文章 Articles

An equitable way to fight climate change

How can China reconcile its need to develop with the urgency of the fight against global warming? Jia Hepeng has a solution: make the country’s rich act first, while the rest of the nation catches up.

Article image

Every country – big or small, rich or poor, democratic or authoritarian – has a responsibility to reduce, if not entirely reverse, the looming threat of severe climate change. But it is not easy to involve all nations, especially developing countries.

As the world’s fastest emerging economy, China is a major player in global efforts to curb climate change. Its surging economic growth and huge energy consumption have made it one of the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitters (though whether it is the largest remains disputed). Any emissions reduction effort would be incomplete without the efforts of this rising power.

But at the same time, China still faces an enormous task to develop. Tens of millions of its people do not have clean water; hundreds of millions live in places without sewage works. China’s per capita carbon emissions are still about a quarter of that of the United States, and less than half of European levels.

This is a real dilemma. If China makes emissions reductions too early, it could risk serious injury to the country’s economy and its people’s welfare. But if it does nothing, it could speed the global climate disaster.

Recognising this, it is useful not to think of China as one whole, but to consider it as a combination of diverse sectors, regions and forces.

Looking at its gross domestic product per capita, China is firmly among the developing countries – it is nestled between Swaziland and Morocco in terms of nominal GDP per capita. But at the same time, there are now millions of wealthy Chinese living in large houses and driving their own cars. It is no surprise that luxury goods producers, from Louis Vuitton to Rolls-Royce, see China as their fastest growing market.

It is realistic, therefore, to hope to create a mechanism that will enable those higher up the social strata, who consume more carbon, to make a greater contribution to the fight against climate change, even if the nation as a whole cannot take immediate emissions reductions.

Given the influential nature of this group in terms of behaviour, measures to curb their carbon consumption are also likely to bring about changes in lifestyle among the general public, which will help to bring about adjustments in the country’s current, high-carbon development model.

Take private car ownership as an example. With an expected 10 million car sales this year, China may soon become the world’s largest car market. But private car owners are still a small proportion of the Chinese population, less than 10% in fact. This tenth of the population uses most of China’s newly added petrol consumption. Their cars swarm on avenues and streets across Chinese cities and their emissions constitute most of the country’s urban air pollution.

Imposing a differential tax rate on car purchases and fuel consumption, and perhaps introducing something similar to London’s congestion charge, would be a relatively easy way to slow the growth of private car ownership and reduce the increase in fossil-fuel consumption in the transport sector. At the same time, tax revenues levied on private car owners could be used to improve public transportation and lure people back from to the buses and subways.

China’s recent petrol price adjustment – a 16% hike announced on June 20 -- could be seen as a signal of a new approach. Agricultural machinery, buses and taxi drivers remain more heavily subsidised to stave off the impacts of the price rise, while private car owners are left to fend for themselves.

But this is far from enough. Despite the price rise, China’s petrol prices are still well below the petroleum purchase and processing costs. Ultimately, fuel taxes should be used to keep gasoline prices high and inhibit the growth of fossil-fuel consumption.

The logic is correct, though. Private car owners use more resources and consume more fossil fuels; it is therefore reasonable to make them contribute more to emissions reductions. The question that remains is how far, and how equitably, fuel prices can be adjusted and fuel taxes imposed.

The benefits of targeting private car owners go beyond the reduced growth in fossil-fuel consumption. If private car owners can be pushed to choose buses and subways, it will also reduce demand in the highly energy consuming steel and cement industries that manufacture cars and build expressways.

Reducing car use will discourage the automobile from remaining a fashionable symbol of higher living standards. It can also help to stem the dramatic rise in the obesity rate in China, which scientists have linked to the use of private cars.

A similar approach can be adopted in the housing sector. Of course, people have a right to better living standards. But levying property taxes on big flats of several hundred square metres or more, or on the ownership of several properties, could help to guide more rational property choices, reducing energy consumption and cutting emissions in the construction sector. This is also a good way to slash property speculation, which has resulted in real estate bubbles in most Chinese cities.

The strongest opposition to all of these proposals is that they will curb internal demand and reduce economic growth. But this argument is flawed. Providing a greater number of people with more convenient public transportation will also create internal demand, and housing the homeless across China could boost economic growth too.

Researchers at the UK’s Oxford Institute for Energy Studies recently studied what would happen if China pursued the Swedish growth model: prioritising public transportation and moderate housing consumption. They found the country would consume far less energy than with its current pattern, which is more similar to – or at least approaching – the US model with its focus on private car ownership, sprawling cities and big houses.

Others will protest about how wealth is measured. If I have a car, but it is only a 0.8-litre Chery QQ – a cheap, small Chinese car – why should I pay more? But although a QQ owner is less wealthy than a Rolls-Royce driver, a QQ still takes up four times the space of a bicycle and consumes 10 times more energy than taking the bus. And even owning a QQ is far beyond what most Chinese people can afford. The QQ owner should still pay to help reduce climate change, because of his or her higher consumption of fossil fuels and transportation resources.

The wealthy classes, who own private cars and larger houses, will mount loud protests – and they have political allies and stronger voices among policy-makers. But curbing climate change is an inevitable obligation for all people, and this will mean policies that prioritise the public interest above individual wealth.

 

Jia Hepeng is China coordinator for the London-based publication SciDev.Net (Science and Development Network) and co-founder of China’s Climate Change Journalists Club.

Homepage photo by ullrich.c

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

城市先行?

我们何不关注一下诸如北京,上海,深圳这样的主要城市的GDP?如果只考虑这些主要城市的人均GDP,它们现在已经达到了发达国家水平。也许我们可以促使这些城市的领导者遵循气候目标,遵循二氧化碳减排目标。然后就如何达成这些减排目标作出详细计划。之后,将减排战略推进到二线城市,比如成都,西安和沈阳。
------sustainablejohn
(本评论由Zheng Shen翻译)

cities take big steps?

How about looking at the GDP of the major cities: beijing shanghai shenzhen? If you only look at the major cities based on per capita GDP, they must be considered a developed nation by now. Maybe we can push the mayors of the major cities to commit to climate targets, commit to reductions in CO2. Then you could chart how they meet these reductions. Then bring these reduction strategies to 2nd tier cities like Chengdu Xian and Shenyang.

- sustainablejohn

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

贾鹤鹏/Jia Hepeng

非常赞同sustainablejohn的提议。本文提出让一部分先富裕起来的人承担气候义务,与先让某个行业和某个地区承担原则是一致的。而且目的绝不仅仅是为了气候,而且还为了中国的可持续发展。谈起中国发展面临的很多问题,有很多具体的问题,但是在笔者看来,最重要的一点就是资源和人类能力的不均等必然造就很大程度的社会不公平,而资源的有限又让这种差距难以弥合。于是,我们说中国经济的问题是因为弱势人群太多内需不足,内需不足需要出口来弥补,而为了出口又要不断压低劳动力价格,压低了劳动力价格后反过来大量劳动力又无法创造内需。
而以气候和环境对在统计意义上先富起来的人/地区进行治理(不是管理),不但有助于减排,也能促进国家的公平。
当然,实施起来很难,因为决策者及其以来的智囊都是富起来的那部分,不会真心愿意与弱势的大多数站在一起。

mitigation regulation offers cure for social inequality

I totally agree with Sustainablejohn’s comments. In this article I argued that folks who got rich first shoulder the responsibility of mitigation, which in essence goes with the idea that more of the duty should be shifted onto some specific industries or regions. This is not only for the purpose of mitigation, but for China’s sustainable development as well. Among the many specific problems China faces in its development, one of grave importance is the large scale social inequality due to disparity in distribution of natural resources and individual capabilities. Furthermore, the scarcity of natural resources renders the gap between rich and poor hard to close. Hence comes the dilemma of China’s economy: first the big low-income earning population drags domestic demand down, next feeble domestic demand calls for stepping up export, then stepping up export entails wage repression on labors, and then wages repression further shrink domestic demand. Statistically, the regulation (not management) of classes/regions which turn wealthy first in terms of climate change and environmental protection can do good to mitigation as well as social justice. But to carry out such measures will be certain to encounter obstacles as policy-makers and their advisers belong exactly to the get-rich-first group, who are unwilling to stand by the left-behind majority of people.
------Jia Hepeng
(Comment translated by Yang bin. The title is added by translator.)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

支持本文观点

我认为,富人必须承担起这个责任,他们不能只光顾着坐在角落里数钱,他们也应该稍微思考一下如何为这个地球做些什么!

Support for this article’s viewpoint

I believe rich people must undertake this responsibility, they can’t just sit in a corner counting money, they should also reflect a bit on what they can do for the Earth! (Comment translated by Michelle Deeter)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

后京都时代的减排承诺

何不就此向前迈一步,把这些发达城市和地区的规划和承诺作为后京都时代协议对中国要求的“可量化、报告、可查证”的行动?城市的减排机会几乎都是低成本甚至是负成本,并且中国方面的坚定承诺可以带动西方国家采取更大的举措。这也可以与中国现有的可再生能源和降低污染目标结合起来。Andy Stevenson 香港思汇政策研究所
-本评论由Yang bin翻译

Post-Kyoto Commitment

Why not take it one step further and make the plans and commitments of these more developed cities/regions China's "measurable, reportable, and verifiable" action that they will be required to take in the post-Kyoto agreement? Reduction opportunities in cities are almost all low or negative-cost, and a firm commitment from China in this way could induce greater action from western countries. This could be combined with China's existing renewable energy and pollution reduction targets.

-Andy Stevenson
Civic Exchange (思汇政策研究所), Hong Kong

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

写得非常好

鹤鹏这篇文章写得非常好,占有更多的资源,就应该承担更多的责任。中国应该在政策与法律上解决这一问题。
刘鉴强

a well written article

A good article by Mr. Jia. Those who consume more resources ought to shoulder more responsibilities. The Chinese government should institutionalize this arrangement, both politically and legally.
----Liu Jianqiang
Translated by Bin Yang

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

法律的力量

为什么中国在不断突出从西方得到免费技术与投资的同时,却不重视对环保法律的坚持执行及其效力?
(本评论由Zheng Shen翻译)

the power of law

Why is it that the Chinese continue to downplay the effectiveness of consistently enforcing environmental laws while playing up getting free technology and fistfulls of cash from the West?

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

请去查阅《联合国气候变化框架公约》

真是荒唐。如果你不懂得中国,以及其它发展中国家所寻求的,请做些调查研究,先读点相关资料。请给出中国乞求“免费”技术的证据来。特别请阅读《联合国气候变化框架公约》的第4.5条和4.7条说了些什么。
(本评论由Bin Yang翻译)

Please read the Convention

This is ridiculaous. If you don't know what the Chinese, and indeed other developing countries, are asking for, please do some research and read something first. Show me the evidence that the Chinese are asking for "free" technology. Please read, in particular, Articles 4.5 and 4.7 of the UNFCCC Convention.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

很棒的文章

这篇文章很棒。而最让我惊讶的是本文说在中国,汽油售价低于生产成本。

引文:
“尽管价格上涨,中国的汽油价格仍然远低于石油购买和加工成本。”

如果这种情况属实,那么可以得出如下结论:
1)对比较富有的阶层-也就是有车族-来说,国家补贴部分汽油费用。
2)如果上一个结论是正确的,那么就意味着资源会被从其他重要的事业上分走,比如清洁水供应与污水处理等。中国政府和社会也许应当在此事上再加斟酌。

而关于其他交通方式,我记得中国的交通方式包括公共交通以及自行车。也许现在是时候推广包括自行车在内的交通“混合模式”。另外要补充的是:我个人是在努力身体力行,尽量多以自行车为交通工具。

-----Mike Parr
(本评论由Zheng Shen翻译)

Very Good Article

I thought the article was very good. However, where I was truly surprised is with the statement that petrol in China is sold at below the cost of production (quoting).

"Despite the price rise, China’s petrol prices are still well below the petroleum purchase and processing costs"

Working on the basis that this is correct then:
a) richer Chinese i.e the ones with cars are being subsidised by ... the Chinese government??
b) if a) is correct then resources are being diverted away from important and worthy areas such as the provision of clean water supplies and sewage treatment. Perhaps this is something the government/Chinese society may wish to reflect on.
In terms of alternative transport, I can remember when the options for transport in China was public or bicycle. Maybe it is time to consider how best to promote "mixed modes" of transport which include bicycles. I would add that I try to practise what I preach in that I use a bicycle as much as possible.

Mike Parr.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

公平方法仅限于理论

这篇文章的观点读起来像《联合国气候变化框架公约》。
但要改变人们的生活方式是很困难的。就像美国人都知道开车会产生很多污染,但谁都不愿放弃汽车而起自行车去上班。
(本评论由Zheng Shen翻译)

This equitable way only can be practice in theory

This article looks sam as UNFCCC.It is hard to change people's life style.Just like Americans know their cars make a lot of pullotion.But nobody wanna change it and to use bikes to go work instead of car.