ShareThis Page
What the U.S.-China climate deal means to the world |

What the U.S.-China climate deal means to the world

The Associated Press
In this Feb. 26, 2014 file photo, children walk back home after school on a severely polluted day in Shijiazhuang, in northern China's Hebei province. A groundbreaking agreement struck Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2014, by the United States and China puts the world's two worst polluters on a faster track to curbing the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming.
In this Feb. 26, 2014 file photo, children walk back home after school on a severely polluted day in Shijiazhuang, in northern China's Hebei province. A groundbreaking agreement struck Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2014, by the United States and China puts the world's two worst polluters on a faster track to curbing the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming.

STOCKHOLM — The world’s outlook for reaching a global climate deal next year brightened Wednesday as China and the U.S. — the top two polluters — presented a joint plan to limit emissions of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that are blamed for warming the planet.

The unexpected move was praised worldwide as a historic step in the fight against climate change, though some analysts said the targets aren’t ambitious enough to prevent global warming from reaching dangerous levels.

The announcements from the American and Chinese presidents, Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, drew praise from environmentalists who had feared China’s desire for fast growth and Obama’s weakened political standing might prevent such action.

They were a less welcome surprise for U.S. Republicans, who will take control of Congress next year. They pointed out that the deal lets China keep increasing emissions while U.S. has to cut.

Here are some questions and answers about the significance of the announcement and the challenges that lie ahead for the United States and China — and for the rest of the world — as they negotiate an elusive climate pact that’s supposed to be adopted in Paris next year.


China, whose emissions are rising as it builds new coal plants to fuel its economic growth, set a target for its emissions to peak in 2030 or earlier. That’s the first time China has set a deadline for stopping its emissions growth. China also said it would increase the share of clean energy sources like wind and solar power to 20 percent by 2030, about double what it is today.

The U.S. set a goal to make its 2025 emissions between 26 and 28 percent lower than they were in 2005. That would be faster than previous goals, and the Obama administration says it would help the U.S. achieve its longer-term goal of bringing emissions 80 percent lower than 2005 by 2050. U.S. emissions peaked in 2007, but about half the reductions since have been due to the recession. Emissions increased last year.


China is the biggest source of greenhouse gas pollution, pumping out about a quarter of the world’s emissions. The U.S. is No. 2 with about 15 percent. The two countries are often adversaries at U.N. climate talks, and their unprecedented joint announcement sends an important signal that a deal is possible next year. Last month, the European Union said that its 2030 emissions would be 40 percent lower than in 1990. With pledges from the top three emitters on the table a year ahead of the Paris climate summit, pressure now builds on other countries including India, Russia and Japan to present their own targets.

Guri Bang, of the CICERO environmental research group in Norway, has followed the international climate talks for 15 years. She said that for the first time since a failed summit in Copenhagen in 2009, there is now “reason to be positive” about the negotiations.


In the last global emissions pact, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, rich countries took on legally binding commitments while developing countries did not. Many developing countries want that arrangement preserved in next year’s deal, while developed countries including the United States — which didn’t sign up for Kyoto — don’t. And in fact, for the United States, any binding treaty would have little chance of being ratified by Congress.

Rich countries agreed in 2009 to jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries cut their emissions and adapt to rising seas, desertification and other fallout from climate change. Developing countries want the rich nations to make firm commitments to live up to their pledges.


It’s difficult to assess the impact because China isn’t committing to a specific level of emissions. China’s target is for when emissions should stop rising — not how high they should reach. Also, it’s unclear whether China’s emissions would plateau or decline quickly after that. Either way, China’s increases between now and 2030 will dwarf any decreases the U.S. can achieve, scientists tracking global emissions told The Associated Press, meaning global emissions will continue to rise.

Global temperatures have risen 1.4 F since pre-industrial times, and the U.N. climate talks are aimed at keeping that number from topping 3.2 degrees F. The U.N.’s expert panel says that would require cutting global emissions by 40-70 percent by 2050 and to zero by the end of the century.


Coal still fuels about 80 percent of China’s electricity, and heavy industries such as steel, cement and chemicals heavily depend on coal. Moving away from that will require China to transform the very makeup of its economy. The government has already been trying to boost less polluting sectors of the economy, such as high-tech, and in fact coal use fell by a percentage point last year. Still, quitting coal will require a massive investment in natural gas and renewable energy.


A significant proportion of the reductions Obama promised hinge on cutting carbon pollution from coal-fired plants. But Republicans are fighting the plans both at the state level and in Congress.

Lawsuits have already been filed against the proposals, setting the stage for a lengthy battle that’s likely to continue well beyond Obama’s term. The new pollution standards could face further obstacles if the next president doesn’t support them.


Since they began more than two decades ago, the U.N. climate talks have been bogged down by arguments between rich and poor countries over who should do what to fix global warming. Rich countries say developing countries need to act because they account for most of the growth. Developing countries say the rich have already pumped out so much pollution for so long that they should take the lead.

The U.S. and China have been on opposite sides of that debate, which is why their joint announcement is seen as such a breakthrough.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.