--- title: U.S.-China Deal: The Answer to the Climate Problem Is Innovation description: It is time the world took climate change seriously and focused on green R&D. canonical: https://time.com/3587188/us-china-climate-deal-empty-promises-innovation/ author: Bjørn Lomborg article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2014-11-15T15:42:36.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-02-21T11:27:48.825Z article:section: Ideas og:title: U.S.-China Deal: The Answer to the Climate Problem Is Innovation og:description: It is time the world took climate change seriously and focused on green R&D. og:url: https://time.com/3587188/us-china-climate-deal-empty-promises-innovation/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 675 og:image:alt: TIME og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: U.S.-China Deal: The Answer to the Climate Problem Is Innovation twitter:description: It is time the world took climate change seriously and focused on green R&D. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltde093bcdab65f2d0/6988d9b9bc6cfc69913e2a3c/time-logo.jpg?branch=production --- # The Answer to the Climate Problem Is Innovation—Not Empty Promises > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=2fac6f25-f8d3-4001-aa67-386c650ff04a&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Subscribers | 430,000 | TIME, August 2026 | | Open rate | 50.7% | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=2fac6f25-f8d3-4001-aa67-386c650ff04a&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=2fac6f25-f8d3-4001-aa67-386c650ff04a&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. It reaches 430,000 subscribers with a 50.7% open rate as of August 2026. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent.  by [Bjørn Lomborg](https://time.com/author/bjorn-lomborg-2/)  ## Bjørn Lomborg Nov 15, 2014 3:42 PM UTC  by [Bjørn Lomborg](https://time.com/author/bjorn-lomborg-2/)  ## Bjørn Lomborg Nov 15, 2014 3:42 PM UTC On Tuesday, China and the U.S. made a joint statement on their intentions to limit their CO₂ emissions. This took part of the media by storm. [CNN](http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html) told us that “U.S. and China reach historic climate change deal.” The [Los Angeles _Times_](http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-obama-xi-climate-change-20141111-story.html#page=1) wrote it was a “landmark climate deal” and [Huffington Post](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/us-china-climate-change%5Fn%5F6142978.html) saw “Ambitious Climate Change Goals.” But this is mostly wishful thinking, and worse, it is starting to look an awful lot like the original “solution” to global warming, the Kyoto Protocol, which consisted of mostly broken promises. The actual U.S.-China statement hedges itself to make no new obligations: “The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26% to 28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO₂ emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of nonfossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030\. Both sides intend to continue to work to increase ambition over time.” China is essentially just promising what it was already going to do. In the International Energy Agency’s baseline scenario, China would see its CO₂ emissions peak in 2030\. Even if China were not going to add a single new climate policy from today to 2030, the energy agency expects China would almost peak its emissions in 2030\. And it will peak at about 10 to 12 gigatons, or 25% to 50% higher than today, where China’s emissions make up more than a quarter of the whole world’s CO₂ emissions. Many, including [CNN](http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/12/world/us-china-climate-change-agreement/index.html), also said that China will get “20% of its energy from renewable resources by 2030.” But they promised only nonfossil fuels — and promised little they wouldn’t already be doing. In the baseline scenario of the IEA, China would get 18% of its energy from nonfossil fuels. However, solar and wind will make up only a bit more than 3%, whereas the rest comes from 5.5% nuclear and 3% hydro. The biggest part will come from 6% wood, which [by 2030](http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/resources/energydevelopment/energyaccessprojectionsto2030/) will still power the cook stoves of more than 240 million Chinese, contributing to devastating indoor air pollution, likely killing more than half a million people each year. In many ways, these promises resemble the [one the Chinese made](http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/chinas-carbon-intensity-pledge.html) leading up to the Copenhagen negotiations in 2009\. Here they promised they would emit 40% to 45% less CO₂ per dollar of GDP by 2020, and back then it was similarly hailed as a big breakthrough. However, China was also then promising to do essentially business as usual as projected by the IEA. The target that Obama is offering is, on the other hand, a real and significant reduction. Without any new climate policies, the shale-gas revolution will see U.S. emissions reduced by 11% in 2025, so getting an extra 16 percentage points would require a lot of new, stringent climate policies. But clearly Obama lacks any legislative basis for making such a promise. In fact, this is reminiscent of Al Gore going to Kyoto in 1998\. Back then, a Senate resolution with 95 votes to zero had already established that the U.S. would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Consequently, the Clinton Administration never submitted Kyoto for ratification, but it still promised a 7% cut by 2008–12\. In fact, the U.S. saw a [9% increase](http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news%5Fdocs/pbl-2013-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2013-report-1148.pdf) in its CO₂ emissions over the period — ironically 16 percentage points more, just like Obama is now promising. For the past 20 years the main solution to global warming seems to have been grandiose promises of reductions that rarely materialize. [Remember Canada](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada%5Fand%5Fthe%5FKyoto%5FProtocol) promising a 6% reduction at Kyoto but delivering a 24% increase? There is a real climate problem, and climate economics shows that there is a smart way to fix it. If we invest dramatically more in green innovation we can eventually solve the problem. If we can innovate the price of green energy down below fossil fuels, _everyone_ will buy it, including the Chinese and the Indians. The Americans have spent $10 billion on research into shale gas, which has now spurred a great switch from coal to cheaper and less polluting gas. This has reduced U.S. emissions by about 300 million tons of CO₂ per year, while making the U.S. about $200 billion more in GDP. Compare this with the European approach, which has cut just 91 million tons of CO₂ with solar and wind, but _costs_ $40 billion in subsidies each year. If we spent $100 billion per year on green research, it would likely cut long-term emissions dramatically, and every dollar spent would do about $11 worth of good. Yet, the China-U.S. agreement seems to suggest that the world is rather going to replay the Kyoto strategy of making empty promises. Kyoto lost us 20 years, and if we’re not careful, we may again in 2030 be standing with little progress. It is time the world took climate change seriously and focused on green R&D instead. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/3587188/us-china-climate-deal-empty-promises-innovation/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/3587188/us-china-climate-deal-empty-promises-innovation/"},"headline":"The Answer to the Climate Problem Is Innovation—Not Empty Promises","datePublished":"2014-11-15T15:42:36.000Z","dateModified":"2026-02-21T11:27:48.825Z","description":"It is time the world took climate change seriously and focused on green R&D.","url":"https://time.com/3587188/us-china-climate-deal-empty-promises-innovation/","keywords":["world affairs"],"thumbnailUrl":"","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Bjørn Lomborg","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/bjorn-lomborg-2/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/world-affairs/","name":"world affairs"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/3587188/us-china-climate-deal-empty-promises-innovation/","name":"The Answer to the Climate Problem Is Innovation—Not Empty Promises"}}]}] ```