Xi Jinping

China Pledges to Enact Cap-and-Trade Carbon Market in 2017

We are living in interesting times.*



I have earlier expressed considerable skepticism with regard to China's supposedly "game-changing" pledges to peak its carbon dioxide emissions by 2030. Perhaps I should ramp down my dubiety a bit. At the U.S.-China Summit, Presidents Xi and Obama issued today a joint statement on climate change in which China announed that it will enact a national emissions trading system in 2017. From the White House press office statement:

China confirmed today that it plans to launch in 2017 a national emission trading system covering power generation, steel, cement, and other key industrial sectors, as well as implement a "green dispatch" system to favor low-carbon sources in the electric grid. These announcements complement the recent finalization of the U.S. Clean Power Plan, which will reduce emissions in the U.S. power sector by 32% by 2030.  Both countries are developing new heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency standards, to be finalized in 2016 and implemented in 2019.  Both countries are also stepping up their work to phase down super-polluting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

Opponents to efforts aimed at cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions correctly point out that cuts here alone would have a minimal effect on what is a global problem while giving economic competitors a big advantage. That objection would be significantly blunted if China actually enacts such a program and makes it transparent so that outsiders can monitor its operations. It might also help clear up China's very polluted air. Since it is a single jurisdiction, China might have a better chance than the European Union has had in making a cap-and-trade carbon market effective. Very interesting indeed.

*The so-called Chinese curse is apocryphal.

NEXT: U.N. Vows to Stop All the Bad Things, More Hillary Emails Going to Benghazi Panel, Farewell John Boehner: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. At the U.S.-China Summit, Presidents Xi and Obama issued today a joint statement on climate change in which China announed that it will enact a national emissions trading system in 2017.

    Is this like a treaty or something?

    1. More like a “he said, Xi said” thing…

      /stole it from someone else

      1. *narrows gaze at Almanian ans whomever he stole from*

    2. We don’t seem to have those anymore under the all-powerful executive. Hold on, let me check with Bob Corker. Yea, if Obama wants the deal he gets it. There ya go.

  2. That agreement will go out the window once the Chinese debtconomy craters, if not sooner.

    1. No it won’t.

      What’s going to happen is that their economy will crash. They’ll idle a significant portion of their industrial base, and then demand payments from the west to reimburse them for their green house emission cuts.

      It’s a shame. For nearly 10 years, it was the Chinese holding the line against he west’s global warming cult.

      1. Good point. They’re playing us like an erhu.

        1. Good point. They’re playing us like an erhu.

          Oh, come on! You could have at least linked to this!

      2. That’s how we did it.

  3. My guess is that China foresees scaling back said industries anyhow, so they’ve decided to dovetail this with “hey world, look at us, we’re cutting emissions.”

  4. Economists generally consider a carbon tax to be better. If a revenue-neutral carbon tax were to be enacted I would not object

    1. How would this work exactly as i dont know?

      1. It’s trivial!

        The first step is we build New Soviet Man Politician…

    2. “Better” than what? Shoveling money into the third world?

    3. Any carbon tax is pure evil.

  5. Cap and Trade is the worst possible system if you want to cut emissions. It’s awesome if you want to rig the market, punish your enemies, reward your cronies, and collect tithes above the table and bribes under it. Of course, I would be shocked, shocked to discover that sort of thing happening in super-efficent, environmentalist China.

    1. It is a wonder the faith shown that an arbitrary price fixing scheme for accounting for externalities is taken for a market based solution.

      1. But subsidizing the pollution is?

        1. How is pollution being subsidized?

          1. You’re not on the government Methane Emission Program? Every time you fart, they send you $20. Got passed under Regan, funded by sales of poor people for dog food.

              1. That guy, yes. Stupid Irish spelling and its stupid superflous vowels. Why can’t you people be more like Welsh, so we can collectivelly just give up?

                1. My Grandfather was Welsh, full blooded. He was essentially a Hobbit.

                  1. No wonder they could get so much coal out of a mine. They fit in every nook and cranny.

          2. Being allowed to live with your lights on is a “subsidy” in certain circles.

          3. “How is pollution being subsidized?”
            It’s not. That’s Tony’s ‘policy by bumpersticker’ plan.

          4. Don;t you know? Allowing industry to exist in any capacity is ‘subsidizing pollution’. I hear the same inane commie bullshit from my Marxist retired CA college professor aunt. All about how we don’t pay the ‘real price’ for things because the ‘real price’ includes commie faggot cunt carbon taxers, among other things. Oh yes, and we must also raise corporate taxes and eliminate tax deductions too.

            1. What is truly amazing is those folk idolize the biggest polluters and murderers in history.

    2. Gorezactly.

      Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans.”


      If Westerners can transfer wealth from the middle class to the elites, why can’t the Politburo?

  6. That objection would be significantly blunted if China actually enacts such a program and makes it transparent so that outsiders can monitor its operations.

    Ah, Ron, you missed your calling as a comedian. That is hilarious.

    1. I thought self-inspections were all the rage these days for international non-treaty treaties.

      1. Ah, a fellow Larry Gonick fan!

  7. Great! New automobile efficiency standards for the auto industry to have to cheat to be able to pass!

    Crisis averted!

    1. Those Germans used to be a lot craftier. Back in the day, they would not have been caught cheating.

  8. They’re just gonna cheat. Or some other excuse for why we can’t possibly stop drilling for and burning oil as maximally as possible.

    1. What is maximally as possible mean here? If desired i could go to the gas station and burn gasoline for fun

    2. You can stop burning oil as soon as you like. But that’s not good enough for an authoritarian like you.

      1. IIRC, the grand plan is the Tonys of the world burn as much as they like, and we burn as much as they say.

        1. +1. This guy gets it.

    3. Actually, it’s god damn guaranteed that they will cheat. But then, it’s never been about actually reducing anything with you, has it.

  9. Sounds like some scheme to make Al Gore wealthier off of a carbon trading exchange to be named later.

    1. That was the deal he worked out with W in the days following the 2000 election.

      W gets the presidency, Al gets a Nobel Prize and profits from running a carbon trading exchange.

  10. I’m sure this plan will be implemented perfectly in a country known for pervasive corruption and counterfeit products of all sorts (including plastic rice, fake eggs, fake grapes, fake milk, and fake Apple stores).

  11. Sounds like China has a plan to reduce carbon emissions by 500,000 people.

  12. “That objection would be significantly blunted if China actually enacts such a program and makes it transparent so that outsiders can monitor its operations. It might also help clear up China’s very polluted air. Since it is a single jurisdiction, China might have a better chance than the European Union has had in making a cap-and-trade carbon market effective.”

    Here’s a story about Chinese meat wholesalers selling tons of meat that had been frozen for more than 40 (forty) years.


    One of the reasons we don’t have as many problems as they do is because of our legal system. Anybody can bring a suit against any huge corporation in this country, and if you can prove by a preponderance of the evidence to a jury of your peers that the biggest most powerful corporation in America harmed you in some way, the courts will make that company pay through the nose.

    1. It isn’t like that in China. If a corporation harms you with their products or pollutes your property, chances are you can’t do anything about it. Regulating carbon emissions might be a little different because it doesn’t require individuals to be free to bring suit themselves, but what about the corruption in China and the financial incentives for cheating? Amid a slowing economy, the Chinese government is going to require companies, mostly owned by people with close connections to the government and the army, to spend billions on anti-pollution equipment? And they’re going to start policing this with the same corrupt and unaccountable bureaucracies they have now?

      China is run by an autocrat, not a magician.

      1. I have this argument over and over with my communist aunt and uncle. My state (WA) does not allow private labor and industries insurance coverage for businesses. So the rates are astronomically high for many categories of business. My nephew is a good example of this, as he has hydroponics retail stores in both Washington and Oregon. Oregon allows private L&I coverage, so his rates their are much lower. WA had a ballot initiative a few years ago that would have changed this. It failed.

        My aunt and uncle were completely against the ballot initiative. Their argument was that insurance companies are greedy and evil, and would not pay valid claims. My argument is, besides the fact it’s not government’s fucking business to sell insurance, that I would rather take my chances with a private insurer. Knowing that if there is ever a dispute, I can sue their ass. Also, insurance companies make shitty defendants in lawsuits.

        Suing the government is much harder, and has a greater chance of collusion in a lawsuit than a private business. Aunt & uncle would have none of it, being the good little marxists they are.

  13. Perhaps you were wrong? No, you were just wrong. Everyone is getting serious about climate change, except Republicans and most libertarians. Everyone understands what science says… You might sometime try educating your readership. It’s a sad day when even the religious accept the science. You’ve got work to do. You ought to make an effort.

    1. Most people’s refusal to accept the science is driven by the Democrats’ and environmentalists’ refusal to accept the economics.

      When you stop calling on the world to make sacrifices of our standard of living without any guarantee of results, get back to us.

      Calling on people to make outrageous sacrifices without any guarantees of success isn’t science. It’s irrational.

      1. That’s bull and you know it. are you suggesting the reason the right won’t accept what science says is because they don’t like solutions from the left? So they delude themselves? At best, that would be infantile. Time to grow up and put forward their own suggestions to compete with those from the left.

        And Bailey doesn’t help. For a guy who says climate change just might be a big problem, nearly every article he posts here suggests the opposite.

        1. Climate change is what it is. We have no real control over it. It may become a problem. Destroying our economy in an effort to change it will only make things worse.

          1. We’re creating it, so we absolutely have control over it. What proposed solution do you think will destroy our economy?

            1. No we’re fucking not. Theses climate models you blindly cling to are continually disproven. Even if industrial CO2 were a problem, the real offenders are in Asia, not here. Our output relative to our GDP is modest.

              People like you really are the problem. And I’m not the one with all the bullshit ideas to destroy our economy. That would be you and your cap? buddies.

              Fucking Marxist traitor.

              1. ‘Cap & trade’.

        2. Really which science? You mean the IPCC that stated there would be no polar ice caps by 2010? Or the Prophet Goralce that stated hurricanes would be more frequent and more powerful? (Not US is in a hurricane daught basically)

          Please tell me which predictions for global warming have come true? Remember in the 70s it was global cooling, now it’s warming. Hey, guess what – there is alot we don’t understand about climate, solar interaction, ocean current transfer etc.


      2. By the way, when you and fellow libertarians have solutions of your own, get back to the rest of the world. No one is waiting for you all to grow up.

        1. A solution for what precisely? Earth’s climate is evolving all on it’s own. Our technology is in ZERO position to alter the outcome at this point.

          1. It’s not evolving on its own. It’s changing because of man made carbon emissions

            1. Kool aid drinking idiot. No, it’s not. You have already been corrected. Thank me and move on.

        2. Advanced nuclear, plus research into LENR and other breakthrough technologies. Plus other no-regrets measures. But the ECO-zealots won’t accept that, because they want a greenie utopia. (Plus they want to Stick It to The Man.)

          1. Please. Nuclear energy is not off the table, and Eco zealots don’t run the country. You know who thinks nuclear should be part of the equation? Denier boogeyman James Hansen. Read this

            “The informed environmental community, once opposed to nuclear energy, has now largely come full circle on utilizing science and the atom as a clean source of electricity. It has been well-stated by Dr. Patrick Moore, a leading environmental activist the last half century and former co-founder of Green Peace: “My opinion that nuclear energy is safe, clean and sustainable was formed in the mid-1990s during the reconsideration of energy policy in light of climate change.”

            Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opi…..rylink=cpy

          2. I missed where any Republican has said “man made climate change is a problem, and we propose a number of solutions with renewable energy AND nuclear. Let’s talk.” None have. And by the way, the reason so few new plants have been built is cost, compared to both renewables and natural gas. It’s not because of Eco zealots.

            And everyone concerned with climate wants new investment in new clean sources. You know who doesn’t? The GOP.

          3. Here, this is from Wall Street Journal, not quite an Eco zealot group

            “But nuclear energy also faces challenges all its own, including sky-high costs, safety concerns, waste disposal and the threat of proliferation. Here’s a closer look at these challenges?and at what their solutions might be.”

      3. Most people’s refusal to accept the science is driven by the Democrats’ and environmentalists’ refusal to accept the economics.

        I would argue that most people’s refusal to accept the ‘science’ is due to the fact they pay attention to their environment. Despite all the breathless warnings of doom and the claims that things are bad, most people look out the window and perceive that they aren’t seeing changes.

        And that’s why the warmists are so desperate to shriek that the science is settled. With each passing year the evidence falsifying their cult’s doomsday hypothesis grows larger.
        My experience is a pretty common one for people with proper scientific training; when I was younger, I thought the CO2 ‘greenhouse’ effect made physical sense, and assumed that the warnings of increased CO2 emissions were having a noticable effect was based on observation.

        Then I started digging into the actual science; the papers, etc. And what I discovered was pretty grody science – claims that treated models as evidence, that discounted observations that didn’t fit theory, and pretty dodgy stats. Having built computer models used to simulate plasmas as part of a research project as an undergrad, I recognized that the models were often poorly parametized to the point of uselessness.

        1. Then came Climategate, where actual malfeasance was put out in the open for all to see. Now, scientific fraud is a frequent occurrence and shows up in many fields. And usually when it is discovered, the guys who care about the field try to clean up the mess; to unwind the damage; to revisit the hypotheses and decisions that were impacted by the fraud etc.

          What happened in Climate Science was very little of that. I think Judith Curry and maybe one or two other people kicked up a stink. Rather the IPCC essentially closed ranks around the fraudsters. The UEA and Penn state rolled out ‘investigations’ that would make the most cop-friendly DA green with envy at the blatantness of their whitewash. The IPCC essentially pretended nothing was wrong, expanded some error bars to keep the lower than expected temperatures within the envelope of “our models work!” and they kept beating the drum.

          That spoke volumes. That’s when I concluded that Crichton was right. That the whole movement was a religion, and their closed-mindedness was the product of superstitious faith. These people are convinced that industrialization is bad that they will never accept any evidence that it’s good.

          And subsequently I haven’t witnessed or read anything that led me to revisit that conclusion. It’s essentially a religious cult that cloaks itself in the forms of science to fool people into following them.

          1. “That the whole movement was a religion, and their closed-mindedness was the product of superstitious faith.”

            Getting shitloads of money from Big Reg probably helps too.

  14. Cap and trade is a joke. It diverts money away from investments in real environmental controls, and the money goes to the government for it to “distribute” around.

    The best thing for power generation, and the environment in China was the private power producers. The state controlled plants were planned and built horribly, while private plants are operating at ultra supercritical pressures and employ the latest in environmental controls.

    Sorry, but socializing the energy sector was and is a disaster.

    1. Socializing anything was, is, and always will be a disaster. There I fixed it for you.

      1. Thanks. I agree.

  15. And this week the worlds third largest CO2 emitter, India, is expected to reveal their own plans to reduce CO2 by as much as 40%.


    If so, that will leave only Republicans and libertarians as the group who can’t accept reality and who just don’t want to do anything. Something to be proud of.

    1. Co2 is not the problem. If you had any clue of power generation and emissions in general, there are real pollutants that are real (CO2 benefits the environment) and more important to deal with. The market has been very effective in doing so. NOx, SO2, Particulates, Hg, CO, etc. are far more important.

      CO2 is an important part of the combustion process, and measure of combustion efficiency. Sure, we can reduce CO2, and increase CO which leads to poor combustion, wasted fuel up the stack and more emissions.

      ReACT technology created by J-Power and also sold by Hamon RC makes coal plant emissions on par with a natural gas fired plant. That is realistic gains and achievements.

      But as soon as junk science / emotional issue comes along like CO2, folks latch onto it even despite their need to skew data to promote the agenda, and even promote jailing people that disagree. That’s not science, that’s despicable.

      1. It’s never been about science with these technological luddites. It’s really about control through scarcity. They can’t peddle their bullshit without things like this pseudoscience to scare everyone. They’ve been getting it wrong for fifty years now, (anyone remember that new ice age industry was supposed to be causing back i the 70’s?) but they just keep changing their story to suit the weather.

        AGW is based on a Marxist agenda and a whole lot of fraudulent math.

  16. If any of these folks cared about the environment, they would promote free markets, and for governments and their special interests to get out of the energy business. With competition in power generation, you can pick a generation portfolio of your choice based upon what methods they use.

    The elimination of IP laws, and no more gov’t holding back technology for the benefit of special interests like would lead to further innovation.

    But these folks are interested in control, not real solutions. Instead they move the goalposts, which diverts money away from real pollution control and real progress, to go to this BS CO2 capture.

    Plant more trees, or even create a tree that is more efficient at its job, and plant more of them. That would be far more effective at dealing with something that already benefits the environment.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.