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

Michael Gove's quiet revolution could transform prisoner education

To anyone with a passing interest in prisoner education it is clear that current levels of education and training are simply inadequate.

Justice Secretary Michael Gove is quietly embarking on the most substantive prison education reform programme for a generation. In September, Gove announced that Dame Sally Coates would chair a review of the provision and quality of education in prisons, the results of which are expected shortly.

To anyone with a passing interest in prisoner education it is clear that current levels of education and training are simply inadequate. In 2014, Ofsted reported that education levels across the British prison system were inadequate, suggesting that “very few prisoners are getting the opportunity to develop the skills and behaviours they need for work.” Between 2011/12 and 2013/14 the number of prisoners achieving a level 1 or 2 qualification in Mathematics fell by a third, and since 2010 the number of prisoners studying for an Open University degree has dropped by 37%.

In light of these damning statistics, Gove’s calls for prisons to become “places of education” is to be welcomed. The most obvious result of improved opportunities for training and education is that upon leaving prison offenders will be more likely to secure employment and less likely to reoffend. Less tangible, but no less important, limited opportunities for education hinder aspiration and prevent the justice system from acting as a conduit to improving society at large. Too often offenders are unable to develop their potential as citizens and contribute accordingly. Education is a powerful force in building offenders’ confidence and helping to engage with their communities upon release: helping to break the cycle of offending.

In tandem with enhanced opportunities for education, skills and training, Gove has promised greater autonomy for prison governors. Currently, the Skills Funding Agency manages the Offenders’ Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) to connect offender education with mainstream provision. Speaking before the APPG on Penal Affairs, Dame Sally suggested that “many governors feel very frustrated by their lack of ability to have any say in the education delivered.  If we want the governors to be accountable, they have to have the autonomy to contract for this for themselves, or employ their own teaching staff.”

The principle of increased flexibility is a good one. A significant minority of prisoners already have qualifications and require opportunity to build upon them. The education pathways available to them will be quite different to those offenders who enter prison with limited numeracy and literacy skills. However, the high-profile failure of private suppliers to deliver even the most basic services, raises questions as to whether major outsourcing firms will be able to provide these.

In 2014, A4E prematurely pulled out of a £17m contract to deliver education and training to prisoners in 12 London prisons on the grounds that it was unable to run the contract at a profit. This was not the first time that A4E had prematurely terminated a prison education contract. In 2008 the firm ended a similar contract to provide education in eight Kent prisons, again citing huge losses.

Recognising such failures, the Prime Minister has argued that his government’s reform program would “allow new providers and new ideas to flourish”, but the steps to achieving this are unclear. Identifying the difficulty smaller providers – particularly those from the third sector – currently have in winning and delivering contracts is a far easier task than redesigning the contracting system to improve their chances.

There are three steps that could act as a starting point. First, a review of commissioning to ensure a plurality of providers, particularly from small and medium-sized organisations should be considered, with payments-by-results the favoured means of remuneration. Second, providers and experts should be empowered to contribute to the reform process that follows the Coates Review’s publication. Third, it is clear that while a universal standard of education must be set, providers and governors should be empowered to experiment and innovate to seek results above this. In sacrificing universality it may be possible to improve methods and achieve better results in future.

Reforming the prison system is not a task that will be easy, nor one that will be quick. To ensure its long-term success it is vital that education and skills providers’ voices are heard and that the government develops forums through which ideas can be shared. For too long talent, resources and time have been wasted through mismanagement and poor provision. Now is the time to reverse this and ensure that the justice system delivers rehabilitation and improved educational outcomes.