【WSJ】 China Carbon Truths

rlsrls08

OPINION ASIASEPTEMBER 16, 2009, 1:48 P.M. ET

China Carbon Truths

Authoritarian government makes greenhouse emissions worse.

By
BRUCE GILLEY
[size=1.3em]China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, and countries around the world from the United States to Japan are pressuring Beijing to lower emissions and to introduce an absolute cap on emissions. But asking China's central government to impose a carbon cap is the wrong approach. Even if Beijing wanted to do so, such a decision would be almost impossible for the central government to enforce. Greater political freedoms are the key for real environmental improvements in China.

[size=1.3em]Since economic reforms began in China 30 years ago, local governments have been given wide autonomy in pursuing economic growth. One widely noted result is the inability of Beijing to implement tough planning, tax or environmental policies that might constrain that growth. To some extent, public pressures have forced the hand of local governments on environmental issues that have a direct impact on everyday quality of life air and water quality, waste disposal or food toxins, for instance.

[size=1.3em]But greenhouse gases, the most common of which is CO2, are different. Like the protection of a threatened animal or plant species, reducing greenhouse gases has little noticeable impact on the communities concerned. Reducing CO2 is rarely a pressing public priority in a country like China, where rapid development is a top goal and other pollution problems are more tangible. Add to that the fact that local governments are autonomous of top-down regulation from Beijing. In essence, the most critical government actors for controlling global carbon emissions are insulated from both top-down and bottom-up political pressures.

[size=1.3em]There are a few reasons why local governments in China may get more serious about climate change on their own, although these are probably insufficient to control emissions nationwide. One is the lucrative "clean development mechanism" administered by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change under which polluters in one country can buy carbon-emission credits from another country. China is expected to rake in about 59% of the global revenues (likely worth several billion dollars, depending on carbon prices) from this mechanism through the end of 2012, according to the U.N. Local governments and their companies will get most of this revenue. There are also first-mover advantages for cities and provinces that develop the technologies that will likely prove a growth industry in future. The city of Yangzhou, for instance, is pushing ahead with a low-carbon "eco-city" development model that, unusually, includes an immediate reduction in absolute emission levels, something the national government has not embraced.

[size=1.3em]Beijing itself could take the lead by making greenhouse-gas mitigation efforts one criterion in the evaluation of local cadres, who are currently judged mainly by their economic records and ideological rectitude. In April, the State Council required that all provincial and local governments consider climate change initiatives in their economic and social development policies. But the well-known ability of local governments to evade such top-down mandates is unlikely to be any different in the case of climate-change efforts.

[size=1.3em]Better yet would be to open up political space at the local level so that citizens and advocacy groups can create a public consensus on the need for action. While Beijing talks about "public participation" in its response to climate change, so far that has meant mainly authoritarian-style efforts to educate the public and encourage greater obedience. In a few places, however, citizens and groups have been brought into the making of policy. The northeastern city of Shenyang, for instance, has been experimenting with participatory approaches to environmental policy since passing a law in 2005 under which citizens must be included in the making of all environmental laws. So far, this has meant mainly public consultations on laws, but the city also tolerates an active community of environmental nongovernmental organizations. One result: its air quality has improved faster than almost any other similar city in China.
[size=1.3em]Another approach being considered is meetings of representative groups of citizens who deliberate on the best policy approach and then deliver their findings as binding policy mandates to the government concerned known in China as minzhu kentanhui [size=1.3em]or "sincere democratic forums." In China, experiments with this system, mainly in the city of Wenling in Zhejiang province, have demonstrated that Chinese citizens place a high priority on environmental protection when asked to rank different government projects. In one forum in Wenling in 2005, citizens selected six environmental protection projects among the top 10 projects they wanted the government to fund.

[size=1.3em]Deliberation not only expands information but also expands the sense of common responsibility on which the willingness to embrace potentially costly carbon emission programs depends. If Beijing were to start targeting environmental performance in cadre promotions and expand political freedoms that would generate social pressures, more local governments would have an incentive to embrace this bottom-up approach to emissions control.

[size=1.3em]Despite these signs of progress on locally driven initiatives, many foreigners continue to misunderstand the causes of China's environmental-policy failures. Most foreign assistance, whether government-to-government or private sector, has replicated the top-down approach by giving money to Beijing. This aid has centered on helping central bureaucrats to develop national policy, transferring technology to energy users, or improving policy monitoring.

[size=1.3em]That's a mistake. While some well-known commentators have praised China's authoritarian approach to climate change, the truth is that Beijing is failing on the environment precisely because of the lack of political freedoms. Rather than leaning even more heavily on Beijing, the critical need is to invest in approaches that will hold local governments accountable to their citizens. Only then can China really tackle CO2.

[size=1.3em]Mr. Gilley is assistant professor of political science at Portland State University and principal investigator of the Portland State University-Lanzhou University Global Warming Initiative.

[size=1.3em]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203917304574415760259000486.html

rlsrls08

There are 22 comments

Sort by: Oldest Newest

第一条留言
21 hours ago
BUZZ BELLEVILLE wrote:

This is kind of a strange article. Let's just set things straight.

First, while China is the largest emitter of CO2, on a per capita (per person) basis, they are still nowhere near the U.S. (and they're still less than the EU and Russia and other developed countries).

Second, the U.S. and Japan are not pressuring Beijing for a hard cap. The developed countries actually recognize that the position of China and other major developing countries (Brazil, S.Africa, India, etc) has some merit. We (the developed countries) recognize that we have been able to achieve a certain std of living on the back of cheap, CO2 intensive energy. They have yet to achieve that std, and they should not have to sacrifice trying to 'catch up.' Moreover, it is the U.S. and the EU that are largely responsible for the GW we're experiencing now. All those GHGs trapped in the atmosphere ... well, we put them up there and they'll be there for decades.

Because the West recognizes there is some merit to China's aversion to hard caps, we're heading into Copenhagen without even asking for them. What the West is looking for is "meaningful and verifiable commitments" (to use the language of the Bali road map) from China. What this will mean is open for debate. Likely, we'll see some sort of intensity cap commitment from energing economies, where their GHG emissions are capped, but only relative to their GDPs. So they cannot emit more than 100 tons of GHGs for every million dollars of GDP, for example. That way, they could continue to grow unimpeded, but they must do so in a CO2 sensitive way. The intensity caps would ratchet down over time, just like our hard caps would. The key I think is to get them to agree that a hard cap kicks in whenever they reach 'develored' status (the IMF type entities have definitions for all that stuff).

To the author's main point, I'm having a hard time buying that it is "harder" for the authoritarian govt of China to implement broad-reaching policies than it is for democracies like ours. It's just counterintuitive, and it's not supported by the facts. If Beijing wants to build 4000mW wind farms, it just does it. That's the essence of central planning. And China is kicking our butts on wind energy, solar energy, battery technology, electric cars, nuclear power, energy efficiency measures, etc. Their leaders may be motivated more by economics than by AGW, though there is some recognition that they will be particulary vulnerable as the effects of AGW continue to be felt (they have a big coast, and not much infrastructure to deal with mitigation efforts). Regardless, they recognize the exploding populations and massive emerging economies are going to create an enormous demand for sustainable, clean energy in the coming decades, and they (unlike us) are able to plan to own that industry. They are going to take our jobs in clean energy, they are going to own the industry that we largely invented, in large part because of their managed economy.
I wouldn't trade our democracy and free market systems for China's authoritarian regime and managed economy. But the author's point that their system is somehow preventing them from taking on the challenges of AGW just doesn't make sense ... in fact, it seems to be directly the contrary. We need to put a price on carbon emissions if we ever hope to push our democratic free market system to compete with what their central planners can do.

以下是针对第一条留言的回复

12 hours ago
Richard Brubaker replied:

Buzz.

True - per capita wise China is 1/4 of US, however this number includes 900 million farmers who are living off the grid.. and it is important to keep this in mind going forward because over the next 15 years we will see 400 million of those 900 million move to the city.

A migration that will radically alter the gross and per capita figure.

R
www.cleanergreenerchina.com

12 hours ago
BUZZ BELLEVILLE replied:

Agreed. The fact that there are so many yet to tap in and turn on is, at first blush, scary. But it also means that China is in a unique position of creating a CO2 sensitive infrastructure, which is much easier than the task we have of changing are hard-core, politically-supported, and well-monied infrastructure. And the same is true of many places around the globe -- if we (the U.S., or other big economies) can really mass produce and mass demonstrate the green tech of tomorrow, the market potential is mind-boggling.

11 hours ago
Richard Brubaker replied:

Buzz - agree on the market potential, but I am not sure that "carbon" is the market. In China, the market is in upgrading industrial complexes, retrofitting buildings, and working on core environment issues that lead to carbon.

One area where I think we (US and China) are still very far apart is that the US tends to treat "carbon" first as a market opportunity and is restricted by venture capital hurdle rates and government incentives. China's angle on this is very different, and it is why I think COP 15 is largely going to fail, and we will not see the US/ China sign a major "carbon" treaty. It will take a different form, and my feeling is that it will start with the basics... transfer of technologies that are aimed at improving the real economy first.

See my post on this topic for more
http://www.cleanergreenerchina.c ... tech-dominance-why/

11 hours ago
BUZZ BELLEVILLE replied:

I too doubt that we'll have a binding, global carbon-reduction bill this December (though I do think the groundwork will be laid to hammer out details in upcoming months). And I also believe that tech transfer will be something that will emerge from COP-15. But I also think we'll get some other concessions (like, hopefully, intensity caps and agreements on emission limits for particular manufacturing sectors, and agreements on mitigation efforts and tech transfer). So many folks here don't realize how much China is actually doing already. Multiple MASSIVE wind farms are going up, quickly, while we spend six years litigating over the siting of a single wind farm that is 1/20th the size of what they're using over there. They already have better CAFE and energy efficiency stds that we have. Their GHG emission stds for particular sectors (concrete, steel, etc) are much more stringent than ours. They're getting nuke plants up and running in a quarter of the time it would take us, even if a nuke plant could wade its way thru the reg hurdles here. The new coal-fired plants coming on line every week in China, that's true. But they're also laying the groundwork for a far more efficient (CO2 sensitive) infrastructure that we have. Even ignoring the rest of the world, China itself is a remarkable market potential.

I hear you that preventing simple industrial pollution may be the greatest "market" in China right now, but the supply for that market is not distinct from the supply for green energy tech products. By and large, it's the same stuff.

11 hours ago
BUZZ BELLEVILLE replied:

Oh, and I will check out your blog.

11 hours ago
BUZZ BELLEVILLE replied:

I did read your post Richard, and it does make an excellent point. I get jaded on this WSJ board, and feel like I have to justify all positions supporting GHG reduction in ways that are good for the U.S. economy. I wish your perspective would take hold, but I think if we're going to make any headway putting a price on carbon then, politically, we're going to have to sell it as a way of setting the U.S. up to lead in the 21st century. I wish it weren't the case, but I think that's the political reality.

10 hours ago
Greg Arnot replied:

Buzz, the author presents a delicious contradiction. Beijing is authoritarian....true. AND Beijing is powerless...also true.

For over 2000 years, China has had this system where Beijing is powerful, but Beijing is also far far away and local political bosses rule.

The Chinese people have a powerful libertarian streak and it is difficult to force things upon them. FOR EXAMPLE, with a few exceptions in Shanghai, China does not have Stop signs.

Why does China not have Stop signs? Because governments in China realize nobody would obey them. In China's political structure, it is very important not to make laws which everyone will just ignore, it causes loss of face.

So, this US professor is asking China to become MORE AUTHORITARIAN but to do it in a way where COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS LIKE ACORN are given the authority to make changes at the local levels where changes really occur.

Join me in encouraging China to ignore these Warmists. China must base global warming policies upon objective Chinese scientists.

rlsrls08

第三条留言
13 hours ago
Richard Brubaker wrote:

Bruce.

Agree in general with the first half of the article, however I think that you are missing a couple of pieces.

First, focusing on CO2 (and its mitigation strategies) I think is itself misleading. Yes, China is the largest emitter, but carbon emissions are the the real problem. the real problem lies in industry, lies in the built environment, lies in the production of power... and in understanding the root causes of CO2 emissions, then I think a better analysis of Beijing's options can occur.

Second, Beijing is not going to turn itself around because of carbon credits, CDM, or Copenhagen. In fact, I would say that when Beijing does begin to make real chanes, carbon will be the furthest thing from their minds (icing on the cake). Changes in building codes, upgrading coal facilities, mandating better environmental controls, etc will be first (and are already occurring). Changes that are occurring because at the local level people are looking for cleaner air, cleaner water, and a better way to do things. The average person knows little about carbon, but they know about dirty industry... which will ultimately be the catalyst

third, drawing a wider analysis of how effective China's political system is in handling the issues they face re the environment, and then suggestion democracy is the answer is a mere distraction from what it will really take. If democracy and public participation were the key to success, then the US, Australia, UK, and other countries who engage the public in policy would have fixed themselves a long time ago. But they haven't. In fact, as someone who has lived in China for a number of years now, and worked in sustainability, I would say that all of the countries (China included) are equally behind.. but unlike the US and UK, China is in a much better position to move quickly once they have decided to get serious.

Finally, China in my opinion is on the right track in many ways, but certainly can improve (a point that I am sure we can both agree on). Where I am looking for progress is in two areas (1) systematic enforcement of environmental regulations already on the book - the is the biggest problem. (2) continued mothballing of old coal production facilities and continued investment in latest technology facilities - many fail to understand the trend that is occuring here.. those weekly coal fire plants going up are 3x as efficient as the ones being take offline. that is progress. (3) continued engagement of NGOs and citizens on the local level. National leaders are behind this, but it will take time locally to learn how to effectively engage on this level. IT is a new thing for them, and there will be fits and starts, but progress is being made.

以下是针对第三条留言的回复
11 hours ago
Greg Arnot replied:

China's continued prosperity, and to a degree the prosperity of all of Asia, depends upon China's ability to disgard Warmist propaganda and to make decisions which are in China's best interests.

Shenyang was not cleaned up to prevent global warming. Shenyang's air was cleaned up to prevent piles of fallen snow from turning black with coal dust in 5 days. Shenyang's air was cleaned in order to allow their children not to have to wear breathing masks to school...and to allow parents not to see those white masks marred by black smudges over the nostrils and mouth after only one day of breathing.

Shenyang's local political leaders were motivated to enforce laws making local coal fired plants to stop turning off their scrubbers in order to save money...and that motivation came from an newly created middle class whose wealth empowers them to demand clean air...and to a lesser degree, clean water.

We do not need for foreigners to derail China's real environmental movement in order to accomplish the goals of a group of international Warmists.

Encourage China to use real science, to use real data accumulated by real scientists, Chinese scientists. The results will be a cleaner and more prosperous China.

And in the near future when Warmists are proven to be fools and vagabonds, China's people can be proud they were not stampeded by this world-wide scam.

11 hours ago
Richard Brubaker replied:

Greg.

As I said above, China will take actions that are locally beneficial and will address local issues, however to disregard the wider picture would be a mistake as well.

Global warming, the link to carbon, are in many ways beside the point for China as they are dealing with different issues and different realities. If the policies focus on carbon, then the core issues of the industrial complex, built environment, etc are not going to be dealt with ... they will plant tree, use CDM, etc.

However, if the focus is on the industrial complex and built environment, then a reduction is carbon will occur through that process.

It is in many ways a model that is the reverse of western countries because western countries moved some of the dirtiest parts of the supply chain to China.. and china cannot bury that. they must deal with it.

As for the role of "foreigners" in China, there are two. Be a constructive part of the process, or sit around and complain about the problems. The former has a real place not only in the debate, but is actively courted for their ides on developing solutions.

r
www.cleanergreenerchina.com

8 hours ago
Greg Arnot replied:

Richard, I do try to play a positive role in China.

And a part of that role is to encourage the Chinese to be skeptical of Warmist propaganda. China has good solid scientists. I encourage China to rely upon their own objective scientists rather than listening to Warmists.

4 hours ago
BUZZ BELLEVILLE replied:

Greg -- What makes you think that China's scientists aren't looking at this issue all by themselves? About three years ago, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the China Meteorological Administration, and the Chinese Academy of Science released the country’s National Assessment Report on Climate Change. The assessment concluded that rising greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities are causing severe global climate change and that China must play an active role in tackling the negative impacts of this change on the global environment. This was a scientific paper coordinated with a dozen Chinese govt agencies over several years. There's an official Chinese government portal on climate change which you can access on the web to see what Chinese scientists are doing. WWF is also a good source for that info.

I've read numerous articles the past several months about Chinese scientists taking active roles in addressing climate change. They've collaberated with Thai scientists to study effect of AGW on monsoons, and they just has a summit with U.S. scientists to discuss the ocean's response to climate change. Their scientists are ahead of ours on CCS. They've created a new council on global environmental change, run by their academy of science. They've been issuing reports just the last couple weeks about whether they can transition their energy infrastructure in order to meet the two degree celsius goal.

A lack of Chinese scientists studying the issue may have been the reality 7-8 years ago, but they're all over it now.

3 hours ago
Richard Brubaker replied:

Greg - wasn't implying that you were/ were not trying to play a positive role. Only stating that there are two groups right now, those who working on solutions and those who are pointing fingers towards China. The middle ground is unfortunately void in large part.

With regard to Chinese scientists developing themselves, this is also my belief and practice as well.. and it is largely why I avoid the foreign managed cleantech events, or look to develop scale through foreign channels. For there to be real progress, for things to really change, capacity must be built here in Chinese scientists, agencies, businesses, and leaders...

R
www.cleanergreenerchina.com