UK Committee On Climate Change To Collaborate With China
The United Kingdom’s Committee on Climate Change will collaborate with its Chinese counterpart to assess climate change risk.
A Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the UK’s Committee on Climate Change and the China National Expert Committee on Climate Change at an official signing ceremony held at the COP21 United Nations climate negotiations currently being held in Paris, France. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) initiates two years of collaboration between the two organizations, focusing on climate change risk assessment, which will result in a joint work program to be delivered between January 2016 and June 2018.
The meeting was chaired by Professor Jiankun He, the director of Low Carbon Economy Lab of Tsinghua University, who said that “risk management is the key to combating climate change.” Lord Deben, Chairman of the UK Committee on Climate Change, who was also in attendance at the signing, said that “to cooperate with [China] … will help us to think not just about today and tomorrow but the day after tomorrow.”
Interestingly, both China and the UK are being targeted by critics for their stance at the Paris climate talks.
As has been seen throughout 2015, the United Kingdom has been slowly ramping down its support of certain renewable energy technologies — including solar and onshore wind, and ending various government schemes. China, on the other hand, while steaming forward in terms of clean energy deployment at home, has reportedly been roadblocking the climate negotiations in Paris. One negotiator was quoted saying “it is very frustrating,” referring to China’s alleged attempts to weaken the new climate deal currently being negotiated.
Despite their actions in Paris, however, the UK and China both have a long and proven track record of supporting renewable energy development, and the UK has an even longer history of strong action against climate change. This new partnership, following an agreement made in October between UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Chinese President Xi Jinping during the latter’s state visit in October, is likely to be a strong step forward for two nations that are in need of some good publicity.
Image Credit: The MoU was signed by CCC Chairman Lord Deben and Chairman of the China National Expert Committee Mr. Du Xiangwan, via Bob Phillipson
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
You guys are doing a great job keeping us up-to-speed. This China/UK deal looks promising. If anyone reading this is a US citizen, you should vote for your state US senator who supports climate change action. Period. No, being a libertarian is not an excuse. US senate controls all foreign agreements through ratification. We’re basically at Paris in spirit, since technically US may not be willing to pay a dime into mitigation and adaptation action funds. Congress controls the purse. Our politics are that screwed up. Even China is making us look like idiots.
Is this China the same place where the capital’s air is so bad citizens are told to stay home from work? Is that the model the US should follow? Should we sign wonderful agreements that likely won’t be followed Just to look good. No, continue the wonderful work our free market economy is providing. Just saying. Lou Gage
Pay attention to how aggressively China is installing wind and solar.
yes they are apparently. But isn’t China the same place where not long ago it was reported that they were some “errors” in reporting their pollution levels? They have a long way to go and movement to clean air will be an uneven one fraught with uneven advances. My point is we , as a whole seem to be doing quite well in advances and sharing that advancement with the world through our capitalistic system. Just saying. Lou Gage
I believe that the coal use levels had to be restated. That does not mean that the reported cut in coal use was incorrect.