Linking China’s emissions trading pilot schemes

All seven emissions trading pilots in China operate independently. One challenge facing most of them is the low inclusion thresholds for enterprises and the few total covered emissions, which negatively influences the effects of the emissions trading systems (ETSs). Some pilot sites, such as Guangdong, Hubei, Tianjin and Beijing, have indicated their willingness to link their schemes with others. ETS linking could expand scheme coverages and therefore help to reduce the overall costs of achieving the linked schemes’ emissions control targets. Linking could also help to address the issues of carbon leakage and reduce price fluctuations. The potential benefits and feasibility of linking different pilot systems are analyzed in this article. The seven pilot regions are at different stages of social and economic development, with significant differences in total emissions and emissions structures as well as carbon abatement potentials and costs. Through linking, more-developed regions such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, which are typically considered to face higher mitigation costs, will have the opportunity to achieve their emissions control targets by purchasing carbon units from less-developed regions, which will earn financial revenues from selling the units. To realize this win-win result, a series of policy and technical barriers at both the central government and pilot government levels needs to be overcome. Establishing a unified national emissions trading market would appear to be the ideal solution to these challenges, but it will take considerable time and will not be the short-term solution. In the absence of a unified national scheme, it is recommended that the central government encourage pilot schemes to link, that it develops corresponding national policies to support the linking efforts and that the pilot schemes that are intended to be linked coordinate on certain design elements. Based on the coordinating need, the major elements of an ETS can be divided into four categories: elements that need mutual recognition (cap setting and allowance allocation methods); elements that should be completely identical (compliance mechanisms, price containment measures, banking and borrowing rules, and offset mechanisms); technical elements that are preferably identical and easy to coordinate (MRV standards, technical registry standards); and elements that require no coordination (coverages and scopes).