文章 Articles

China may cap-and-trade before US

While the US Senate has backed off on climate legislation, China is considering launching emissions-trading programmes within five years, write Alexander Ochs and Haibing Ma.

Article image

Just when leaders in the United States Senate admitted to abandoning their plan of issuing a federal climate bill by the end of this year, top Chinese officials were discussing how to launch carbon-trading programmes under their country's next (12th) Five-Year Plan (2011-2015).

Serving as China's overarching social and economic guidance, Five-Year Plans consistently lay out the most crucial development strategies for this giant emerging economy. Once included in the plan, carbon trading will be viewed as part of China's national goals and will be domestically binding. This occurred most recently with the country's 2010 energy-intensity target, which called for a 20% reduction from 2005 levels and was disaggregated into provincial and local targets, with local officials held accountable for achieving them.

In short, China seems to be accelerating full-throttle toward a low-carbon economy.

Chinese policymakers have been eyeing a domestic emission-trading scheme for a while. In August 2009, National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) deputy director Xie Zhenhua announced that China would launch a pilot carbon-trading programme in selected regions and/or sectors -- basically the same message now discussed for the Five-Year Plan. On one hand, this reiteration demonstrates that the Chinese government is seriously considering such a market-based mitigation mechanism; on the other hand, the fact that the programme's status is still in discussion one year later shows that putting cap-and-trade into action might be not be so easy in China either.

Here are some of the problems: A non-voluntary emission-trading system cannot work without a mandatory cap on emissions, either for the economy as a whole or for individual sectors. However, China is currently unlikely to set an absolute emission target because this would contradict its long-standing position at international climate negotiations that industrialised countries have a historic responsibility to take the lead in this area. Most Chinese climate officials and experts agree that China could probably peak its emissions between 2030 and 2035, but huge uncertainties remain.

Moreover, with the current US emissions reduction commitment unsatisfactory to most developing countries, China won't change its position unless the United States changes its own position first. Unless significant efforts are made on the US end (through a commitment to a more stringent emission reduction target), China will stick to the emission-intensity target announced in November 2009 as its international commitment.

In addition, a well-functioning emission-trading system would require sophisticated monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) mechanisms. The Chinese government has been making progress in building MRV capacities, but it still lacks transparency in terms of what has been done and how.

Take, for example, the government's regularly reported energy-intensity data. Not only have annual reduction figures been subject to change in sequential publications -- the 2006 number has already been "corrected" three times -- but the reporting procedure has made it difficult to track and verify the underlying calculations. The National Statistic Bureau's annual report on energy-intensity reduction, for instance, reveals only the intensity figure, without showing the deflator used to produce the 2005 base-level GDP, making it impossible to check the pace of the reduction using publicised energy consumption and GDP data. In short, published statistical reports show government numbers but do not reveal how they were calculated.

Finally, a feasible cap-and-trade design would have to consider many details, such as which sectors are covered by the cap, how emission allowances will be distributed, whether there will be price corridors, etc. These design features touch on powerful economic interests. In China, this means that the actual design of the scheme will not be publicised unless the interests of all parties are subtly balanced.

Pilot trading programmes in selected regions and/or sectors may help to mature the mechanism while minimising the scale of negative impacts, such as job losses in inefficient factories. Already, several local governments have taken initiatives to establish voluntary trading schemes.

Thus far, most existing Chinese stock exchanges have focused on broad environmental equities such as environmental technologies and emissions of conventional pollutants: companies with new pollution-control technologies can sell them on the exchange, with sulfur-dioxide (SO2) emission allowances being the major tradable pollution equity. Now, many markets are preparing for the introduction of carbon-dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse-gas emissions trading. For instance, the Tianjin Climate Exchange is expected to launch a carbon-trading scheme by the end of 2010, and Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province, has submitted to the NDRC an application to be the first "National Pilot Centre for Carbon Trading”.

Although detailed information is lacking for these initiatives, they demonstrate the government's serious efforts, at the national as well as provincial and local levels, to try to bring the trading mechanism into reality.

Even if these efforts are successful, the international community needs to keep in mind that China would adopt such a carbon-trading scheme strictly in its own interest -- that is, to reduce local air pollution, increase energy security and gain a competitive advantage in the energy markets of the future. In the United States, new energy entrepreneurs have mentioned the same self-interest motivation, as demonstrated recently at the Clean Energy Ministerial Stakeholder meeting (click here to view major US stakeholders' presentations).

However, with a stronger market signal now unlikely for many years because of the delay in comprehensive national climate and energy legislation, the United States might well fall behind China in this new era of global competition over green technologies and services.

It is rather unlikely that China's pilot carbon-trading schemes will lead to an economy-wide emission cap in the near future (they might lead to sectoral national schemes first and an economy-wide cap later). Meanwhile, several other market-based mitigation options are under serious consideration in China. In a 2009 report, the Ministry of Finance's Research Centre for Fiscal Science (RCFS) proposed introducing a carbon tax in the next five years.

While China likely won't commit to a single mandatory national mitigation mechanism anytime soon, it will be interesting to see how the economic and political interests play out during the coming months and years.

Alexander Ochs is director of the climate and energy programme at the Worldwatch Institute and Haibing Ma is the China programme manager with Worldwatch. They can be reached at [email protected].

This article originally appeared on the Worldwatch Institute blog ReVolt.

Homepage photo from the municipal government of Tianjin. The Tianjin Climate Exchange is expected to launch a carbon-trading scheme by the end of this year. Emissions from shipping and aviation are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol.

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



voluntary trade

I think that China will experience the steps of voluntary carbon trading leading to obligatory carbon trading. The NDRC's apparent objection to madly launching local carbon exchanges is a sign.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Missing the point by gaining political "brownie points"

By asserting that China is "accelerating full-throttle to a low carbon economy" by seeking to establish a carbon trading scheme, the authors (and presumably their institution) fail to recognise that carbon trading obviously does not reduce emissions.

The world's leading carbon emitting countries must greatly and urgently reduce their emissions.

Neither REDD not carbon trading do not seek to do this. They are far too complicated to even achieve what they set out to do - which (as demonstrated by the CDM) leads to abuse. They are of course lucrative to those who promote them...

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



China and US

China takes the lead over the US in many things: we have a larger population, faster trains, faster decisions made by the government, more expensive houses, more pollution, more swindlers, the list is almost endless. While the U.S. government is wasting their breath with constant debates, China, has already shut down more than 2,000 energy-intensive factories with low production capacity that existed or never existed in the mainland, which is inconceivable, even in the dreams of Americans. But so what? We trade here and there, and in the end it is all done behind the scenes; Isn't the stock market a classic example? Moreover, nobody knows the amount emissions, who knows what would happen if it was really done. Of course we can't forget about the rich people, maybe they will be listed on the U.S. market and make foreign currency.

this commet is translated by Dong Hebing

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Carbon Emission swaps

Chinese coal-fired power plants already have schemes whereby they 'buy' environmental licences from plant which has recently shut in order to obtain licences to operate, refused to them by the Environment Ministry - very adaptable and enterprising.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

2005 基准



2005 baseline

a very well written, balanced article. basically china needs to choose between regulation, tax, and cap and trade. in reality, it will probably pursue a combination of those three for a while.

thank you for pointing out the 2005 baseline and fuzzy math. china never releases the numbers behind what they say which is why they think international MRV would be an "infringement on their sovereignty"

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



An easy way to monitor and verify

Monitoring, reporting and verification mechanisms are much simpler when schemes are "upstream" - in other words imposed on sellers of fossil fuels rather than buyers. We should require sellers of coal, gas and oil to buy a capped number of permits for the greenhouse gas content of the yearly amount of fuel they sell. That's easy because there are very few sellers but millions of users and uses. The money raised when the permits are sold is a rent arising because of an administratively created scarcity. This should go equally to the people to help them adjust. This is called cap-and-share or cap-and-dividend.