Last week's announcement by China's Ministry of Finance that
the country will introduce a carbon tax, probably in the next
two years, did not dominate the international headlines.
It was too vague about the timetable and the rate at which
the tax would be levied, and fossil fuel lobbyists were quick
to portray it as meaningless. But the Chinese are deadly
serious about fighting global warming, because they are
really scared.
A carbon tax, though deeply unpopular with the fossil fuel
industries, is the easiest way to change the behaviour of the
people and firms that burn those fuels: it just makes burning
them more costly. And if the tax is then returned to the
consumers of energy through lower taxes, then it has no
overall depressive effect on the economy.
The Xinhua news agency did not say how big the tax in China
would be, but it pointed to a three-year-old proposal by
government experts that would have levied a 10-yuan
($NZ1.92)-per-tonne tax on carbon in 2012 and raised it to
50-yuan ($NZ9.62) a tonne by 2020. That is still far below
the $US80 ($NZ96)-per-tonne tax that would really shrink
China's greenhouse gas emissions drastically, but at least it
would establish the principle that the polluters must pay.
It's a principle that has little appeal to United States
President Barack Obama, who has explicitly promised not to
propose a carbon tax. He probably knows that it makes sense,
but he has no intention of committing political suicide, the
likely result of making such a proposal in the United States.
But China is not suffering from political gridlock; if the
regime wants something to happen, it can usually make it
happen.
So why is China getting out in front of the parade with its
planned carbon tax? No doubt it gives China some leverage in
international climate change negotiations, letting it demand
that other countries make the same commitment. But why does
it care so much that those negotiations should succeed? Does
it know something that the rest of us don't?
Three or four years ago, while interviewing the head of a
think-tank in a major country, I was told something that has
shaped my interpretation of Chinese policy ever since. If it
is true, it explains why the Chinese regime is so frightened
of climate change.
My informant told me that his organisation had been given a
contract by the World Bank to figure out how much food
production his country will lose when the average global
temperature has risen by 2degC. (On current trends, that will
probably happen around 25 years from now.) Similar contracts
had been given to think-tanks in all the other major
countries, he said - but the results have never been
published.
The main impact of climate change on human welfare in the
short and medium term will be on the food supply. The rule of
thumb the experts use is that total world food production
will drop by 10% for every degree Celsius of warming, but the
percentage losses will vary widely from one country to
another.
The director told me the amount of food his own country would
lose, which was bad enough and then mentioned that China,
according to the report on that country, would lose a
terrifying 38% of its food production at +2degC. The reports
were not circulated, but a summary had apparently been posted
on the Chinese think-tank's website for a few hours by a
rogue researcher before being taken down.
The World Bank has never published these reports or even
admitted their existence, but it is all too plausible that
the governments in question insisted that they be kept
confidential. They would not have wanted these numbers to be
made public. And there are good reasons to suspect that this
story is true.
Who would have commissioned these contracts? The likeliest
answer is Sir Robert Watson, a British scientist who was the
director of the Environment Department at the World Bank at
the same time that he was the chairman of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
George Bush's administration had Watson ousted as chairman of
the IPCC in 2002, but he stayed at the World Bank, where he
is now chief scientist and senior adviser on sustainable
development. (He has also been chief scientific adviser to
the British Government's Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs for the past six years.)
He would have had both the motive and the opportunity to put
those contracts out, but he would not have had the clout to
get the reports published. When I asked him about it a few
years ago, he neither confirmed nor denied their existence.
But if the report on China actually said that the country
will lose 38% of its food production when the average global
temperature reaches 2degC higher, it would explain why the
regime is so scared.
No country that lost almost two-fifths of its food production
could avoid huge social and political upheavals. No regime
that was held responsible for such a catastrophe would
survive. If the Chinese regime thinks that is what awaits it
down the road, no wonder it is thinking of bringing in a
carbon tax.
- Gwynne Dyer is an independent London
journalist.
A name, residential address, and (preferably residential) telephone number is required from readers who comment on ODT Online. These details will not be visible to site visitors.