Will China Put Carbon Dioxide Levels in Its 12th Five-Year National Development Plan?
中国是否会将降低二氧化碳排放水平的目标纳入国家“十二五”发展规划？
This past Saturday, the China Daily led an article on climate change with this potential good news:
China will put in place carbon dioxide emissions targets for its economic and social development programs, the central government has promised…
It also signals that China may be considering national goals for carbon dioxide levels when it maps its 12th five-year national development plan (2011-15).
Though the China Daily article only mentions “carbon dioxide emissions targets” and “national goals for carbon dioxide levels” the Chinese-language press announcement from the State Council was explicit in setting forth carbon dioxide intensity as the approach being considered:
我们要把应对气候变化、降低二氧化碳排放强度纳入国民经济和社会发展规划，采取法律、经济、科技的综合措施，全面推进应对气候变化的各项工作，为国际社会合作解决气候变化问题做出积极贡献。
We will incorporate the addressing of climate change and the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions intensity (paifang qiangdu) into the national economic and social development plans, adopt comprehensive legal, economic and technological measures, comprehensively promote various components of work for the handling of climate change, and make an urgent contribution to international collaboration on dealing with the problem of climate change. [author’s unofficial translation]
As my colleague Alvin Lin noted: “Carbon intensity targets (tons of CO2 emitted per GDP) are similar to energy intensity targets (energy consumed per GDP) except that they would also take into account improvements in reducing the carbon emissions from the energy supply and expanding carbon sinks–that is, both would account for improvements in energy efficiency or restructuring towards a less energy-intensive economy, but carbon intensity also takes into account increases in renewables/hydro/nuclear as well as forestry sinks, while energy intensity targets do not. However, both are measured relative to GDP, so they would not amount to an actual limit on emissions given continued rapid economic growth in China (thought they are a start).”
These targets (even if only based on “intensity”) will be very important if set at appropriately aggressive levels.
My colleague Jake Schmidt (NRDC’s International Climate Policy Director) has already blogged on this at NRDC’s Switchboard blog, pointing out the significance of a carbon goal ending up in the 12th five-year plan. Those who are familiar with the way Chinese governance works know that the five-year plan is a critical tool for making things happen in China. The plan sets government priorities and serves as the basis for an often complex system of implementation measures, including performance metrics that can have direct impact on the career prospects of government officials (see this article from Dan Guttman). As anyone who follows China knows, the current 11th 5-year plan has both 20% energy intensity and 10% pollution (SO2 and COD) reduction targets. These targets have driven an intense amount of research, policy making and other actions over the past few years.
The potential carbon dioxide plan target is no guarantee of implementation, but it would be a very strong signal from above to use one of the strongest approaches to implementation the Chinese system currently has to offer.
The announcement comes (surely not accidentally) at an opportune time, coinciding with the visit this week to China of a high-level US delegation led by Special Climate Envoy Todd Stern. In this incredibly complex negotiation on climate, each move changes the dynamic for better or worse. This potential development in China could shift the dynamic in a very positive direction. Let’s hope the discussions in Beijing this week take advantage of this.
Comments
2 Responses to “Will China Put Carbon Dioxide Levels in Its 12th Five-Year National Development Plan?”
Leave a Reply
Good post. Is it just me or is there a conspiracy amongst journalists these days to over sensationalize climate news stories, particularly with respect to China and emissions?
You can only report the same stale bargaining positions so many times before you need a new angle. Some papers have been a bit too anxious to get the scoop!