Follow us on social

2023-07-17t012947z_247520996_rc2o42angwoa_rtrmadp_3_china-usa-climate

Amid fires, floods, and scorched earth, Kerry arrives in China for reset

The US climate envoy and his counterpart opened discussions Monday — but are they talking as if the planet depended on it?

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

The wildfires, floods, and record temperatures hitting America and the world this month underscore the vital importance of John Kerry’s efforts to revive U.S.-China climate talks during his trip to Beijing. 

The U.S. climate envoy kicked off three days of talks in China on Monday. Earlier discussions had been suspended in the wake of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s controversial visit to Taiwan in the summer of 2022.

Restoring meaningful climate U.S.-China cooperation— as Secretary Antony Blinken rightly pledged during his recent visit to China — is among the Biden administration’s most consequential diplomatic goals. The future of our planet depends on the two countries getting it right. Kerry struck the right note prior to his meeting with his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua, stating that the world demands “we make progress rapidly and significantly.

For his part, Xie said at the beginning of the meeting Monday that he hoped the two nations were entering a period of “stable relations, and that they should “seek common ground while shelving our differences” and called for talks to be “candid and in-depth.”

It is true that our two nations must overcome their deep mutual distrust quickly to forge climate cooperation if we’re to have any hope of reducing global emissions fast enough to blunt the worst climate impacts, and begin helping countries adapt to warming that’s already baked in. 

But Washington and Beijing alike must recognize this is a two-way street. The dynamic cannot be just one side acting as the moral arbiter — telling the other what to do and then penalizing it for not responding. Both have to ask more of each other, separately and jointly.

There’s no question that the surge in China's coal use is a threat to the planet; Kerry will be right to pressure the Chinese to do more to address this. But the United States should similarly be prepared to discuss its own role in erecting barriers to global emissions reductions, such as tariffs on clean energy products, Washington’s expansion of domestic fossil projects, and the major deficit America is running on international climate financing to the Green Climate Fund and other similar organizations. 

It would be helpful if China contributed to international climate financing and Kerry will doubtlessly encourage it to do so. But the onus on this, as defined in the UNFCCC framework agreements, falls on countries with far higher standards of living such as the United States. Kerry recently flatly said the United States would, under “no circumstances,” contribute to the new loss and damage fund that has been agreed upon at last year’s climate talks to compensate poorer countries for irreversible damage from climate change.

Both China and the United States should also work to reduce methane emissions and share best practices on renewable electricity integration into the grid, as per their joint statement during the 2021 COP26 in Glasgow. But they should go beyond these. Hard-to-decarbonize industrial and longer-distance transport sectors will benefit greatly from intensive scientific and technical cooperation between the two countries. 

Washington and Beijing can also work together to increase humanitarian assistance and disaster relief preparedness in the regions that are most vulnerable to extreme weather in the Global South, like parts of Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa.


U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry shakes hands with his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua before a meeting in Beijing, China July 17, 2023. REUTERS/Valerie Volcovici
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Nuclear missile
Top image credit: Zack Frank

Put this nuclear missile on the back of a truck — but we still don't need it

Military Industrial Complex

Last week, analysts from three think tanks penned a joint op-ed for Breaking Defense to make the case for mobilizing the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program, a pivot from one exceedingly costly approach to nuclear modernization to another.

After Sentinel faced a 37 percent cost overrun in early 2024, the Pentagon was forced to inform Congress of the cost spike, assess the root causes, and either cancel the program or certify it to move forward under a restructured approach. The Pentagon chose to certify it, but not before noting that the restructured program would actually come in 81 percent over budget.

keep readingShow less
Maduro, Trump
Top photo credit: Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro (Shutterstock/stringerAL) ; President Donald Trump (Shutterstock/a katz)

Why we need to take Trump's Drug War very seriously

Latin America

Donald Trump has long been a fan of using the U.S. military to wage a more vigorous war against drug cartels in Latin America. He also shows signs of using that justification as a pretext to oust regimes considered hostile to other U.S. interests.

The most recent incident in the administration’s escalating antidrug campaign took place on October 3 when “Secretary of War” Mike Hegseth announced that U.S. naval forces had sunk yet another small boat off of the coast of Venezuela. It was one of four destroyed vessels and a total of 21 people killed since late September. The administration claims they were all trying to ship illegal drugs to the United States.

keep readingShow less
Israel Gaza deal
Top photo credit: United States and Israel flags are projected on the walls of the Old city of Jerusalem in celebration after Israel and Hamas agreed to the first phase of U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to end the war in Gaza, October 9, 2025. REUTERS/Sinan Abu Mayzer

Will this deal work? Netanyahu has gamed everything his way so far.

Middle East

Two years into the Gaza conflict and perhaps on the cusp of a successful phased ceasefire, what can we say?

On the basis of media reporting about Yahya Sinwar’s strategic rationale for attacking Israel on October 7, 2023, it seems that he believed Israel was on the brink of civil war and that the impact of a large-scale assault would severely erode its political stability. He believed that Hamas’s erstwhile allies, especially Hizballah and Iran, would open offensives against Israel, which, in combination with Hamas’s invasion, would stretch the nation’s military capabilities to the breaking point.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.