Can U.S. and Chinese governments keep their promises?

This is an image from the New York Times. Hopefully, Mr. Xi and Mr. Obama can stay close as this for the next two years.

Few days ago, the U.S. and Chinese governments have announced their agreement on the climate deal of curbing Carbon emission. President Obama pledged that the U.S. government will reduce greenhouse gas emission by at least 26 percent below its 2005 levels until 2025. In response to this, Mr. Xi, the president of China, promised that the Chinese government will set 2030 as the peak of Carbon emissions and increase consumption of the renewable energy.

Immediately, the announcement drew mixed responses. The agreement holds a significance in its demonstration of the possibility that these two countries can coordinate for the following decades. This deal also dispels the worries that were formed five years ago at the UN’s Copenhagen climate conference when the conflicts between these two countries rendered the buoyed ambiance of the conference room uncomfortable. Yet, some critics remain skeptical and predict that the two countries’ distinctive leadership and government structure would hinder both of them from keeping promises in their own ways

In fact, this argument has fair reasoning behind. In regard to China, the autocratic power held by Mr. Xi still raises uncertainty. Mr. Xi whose authority is assessed as equal to that of Mao Zedong, the last Chinese dictator, may divert his attitude toward environmental issues in any circumstance he finds necessary. Of course, it would be hard for Mr. Xi to neglect the growing environmental concerns among his citizens. But, the Chinese leader has already demonstrated his unpredictable nature in the press conference held by him and Mr. Obama by ignoring the question asked by a Times reporter.

While Mr. Xi’s complete authority could be problematic for Chinese government to accomplish its goal, Mr. Obama faces an obstacle to his goal because of his lack of power in his country. In the recent mid-term election, Mr. Obama’s party has lost the control of Senate to Republicans and allowed Republicans to consolidate their firm grip on House of Representatives. As a result, it is expected that Mr. Obama’s plans would be hampered by the opposing party. The leaders of Republicans have already expressed animosity toward the climate deal. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John A. Boehner denounced the climate deal as unrealistic and asserted that they would not support the president at all.

A video from ABC that shows president Obama shrugging when Mr. Xi ignores a question raised by a Times reporter.

Now, in this context, one question arises. Are these two government’s different structures going to be hinder Mr. Xi and Mr. Obama’s joint efforts to reduce carbon emission? To answer this, it is essential that we pivot our attention to 1700s. In that century, two philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, presented their perceptions of human nature and roles of a government that provides the need of its society.

In Leviathan, Hobbes describes human nature as self-interested, fearful and rational. According to him, people’s self-interest may lead people to destruct each other and arouse chaos, and the sovereign’s responsibility is to protect these people from themselves. To do so, a ruler has to be powerful and exert power equivalent to that of a monarch if he is not one.

On the other hand, Locke claims in Second Treaties of Government that such sovereignty should reside in the people instead of the government. Although he concedes to Hobbes’s depiction of human nature as rational and self-interested, he doesn’t believe that it is fearful. In this sense, he argued that the government’s power has to be limited, and people should be able to replace their leaders if the leaders fail to satisfy the people.

Reflecting on these two philosophers’ arguments, I believe that the two distinct government structures in each country would help both leaders to maintain their promises.

In the case of China, Chinese people need a strong leader who can guide them in order to enforce eco-friendly policies. Otherwise, the big corporations would continue to generate pollution in their self-interests to maximize profits and eventually hurt lower classes and arouse chaos. Not only that, although the general public in mainland China started to take the air pollution in China seriously, many people still cannot afford to worry about environment. In the minds of the rich and the poor, they are more driven by self-interests than a concern for the global weather or humanity. So a strong leader like Mr. Xi is appropriate for this mission to lead the country to prevent further environmental damage as Hobbes suggested.

Locke argued that the power should be given to people.

On the other hand, American government structure would eventually help U.S. to keep Mr. Obama’s pledges. In U.S., people hold a power as Locke had envisioned in 1700s. And, according to the New York Times report, many polls have demonstrated that the majority of American people believe in global warming and support the candidates who back climate change policy. Despite many Republicans’ oppositions to this deal, they should not neglect American people’s voices in order to maintain their current status in Congress and take White House in 2016 presidential election.

It is still plausible that everything can go wrong for Mr. Xi and Mr. Obama. If both countries’ economies are struck by recessions, people’s concerns on environmental issues would fade away, and both countries would not be able to maintain their pledges. But, we as human-beings must not forget one thing. A discourse on issues of global weather should not end, and people’s ideology must not hinder our effort to leave one and only bequest we’ve got to our next generation: the healthy earth.