ChinaDialogue: Latest responses to Taking responsibility for carbon emissions

Cap and Share

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:36:03 -0500

Cap and Share (www.capandshare.org)is a campaign, currently being run in the UK and Ireland, that has been developed from from the Contraction and Convergence proposal which is now widely understood by many economists and politicians. Contraction means that there is an internationally agreed cap and then year on year reductions, in greenhouse gas emissions down to an agreed level. Convergence means a sharing of the permits (right to use fossil fuels and hence emit greenhouse gases)to countries according to their populations. The Cap and Share proposal extends this concept by saying that this right should be allocated equally to all the world's adult citizens rather than governments. Put simply: Cap and Share is the name of both an approach (cap and share approach) and a campaign (Cap and Share) to arrest climate change. It is based on the belief that every human being has a right to an equal share of the Earth's very limited capacity to accept further greenhouse gas emissions before the temperature target adopted by the European Union, a maximum 2 degree Celsius rise in the Earth's average temperature over that in pre-industrial times, is exceeded. It wants global emissions to be capped at their current level and then brought down year by year at a rate consistent with achieving the temperature target. Each year, the emissions tonnage involved would be shared equally amongst the Earth's adult population, each of whom would receive a certificate for their individual entitlement. The recipients would then sell their entitlements through the banking system to oil, coal and gas producers who would need to acquire enough of them to cover the carbon dioxide emissions from every tonne of fossil fuel they sold. One great advantage of the system is that it provides everyone with at least partial compensation for the higher cost of fossil fuels that limiting their availability would necessarily involve. ------------ Whilst an international agreement would be the ideal, any individual country could take the initiative to introduce such an approach and help drive investment in renewables. I am the coordinator for the Future in Our Hands International Network (www.fiohnetwork.org). FIOH challenges the idea that sustainable development can ever be compatible with economic growth. There are considerable doubts about the potential for renewables to substitute for fossil fuels and achieve current levels of economic growth. Prominent experts in the fossil fuel industry maintain that peak oil has already occured and the natural gas peak may not be many years away (this does not appear to be accepted in the Stern Review, however). Will nuclear power and coal be promoted to fill the gap? Current trends in China and political statements from the USA suggest this possibility. There are profound problems associated with all the substitutes for fossil fuels and these are currently being debated on the Cap and Share and the Climate Cooperation web site to which it is linked. We invite you to contribute to the debate. If you agree with the Cap and Share proposal, please join the campaign. Mike Thomas

[TRANSLATED] Reply by Yongfeng Feng

Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:47:42 -0500

Many people are still unclear on what is actually found in ‘air’. Quite a number of people are also unclear on how carbon dioxide in the air harms humanity, or how humanity may ‘drive out’ or ‘remove’ this carbon dioxide from the air. We tend to put blame immediately on the government when discussing environmental responsibility. This is very simple to do. To put blame on the industry is also very convenient. But in fact, it is a problem that lies with the individual. There has been much talk about sulphur dioxide in China. All the news coverage on environmental protection in the past few years has been very tentative on the issue of carbon dioxide emissions. It did not emphasise carbon dioxide nearly as much as sulphur dioxide. Many people have even reacted with deep astonishment. They are under the impression I am discussing a very distant issue. People find it easier to understand the problem of polluted waters, and visible pollution through waste. They find it hard to sympathise with other problems such as marshes drying up, the disappearance of rainforests, rising sea levels, harm to wildlife, problems of soil recovery etcetera. Similarly, people find it easier to understand the threats of sulphur dioxide to those of carbon dioxide. I spoke about the following two problems in this article: the rise of carbon dioxide as a more pressing issue than sulphur dioxide; and individual responsibility as more important than government and industrial responsibility. The Chinese government has many commitments and laid out many programs. But, China is also a country that is very good at pledging commitment without implementing the required measures. Therefore, no pledge for commitment would be able to instill faith in me.

A small step. More needed

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 23:18:42 -0500

It is encouraging to read an article saying that China needs to take emissions of greenhouse gases seriously. But I think Yongfeng Feng underestimates the magnitude of the challenges. In an article published on this site late last year, I suggested these were very large indeed. (see "Time for a politics of climate change" , Nov 20, 2006). Personal responsbility and voluntary action are a good place to start, but significantly reducing emissions means structural changes that will require new forms of governance and accountability, in China as much as in the rest of the world. And the timescale for action is short. Caspar Henderson

Advice for Yongfeng Feng

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:28:08 -0500

May I advise Mr Feng learn more about science and technology, since he has limited knowledge about carbon and sulphur. May I also advise Mr Feng studies the environmental targets of 11th Five-Year-Plan first and then writes his report? Energy (carbon) intensity 20% reduction is one of the key targets of 11th Five-Year Plan, which is even more important than the SO2 target. Thanks!

[TRANSLATED] A conflict between sulphur and carbon

Sun, 07 Jan 2007 11:05:21 -0500

The benefit of an ‘individual carbon responsibility’ has never been in question. However, it becomes incomprehensible to people when a science writer uses guarded language, confuses the notions of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide, and contrasts sulphur dioxide is to the dangers that carbon dioxide poses to the environment. The beginning of the article mentions that China is controlling sulphur dioxide emissions by focusing the masses’ attention to the actual problems. I find it very strange that controlling sulphur dioxide is publicly equalled to focusing the masses attention. As a matter of fact, people’s awareness of sulphur dioxide as cause for acid rain is far greater than carbon dioxide’s role in the greenhouse effect. Moreover, China has already been subjected to the harmful effects of acid rain as long as thirty years ago. Although at present, carbon dioxide’s effect as a green house gas is still scientifically debated and speculated, this does of course not mean it may be treated lightly. The meeting’s theme was mentioned in the second paragraph of the text: ‘Strategic Approaches to Regional Air Quality Management in China’. The quota for such ‘regional air quality’ is often what is heard in our weather forecasts: a slight amount of pollution can cause inhalation of particles, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and so forth. There is fundamentally no mention of issues connected to carbon dioxide, which include its role in raising pH factor, and its major effect on global temperature. But not the quality of air in the region! How can it be that the authorities mentioned in the text are ignorant to the connections between regional air quality and carbon dioxide emissions?! There were other logical inconsistencies in the text which I do not wish to discuss here one by one, except this one: the notions at the very end of the article do not correspond to the preamble set. The entire article is very disappointing. - Aturen

[TRANSLATED] Mechanism needed to promote individual carbon responsibility

Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:33:13 -0500

In addition to the encouragement for increased awareness to environment protection, a good mechanism is needed to make it possible for individuals to take their carbon responsibilities. The mechnism should guarantee the money paid by individuals for their carbon emissions will be invested in sustainable and green development of the industries which cause the emissions, instead of being used for other purposes. As an example, the money individuals pay for their traffic emissions will be injected into the environment-friendly development of transport industry. Otherwise, personal carbon responsibility will be an excuse for policy makers to impose taxes on the public, who however cannot benefit from the system. So, basically emission reduction is a target which could only be achieved by coordinated efforts by all parties, from the authorities to the ordinary people. Everybody has the responsibility and a role to play.