IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v25y2025i2p171-189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparative review of methane policies of the United States and China in the context of US – China climate cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Mengye Zhu
  • Steven J. Smith
  • Minpeng Chen
  • Meredydd Evans
  • Qimin Chai
  • Fei Teng
  • Pu Wang
  • Xinzhao Cheng
  • Wenli Li
  • Jenna Behrendt
  • Sha Yu
  • Sha Fu
  • Haiwen Zhang
  • Ryna Yiyun Cui
  • Jiehong Lou
  • Manjyot Ahluwalia
  • Nathan Hultman
  • Yi Wang

Abstract

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. The US and China are the world’s two of the largest methane emitters and jointly committed to tackling this global challenge in the US–China Joint Glasgow Declaration at COP26 in 2021. However, few studies have revealed the methane policy landscape in the two countries. Greater understanding of these policies and how they have evolved is critical for enhancing future actions. We addressed important research topics currently understudied, including the types of policy instruments used, the commonalities and differences between the two countries in their primary policy foci, and the evolution and driving forces of methane policies. This study conducted a comprehensive and comparative review of methane-related governance structures and policy frameworks in both countries. We performed policy mapping based on systematic and large-scale policy document collection and screening, followed by an in-depth review of the development of methane policies in both countries. This study found that both countries placed uneven emphases across sectors, with a notable focus on the energy sector. While the US showed a preference for regulatory policy instruments such as acts, rules and regulations, China primarily utilized planning instruments such as Five-Year Plans (FYPs), notices, and working guidelines. Additionally, methane policies in both countries were largely driven by safety, resource utilization, and pollution concerns rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our study suggests that both countries should fill the policy gaps to accelerate their actions on methane mitigation and consider more climate-centric policies. It underlines the potential for US–China collaboration through the exchange of knowledge and best practices, which would also greatly advance global climate governance.Key policy insights To date, both countries have shown sectoral disparities and preferred policy instruments, with a strong emphasis on energy. The US leaned towards regulatory policies, while China favored planning instruments.Methane policies in both countries were primarily driven by safety, resource utilization, and pollution concerns, rather than climate concerns. Enhancing methane mitigation and climate benefits calls for climate-centered policies.The US and China should prioritize sectors based on collaboration readiness and mitigation potential, collaborate on methane monitoring and modeling techniques, and enhance policy learning and subnational partnerships.

Suggested Citation

  • Mengye Zhu & Steven J. Smith & Minpeng Chen & Meredydd Evans & Qimin Chai & Fei Teng & Pu Wang & Xinzhao Cheng & Wenli Li & Jenna Behrendt & Sha Yu & Sha Fu & Haiwen Zhang & Ryna Yiyun Cui & Jiehong L, 2025. "A comparative review of methane policies of the United States and China in the context of US – China climate cooperation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 171-189, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:25:y:2025:i:2:p:171-189
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2024.2366902
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2024.2366902
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2024.2366902?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:25:y:2025:i:2:p:171-189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.