton on China

Perhaps no administration in the history of the US has had such a complicated set of tasks laid out before them, as this week Secretary Hillary Clinton’s trip through Asia highlighted.

During her time in China, there is surely no lack of topics to discuss, but for those of us at CGC and at the NRDC, the discussions that will occur on the topics of global warming will be of most important.

to prep her, the NRDC has put together a list of recommendations that they would like for her to consider:

1. Engage in serious bilateral meetings on climate change and address the key sticking points to reach meaningful agreement in Copenhagen in December 2009
2. Establish a US–China forum on climate change strategies that promote green jobs and economic recovery
3. Mobilize the untapped potential of energy efficiency
4. Assist in the deployment of renewable energy sources and technologies
5. Promote low-carbon, high-efficiency vehicles, fuels, transportation systems, and community development
6. Expand research and investment on carbon capture and storage technology
7. Improve greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and data transparency
8. Conduct co-benefit analysis on GHG emissions controls
9. Invest in regular exchanges and sharing of expertise to improve enforcement of environmental law and energy efficiency standards

It is a list that I think, from the environmentalist perspective, is quite complete.  It prmotes dialogue, new technologies, and cap/trade.

However, this list is complete in my eyes for several reasons:

1)Its sole focus is really on “global warming”, which while not a wrong approach, should be tweeked to be broader based.  It is not jsut about the orb heating up, but about managing land, water, industry, people, etc.

I am not saying that “global warming” isn’t important, but to solve the core issues to “global warming” we need to get past the solar panels and hybrid cars.

2) It largely looks at the problems from an environmental NGO perspective, which is to say that it does not present a business case for developing solutions

3) It does not mention the role of trade, and potential opportunities there.

Focusing on improving the logistics sector, ports, materials, etc are all going to be hugely important, and very relevant for the bigger conversations the two sides will be engaged in.

4) It looks to seperate the “global warming” discussion from the rest, when this discussion should be interwoven.

The notion that the world can grow under the engine of consumption is a theory that has economic, political, and environmental ramifications, and framing the discussions in that manner (allow for breakouts of staffers) is perhaps going to be more effective in moving out of this rut.

So, to that end, I would add the following:

1) discuss the role that US manufacturing moving to China adds to the CO2 output of China, and discus regulations/ technologies that can be developed on both sides that will develop global manufacturing standards (not local +).

2) A dicussion the issues of how economic growht has recently stressed the availability of resources, and that while the world may be retracting now, those limits will be tested again.  i.e. we need to find a more efficient way to move economies forward or risk environmental collapse (micro and macro).

3) Develop a framework that not only highlights technological solutions, but works to reduce currently waste.  Identify industries to target for clean up, target firms on both sides, and develop a structure with targets in the 3-5, 6-8, 10-15 ranges.

4) Make both CURRENT administrations responsible for progress.  No more we will do X by 2020 statements.

5) Both make the commitment to abandon old lines in the sand.  Unlike Bush Sr.’s sttement in Rio, The American lifestyle is up for negotation, and while China would like to say that they have the right to develop like everyone esle.. it is true, but if it comes at the cost of its environment, than nothing will be gained anyway.