China"s Carbon Emissions Trading Means the US Will Comply (Whether They Like It or Not)
Chinese officials yesterday confirmed the approval of a pilot carbon emissions trading program in seven provinces on the mainland -- Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Hubei and Guangdong.
The purpose of the newly launched program is to help China reach its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets in the most cost-effective way possible.
According to a white paper also published yesterday, the Chinese government plans to move climate change further up its priority list during the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015).
The white paper titled "China's Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change" claims that China has set a goal by 2015 to reduce its GHG emissions per unit of GDP by 17 per cent below their 2010 levels.
At the same time, officials will aim to implement more energy-efficient measures, cutting power consumption per-unit GDP by 16 per cent.
Neither the white paper, however, nor the government spokesperson revealed any further details about the carbon emissions trading scheme.
It is still unclear how exactly the initiative would work, what its main components are and whether it would be compatible for cooperation with other existing schemes, such as the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
China's definitive action towards implementing a structured carbon emissions trading program, however, holds significant implications for other big polluting nations, like the U.
S.
The announcement from the East comes merely days after six U.
S.
states pulled out of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) - a carbon trade partnership between the U.
S.
and Canada expected to take effect as of January 2012.
WCI's main goal was to reduce GHG emissions in North America by 15 per cent below their 2005 levels by 2020.
The six states, which withdrew from the initiative cited economic and job challenges to justify their decision.
China's commitment to a compliance cap-and-trade program, however, can be a game changer for the United States and the way the American government views carbon regulations.
China holds the majority share of the manufacturing market for consumer goods that are exported to the U.
S.
- from clothing, to electronics, to household goods.
This means, when polluting Chinese factories fall under the emission quotas and are obligated to purchase allowances to compensate for their GHG emissions, the cost of these allowances would inevitably be reflected on the price tag.
The end consumer -citizens of the U.
S.
and of all other countries importing goods from China - would be forced to bear the burden of China's clean air goals.
So whether they like it or not, the U.
S.
would be complying with emission regulations that would most likely be affecting the national economy.
It's just a matter of who is imposing the regulations - whether they come from within and benefit the local economic and political system, or they are imposed from the outside and only feed off of the U.
S.
consumer without bearing any apparent benefits to the local economy.
In other words, while the American federal and state governments are resisting a national compliance cap-and-trade scheme, their citizens will be participating in one that helps Chinese people breathe cleaner air, develop clean technology, save energy and, subsequently, money and expand their job market.
Now, where's the logic in that?! Wouldn't it make more sense for the U.
S.
to implement their own cap-and-trade system, pursue their own emission reduction targets, design and have full control over their own emissions policy and reap all the benefits it has to offer? A recent study that followed an emissions trading program across 10 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states already showed the many positive aspects of such a carbon trading scheme.
The study took a closer look at the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for three years and concluded that, during the observed period, the system added a net present value of $1.
6 billion to all participating states, took $1.
1 billion off consumers' electricity bills, cut spending on imported fossil fuels by $765 million, while at the same time contributed to the creation of 16,000 new jobs.
In the context of all this, why is the U.
S.
government still refusing to look at the bright side of compliance regulations? Why does it, instead, choose to push climate change aside, making up all kinds of excuses to justify its inaction?
The purpose of the newly launched program is to help China reach its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets in the most cost-effective way possible.
According to a white paper also published yesterday, the Chinese government plans to move climate change further up its priority list during the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015).
The white paper titled "China's Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change" claims that China has set a goal by 2015 to reduce its GHG emissions per unit of GDP by 17 per cent below their 2010 levels.
At the same time, officials will aim to implement more energy-efficient measures, cutting power consumption per-unit GDP by 16 per cent.
Neither the white paper, however, nor the government spokesperson revealed any further details about the carbon emissions trading scheme.
It is still unclear how exactly the initiative would work, what its main components are and whether it would be compatible for cooperation with other existing schemes, such as the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
China's definitive action towards implementing a structured carbon emissions trading program, however, holds significant implications for other big polluting nations, like the U.
S.
The announcement from the East comes merely days after six U.
S.
states pulled out of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) - a carbon trade partnership between the U.
S.
and Canada expected to take effect as of January 2012.
WCI's main goal was to reduce GHG emissions in North America by 15 per cent below their 2005 levels by 2020.
The six states, which withdrew from the initiative cited economic and job challenges to justify their decision.
China's commitment to a compliance cap-and-trade program, however, can be a game changer for the United States and the way the American government views carbon regulations.
China holds the majority share of the manufacturing market for consumer goods that are exported to the U.
S.
- from clothing, to electronics, to household goods.
This means, when polluting Chinese factories fall under the emission quotas and are obligated to purchase allowances to compensate for their GHG emissions, the cost of these allowances would inevitably be reflected on the price tag.
The end consumer -citizens of the U.
S.
and of all other countries importing goods from China - would be forced to bear the burden of China's clean air goals.
So whether they like it or not, the U.
S.
would be complying with emission regulations that would most likely be affecting the national economy.
It's just a matter of who is imposing the regulations - whether they come from within and benefit the local economic and political system, or they are imposed from the outside and only feed off of the U.
S.
consumer without bearing any apparent benefits to the local economy.
In other words, while the American federal and state governments are resisting a national compliance cap-and-trade scheme, their citizens will be participating in one that helps Chinese people breathe cleaner air, develop clean technology, save energy and, subsequently, money and expand their job market.
Now, where's the logic in that?! Wouldn't it make more sense for the U.
S.
to implement their own cap-and-trade system, pursue their own emission reduction targets, design and have full control over their own emissions policy and reap all the benefits it has to offer? A recent study that followed an emissions trading program across 10 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states already showed the many positive aspects of such a carbon trading scheme.
The study took a closer look at the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) for three years and concluded that, during the observed period, the system added a net present value of $1.
6 billion to all participating states, took $1.
1 billion off consumers' electricity bills, cut spending on imported fossil fuels by $765 million, while at the same time contributed to the creation of 16,000 new jobs.
In the context of all this, why is the U.
S.
government still refusing to look at the bright side of compliance regulations? Why does it, instead, choose to push climate change aside, making up all kinds of excuses to justify its inaction?
