Comparing Carbon Emission Policies

The first case study I select is the results of implementation of the CAFE standard in the United States. This case study focuses on how successful has the CAFE standard been at cutting down carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and I found this source on Colby-Sustainable development (http://personal.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/air-carbon.html). Carbon dioxide is the primary resource of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, and the U.S. was the largest emitter in 1997. So in 1975, EPCA established the CAFE standards in order to control oil consumption. According to the article, the CAFE standard has substantially increased fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks since 1978, although its momentum was partially inhibited for some time. The standard has unintentionally created perverse market incentives to purchase and create vehicles that are relatively less efficient, and low prices of gasoline permitted individuals to drive fuel inefficient cars without paying the environmental costs. These actions are unsustainable for the society, and it’s also a matter of environmental justice as people are still suffered from global warming.

 

The second case study I select is about the European Union emissions trading scheme and I found this article on fern, a NGO in Europe (http://www.fern.org/book/trading-carbon/case-study-3-carbon-trading-practice-–-eu-emissions-trading-scheme). This article mainly focuses on the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aims to reduce greenhouse gases emissions. 15 countries in EU are committed to the protocol and they aim at a reduction target of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. In order to meet the target, they initiate different policies, and the main one is the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EUETS). The EUETS consists of three phases, the first phase was from 2005 to 2007 and the second phase was coincides exactly with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008~2012). Both of these phases only controlled carbon dioxide (with exceptions) and permits were allocated by Member States in NAPs. The last phase ran from 2013 and will carry on till 2020 and the final target is to reduce emission by 14% below 2005 levels. As both U.S. and members in EU are considered as more developed countries, they have higher standards on air pollution and more detailed plan to regulate carbon emission.

 

Comparing the two cases with Guangzhou, I would say there are some similarities but the U.S. and EU have better plans and higher standards. Although China is a developing country, Guangzhou is one of the cities in China that has highest GDP. China just announced its international climate pledge (Intended National Determined Contribution, or INDC) in June 2015 with the national goal to peak carbon dioxide emission in 2030 or sooner. Guangzhou would follow the goals set by the country, but there aren’t many policies specifically regulate carbon dioxide emissions. From the case studies, I think one thing we can take away from them is to establish a more specific policy on regulating carbon dioxide emission rather than focusing on the broad term. I believe that the Chinese government is working its way to a more advanced stage in reducing carbon emission.