China proposes introducing a carbon tax

The developing world takes the lead in fighting climate change.

There have been growing murmurs from China that the country may be getting serious about tackling climate change, and yesterday Xinhua News Agency announced that:

 

 

The news follows on from the Chinese government's promise earlier this month to do "whatever it takes" to cap coal use in the country. The official — albeit non-binding — target is now for coal consumption to peak at 4 billion tonnes in 2015.

The full Xinhua report on the carbon tax is thin on details, but points to an earlier report from the Ministry of Finance which suggested "levying a carbon tax in 2012 at 10 yuan [£1.05] per tonne of carbon dioxide, as well as recommended increasing the tax to 50 yuan [£5.27] per tonne by 2020."

The New York Times' Vikas Bajaj notes that:

China’s plan will not make a serious dent in global warming, though the tax may still have some beneficial impact within the country, where air pollution is a serious problem. A paper from the Chinese Academy for Environmental Planning suggests that a small tax could still raise revenue and provide an incentive to reduce emissions, bolstering China’s renewable energy industry.

As much as many in the West have used the inaction of China as an excuse not to do anything about climate change ourselves, that logic has a corollary. China is such a massive nation that it is starting to be in its own interest to break the collective action problem which has plagued environmental causes forever. Its problems are compounded by the fact that not only is it heavily reliant on fossil fuels, but it uses those fuels in the most polluting manner possible. A glance at recent stories about smog in Beijing should reveal why the government is so concerned about reducing pollution.

The real choice the nation is faced with is whether to do that by following the Western path, of replacing polluting fossil fuels with cleaner ones, or skip that stage altogether and move straight to renewables. That move would be reminiscent of the way that many developing nations, particularly in Africa, have skipped wired communications infrastructure entirely and moved straight to mobile phones. It has its disadvantages, of course — primarily speed and cost — but also offers a huge prize at the end of the transition: if China can become a genuine world leader in renewable technology, it would likely have the 21st century sewn-up for good.

If that is the aim, this carbon tax will only be a stepping-stone on the journey. For it to truly offset the cost of pollution (and be an externality tax, rather than just a minor penalty for emitting carbon), it would have to be set in the order of £50-£100 a tonne. But if China starts to lead the way in fighting climate change, it will make it significantly harder for the developed world to carry on abdicating its responsibility.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496