URBAN CLIMATE DIPLOMACY: OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES FOR CITIES TO IMPROVE THE U.S.-CHINA BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP JOSEPH WALDOW

Joseph Waldow

URBAN CLIMATE DIPLOMACY:

OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES

FOR CITIES TO IMPROVE

THE U.S.-CHINA BILATERAL

RELATIONSHIP

As the U.S.- China relations crumble at the national level through contention of the latter’s Belt and Road initiative, Huawei disagreements, and an ongoing trade war in which each nation continues to respond to one another with retaliatory tariffs in the tens of billions there is an understanding that tensions are high between the two world powers. Yet just as these economic disputes send shocks across the globe, so do the country’s industrial carbon footprints. Today, China and the United States are the world’s largest overall emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). Looking toward the next several decades, maintained cooperation between China and the United States will be paramount to reaching the necessary greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions to lessen the impacts of climate change. Both states need not only improve upon and implement their own climate policy actions domestically but do so in a collaborative way that shows the rest of the world that they have followed through on their responsibilities. If they can honor these commitments, other countries will know their own climate policies will be meaningful, and not futile in the face of noncompliance by China or the U.S. Doing this will require not only a radical structuring of industry, transportation, and energy in each state, but ambitious negotiation and cooperation between the United States and China.

Climate change has been a powerful component of U.S.-China cooperation for decades. Under the Obama Administration, the focus on climate policy drove both countries to engage in collaborative policy exchange, develop technology, and shape global climate agreements. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2017 has signaled a total retreat from these exchanges at the national level. These challenges to national-level climate action have kickstarted a reorganization of traditional diplomatic approaches toward cooperation among sub-national actors like cities and NGOs. The ineffectiveness of national-level actors in the United States has caused heads to turn toward subnational approaches and provide a new opportunity for an emerging political will.

Despite a new Washington consensus emerging against China, there has been a longstanding history of cities taking positions and making decisions on climate collaboratively with international actors like China. Yet now more than ever, these cultural, educational, and economic exchanges taking place on a city- -to-city level between the two powers is emerging as a

more robust and flexible form of U.S.-China cooperation. Outside of coordinated international networks are an array of informal and formal partnerships across the public, private, and civic sectors in U.S. cities and their Chinese counterparts. With no fewer than 201 existing city-city-partnerships between the United States and China, there exists enormous potential for building upon existing sister-city infrastructure to bolster subnational climate diplomacy through bilateral agreements and policy idea exchange on mitigation and adaptation efforts.

Globalization has ushered in an era of unprecedented communication, trade, and economic investment in large urban centers, allowing for the pushing of local interests and policy priorities onto the global stage. Today, cities are responsible for 70% of GHG emissions. By 2030, there will be 41 megacities with populations of more than 10 million, and urban areas overall will have 70 million more inhabitants. Efforts to ensure cities get a seat at the table in international processes are already well underway. As Michele Acuto has documented, the number of coordinating international networks of cities on climate change and sustainability, such as the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, has increased by more than a third since 2001. Altogether, the collective efforts of cities and regions have begun to break down the traditional 9hierarchy of diplomacy and shift ability away from the nation-state toward a range of levels and interests to participate on the international stage. The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is just one of a host of examples that point to the traditional structures of international diplomacy being ineffective. Ideological inflexibility, intangibility, and idealism have made the nation-state incapable of the necessary cooperation and compromise needed to address climate change.

Already, U.S. mayors are forming partnerships with cities that extend beyond the mostly ceremonial and ritualistic framework of sister-city partnerships. In 2013, the state of California partnered with Shenzhen to collaborate on policy practices for developing cap-and-trade programs, mutually growing low-carbon markets, and reducing GHG emissions. Portland, Oregon developed a strategic partnership with its sister-city of Kunming, Yunnan province to create an exchange of technical policy aimed at improving each other’s public transportation infrastructure and growth management boundaries. And Los Angeles has fostered climate leadership partnerships focused on limiting GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 with the cities of Zhenjiang, Beijing, and Shenzhen. Exam-

US-China discussions over trade, 2019; Wikimedia public domain

ples of cross-collaboration on climate policy are not only restricted to large metropolitan cities, but also through various western Chinese counterparts. Boulder, Colorado developed extended its sister-city partnership with Lhasa, Tibet to focus on policies aimed at reducing vehicular emissions. Albuquerque, New Mexico engages in several inter-university research initiatives on clean energy with its sister city of Lanzhou, Gansu. More informal meetings are showing how local leaders can collaborate on shared learning from peer experience. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto recently met with Vice Premier Liu Yadong and officials from the ministry of science and technology to discuss how Pittsburgh overcame its dependency on steel production to become the technology and healthcare center that it is today. With so many of China’s urban centers having traditionally prioritized 14 industrial manufacturing in the past two decades, lessons from America’s rust belt cities can prove worthwhile as China shifts away from smokestack chasing toward efforts to develop strategic renewable industries and reduce conventional air pollution within the central planning process. These interactions exemplify a localized approach to diplomacy that is actively creating lasting rapport, trust, and substantive policy improvements as a result of peer-to-peer exchange.

Comparing China & U.S. Capacities for Subnational Climate Diplomacy

While the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) maintains authority over the climate policymaking apparatus at the highest levels vis-a-vis the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Central Committee, matters of implementation and specific programming are transferred downstream toward subnational provincial, county, city, or local governments. Although major laws are indeed created by the NPC, these laws are merely foundational for substantive policy documents developed at the various levels down the hierarchy. Hence, climate-related decrees have been released at various subnational levels, particularly in large urban centers ; for example, a provision for the legal basis for the regional cap-and-trade system in Shenzhen was passed by the Shenzhen Municipal People’s Congress in 2012. As a result of this localization, municipal governments in major Chinese cities have become better equipped to organize amongst themselves to engage in ad-hoc climate diplomacy through initiatives like the Alliance for Peaking Pioneer Cities (APPC) at the U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change in 2014; whereby 21 participating cities pledged to peak their emissions before the national target date of 2030. In the United States, local governments at the city level have been much more informed in climate action policy at the international level. To date, 159 cities and counties are participating in the United Nation’s Cities for Climate Protection program whereby they agree to receive technical assistance and training on accelerating GHG reduction policies. In addition, 21 US cities hold much more flexibility in signing on to international climate agreements aimed at broad policy goals like GHG emission targets. While they can take on certain adaptation commitments, it is much more common for local governments to informally indicate support for country-level climate action like the Paris Agreements in the form of domestic legislation or policy efforts. And while states are formally forbidden from entering into agreements with other governments per Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, local governments have found ways to go around constitutional authority through non-binding or obligatory memorandums of understanding to support the Paris Agreement. Yet while cities in the United States and China are more networked than ever in the fight against climate change, their potential to bridge the current divide is hampered by obstructed by poor collaboration with the federal government, a lack of funding for city-to-city partnerships, and meager data collection and policy exchange. While U.S. cities carry far more jurisdictional power than Chinese cities, they carry limited authority and are bound by the geographic scope of the city itself. Key aspects of

climate governance policy remain out of jurisdictional authority, and more attention has historically been paid to the adaptation of existing agreements rather than city-wide mitigation efforts.

Also, many partnerships are ad hoc and lack coordination within the context of greater national interests. Indeed, the Obama Administration had sought to increase the strength of international city-to-city relationships through an office for a Special Representative for Global Intergovernmental Affairs, but it was left vacant in Obama’s second term. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that the position is filled with just two full-time staff members who track and support subnational diplomacy efforts via local outreach. Without these resources in place, the State Department will continue to be unable to harness the powers of state and city governments to advance U.S. interests abroad. Other efforts at the federal government level to coordinate subnational diplomatic efforts have deflated. CityLinks, an initiative set up between International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide technical assistance to policy practitioners at the city and county level, has not updated its website since Fall of 2016.

What Can Be Done to Increase Capacity for U.S. Cities?

For U.S. cities to develop successful networks with China, they need to be provided with advisory and capacity building resources, harness the full power of the private and civic sectors, and be better supported financially and politically. Even with such examples of exceptional progress, limits on subnational diplomacy in the climate policy area should not be understated.

Cities possess no constitutional basis on which to negotiate substantive treaties or trade agreements. Local governments are strictly bound by their geography in matters relating to national security, revenue streams, and organizational capacity. Even in major cities with staff dedicated to international affairs, teams are generally small and can only do so much with the data, funding, and staff that they possess. As a result, I propose several trajectories whereby city diplomacy can be strengthened as a more robust form of U.S.-China climate cooperation.

(1) The U.S. Department of State should increase resources for Sister Cities International. In 2005, the State Department provided the Sister Cities International Network just $400,285 in grant aid, most of which went to training. For many municipal budgets, Sister Cities remains a 28 line item falling under tourism departments, with average budgets of under $25,000. Peer-to-Peer exchange has proven remarkably effective in allowing leaders to manage, share, and analyze insights, successes, and failures. Increasing the capacity and importance of the existing Sister Cities infrastructure can strengthen these peer exchange networks.

(2) The U.S. Department of State should also provide capacity support to trade delegations and intermediary networks being pursued by city entities. Additional needs may be required for resources, leverage tools, and coordinate diplomatic efforts with cities to ensure that communication channels work within broader strategic interests Pressure should be mounted to advocate for an existing bill sitting in the Foreign Affairs Committee that seeks to broaden subnational diplomacy resources. The City and State Diplomacy Act, introduced by Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) aims to establish a dedicated office of Subnational Diplomacy within the Department of State whereby to oversee local and municipal diplomatic programs.

(3) The U.S. and China should enhance mutual investment and joint data-driven research development among universities, businesses, non-profits, think-tanks, and other local entities. This will require that cities’ offices of international affairs coordinate with other municipalities to manage, share, and analyze data. Data should be accessible, transparent, and standardized for all sectors to use collaboratively. For inspiration, we can look to existing organizations like the Energy Foundation China, a San Francisco based non-profit, assists in capacity building and research on development and climate challenges at the national and municipal levels. The Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s China Energy Group and the Rocky Mountain Institute also play importance in clean energy centered policy exchange in the spirit of cross-collaboration at municipal and provincial levels.

(4) Cities should reach out to all forms of civic and private capital for new strategies for communication and innovation. As subnational diplomacy is undergirded by cultural and economic exchanges, financial intermediaries like the Bay Area Council’s China Initiative are one of dozens of organizations across California bridging the divide between local markets in the Bay Area/ Silicon Valley and the cities of Yangpu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, and Beijing. Voluntary organizations and associations that recognize these concerns within the realm of the trade agenda or educational exchange can facilitate even more open platforms and networks for policy idea exchange.

While developing a framework for local leaders may face risks, obstacles, and challenges, it remains imperative that cities fill their roles as global actors not only as of the gap filler in U.S.-China relations, but in the fight against global change. Through the role of local leaders in the public, private, and civic sectors, cities can create more modes of cooperation, policy idea exchange, and strengthen the overall bilateral relationship between the U.S. and China. As the next decade looms over us, the coming years will no doubt test the United States’ relationship with China, and climate policy may continue to be put on the backburner of bilateral cooperation. In the face of disengagement by the federal government on supporting collaborative climate change agreements, cities will need to reach out to new partners for collaboration to extend beyond the purview of a gridlocked federal government. It cannot be ignored that with this call to capacity building, there exists the possibility of conflict between federal and municipal sectors. As is with the case of the formation of any new international political body, the rise of the city-state will bring about new opportunities- and new challenges into the fore.

Bibliography “2013 Annual Report,” R20, https://regions20.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/r20-annualreport-2013.pdf. Pp.20. A. Michael Armstrong, B. Xuehai Wang, and C. Chong Tang. “Accelerating low-carbon development in Portland, Oregon and Kunming, Yunnan” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 7, 041508 (2015); doi: 10.1063/1.4928418 Acuto, Michele. “Give Cities a Seat at the Top Table.” Nature 537, no. 7622 (September 28, 2016): 611–13. https://doi. org/10.1038/537611a. Bay Area Council China Initiative. https://www.bayareacouncil.org/issues-initiatives/china-policy-overview/. Biniaz, Susan. (2017) Act Locally, Reflect Globally: A Checklist of Options for U.S. Cities and States to Engage Internationally in Climate Action. Columbia Law School: Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2017/05/Biniaz-May_2017-Act-Locally-Reflect-Globally-.pdf Boden, T.A., Marland, G., and Andres, R.J. (2017). National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, CementManufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2014, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017. Bulkeley, Harriet, and Vanesa Castan Broto (2013) “Government by experiment? Global Cities and the governing of climate change” In. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38(3): 361-375. Council on Foreign Relations. “Creating a State Department Office for American State and Local Diplomacy” Council on Foreign Relations. June 07, 2017. CityLinks. icma.org. https://icma.org/citylinks. Energy Foundation China. http://www.efchina.org/ Falkner et al. (2010) “International climate policy after Copenhagen: Towards a 'building blocks' approach.” Global Policy 1(3) Gallagher, Kelly Sims and Xiaowei Xuan. Titans of the Climate: Explaining Policy Process in the United States and China. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019. Pp 52-53. Hu, An’ gang, and Qingyou Guan. 2008. Tackling Climate Change in China. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. H.R. 3571, 116th Congress. (2019). Interview Transcript with representative of Lanzhou Municipal Foreign Affairs Office, December 8, 2009. Joanna I. Lewis, The State of U.S.-China Relations on Climate Change: Examining the Bilateral and Multilateral Relationship, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, China Environment Series 11 (2010): 7–39. John Kincaid (1999) The international competence of US states and their local governments, Regional & Federal Studies, 9:1, 111-133, DOI: 10.1080/13597569908421074 Katz, Bruce and Norwak, Jeremy. The New Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2017. Pp. 19-20 LBL China Energy Group.https://china.lbl. gov/about-us. Mayor's Fund for Los Angeles. Mayor Garcetti, Gov. Brown and Chinese Officials Sign Landmark U.S.-China Climate Leaders Declaration. Los Angeles: September 15,2015. McGranahan, G. & Satterthwaite, D. Urbanisation Concepts and Trends (IIED), 2014 Rocky Mountain Institute. 2017. “City Peaking Handbook.” Rocky Mountain Institute China Program. https://rmi.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/12/RMI_City_Peaking_Decaboization_Handb ook.pdf Shan, Weijan. “The Unwinnable Trade War: Everyone Loses in the U.S.-Chinese Clash-but Especially Americans.” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2019. Shenzhen People’s Government. 2014. “Decree of the Shenzhen Municipal People’s Government (no.262): Interim Measures of Shenzhen for Administration of Carbon Emission Trading.” Shenzhen People’s Government. http://www. sz.gov.cn/zfgb/2014/gb876/201404/t20140402_2335498.htm Sister Cities International. 2015. “A study on the economic benefits of sister city relationships in the U.S. and their impact on the global economy 2014-2015.” https://sistercities.org/ wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Measures-that-Matter.pdf. The Government of California of the United States of America and The Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China. Memorandum of Understanding on Research, Innovation, and Investment to Advance Cooperation on Low-Carbon Development and Clean Energy Resources. 2017. https://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/intergovernmental/MOU-China_ Ministry_of_Science_and_Technology.pdf United States Department of State, U.S.-China Memorandum of Understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment, July 28, 2009, https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/126592. htm. Ver der Pluijm, R. and Melissen, J. (2007) “City Diplomacy: The Expanding Role of Cities.” Clingendael: Netherlands Institute of International Relations Wallace, Elliot. “Sister Cities: Linking communities in China and the US. “China Global Television Network. April 7, 2017. https://america.cgtn.com/2017/04/07/china-us-sister-cities Wang, Eddy. “Pittsburgh is the first stop for Vice Premier Liu Yadong.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh), July 19, 2019. Yeh, Anthony. "Urban Growth and Spatial Development: The China Case." In Global Urbanization, edited by Birch Eugenie L. and Wachter, Susan M., 67-86. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.Pp. 80-81.