Tag Archives: cities
Carbon Market Helps Cut Emissions
Carbon market helps cut emissions Updated: 2013-07-29 08:39 By Jiang Xueqing and Chen Hong (China Daily) Substantial step taken to clean up environment and save energy, report Jiang Xueqing and Chen Hong in Shenzhen, Guangdong province. On July 18, one month after China launched its first pilot carbon-trading program in Shenzhen, Guangdong province, the city began consulting local businesses and government departments about its draft regulations for the project. The regulations emphasize that carbon credits are corporate assets. The launch ceremony of the Shenzhen Emissions Trading Scheme saw Shenzhen Energy Group sell 10,000 metric tons of carbon credits to PetroChina International Guangdong at 28 yuan ($4.60) per ton. Hanergy Holding Group also bought 10,000 tons at 30 yuan per ton. Both businesses purchased the credits for investment purposes. “The launch of the carbon-trading market in Shenzhen demonstrates that China has taken a substantial step in reducing carbon emissions. Following Shenzhen, other carbon-trading pilots at provincial and city levels are making big strides,” said Wu Delin, deputy secretary-general of the Shenzhen municipal government. It has taken nearly three years to establish China’s first pilot carbon-trading market. In July 2010, Shenzhen, seven other cities and five provinces were named the sites of China’s first low-carbon program. The announcement by the National Development and Reform Commission was followed by the foundation of the China Emissions Exchange in Shenzhen two months later. The move from low-carbon programs to carbon trading came in 2011, when the central government announced pilots in two provinces and five cities, including Shenzhen, Beijing and Shanghai. One year later, China’s first regulations on the administration of carbon emissions were enacted by the Standing Committee of the Fifth People’s Congress of Shenzhen Municipality. Market-oriented measures “By founding the exchange, we are trying to use market-oriented measures, rather than administrative and taxation measures, to promote emissions trading and the construction of low-carbon cities,” said Chen Haiou, president of the China Emissions Exchange. “Three years ago, we didn’t expect the government to make such great efforts to develop carbon trading at such a high pace.” A major target for carbon trading is to push the city forward in areas such as energy saving and emissions reduction, said Wu. Research conducted over recent years revealed that industrial enterprises, transport, buildings and waste disposal are responsible for most of Shenzhen’s carbon dioxide emissions. In the initial stages of the carbon-trading project, Shenzhen’s municipal government put 635 manufacturers and 197 buildings, including shopping malls, hotels and office buildings, under carbon-emission management. The companies are mostly large enterprises with high levels of emissions. Research carried out in the period 2009-11 found that in 2010 alone, these companies emitted 31.73 million tons of carbon dioxide, accounting for 38 percent of the 83.4 million tons of the city’s carbon dioxide emissions. They also accounted for 59 percent of Shenzhen’s total “industry value added” – its contribution to national GDP – and 26 percent of its own GDP. By 2015, the city will cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP to 21 percent below the 2010 level, according to its low-carbon growth plan. However, because it’s extremely difficult and expensive to reduce transport and residential emissions, the municipal government set a reduction target of 25 percent for industrial enterprises. To that end, the government has allocated the 635 businesses more than 100 million tons of free carbon credits over the next three years, based on their previous emissions and industry value added. Companies that exceed their emissions quotas will be fined at a rate three times the average market price of the excess emissions. Before they signed their quota agreements with the government, each participating company took part in the allocation process by assessing the potential for further reducing its carbon intensity and estimating its annual growth of industry value added in the period 2013 to 2015. If a company has failed to cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP at the agreed rate a year after they signed their quota agreements, and its industry value added does not increase as quickly as estimated, the government will take back a proportion of its carbon credits accordingly. Striking a balance The use of adjustable carbon credits means Shenzhen will be able to balance allowance supply and demand and stabilize carbon prices, a lesson learned from the European Union’s carbon-trading market. In recent years, the price of EU carbon credits has fallen from more than 30 euros ($40) per ton to 5 euros. The price of carbon offsets, also known as certified emission reductions, slumped from more than 20 euros to around 50 euro cents. The price decline has been caused, in part, by a recession in Europe, which led to a decrease in industrial output and, in turn, resulted in fewer emissions and an overabundance of allowances. Moreover, the EU allocated all its carbon credits simultaneously, thus making it impossible to reduce credits when the eurozone economy began to weaken. Shenzhen can avoid similar problems by the adoption of adjustable credit allocation, said Xiao Ming, chairman of GDR Carbon, a consultancy specializing in carbon-asset management and investment. Unlike in the EU, carbon trading is a new phenomenon for most Chinese companies, which regard carbon credits as a huge responsibility, one they have to adhere to by remaining within their emissions limits. Since that first transaction at the China Emissions Exchange on June 18, a number of individual investors have opened accounts and expressed strong interest in buying emission allowances. The highest price listed is 33 yuan per ton, but so far no company has offered to sell its credits. “Many companies have no idea of how much carbon dioxide they have emitted in the first half of 2013 and therefore dare not sell their emission allowances. Even if some of them have realized that carbon credits are corporate assets which can even be used as pledges for bank loans, they do not have a clear procedure for making investment decisions on carbon trading, nor do they have any information about the trend of domestic carbon prices because of a lack of long-term market research and analysis,” said Ge Xing’an, vice-president of the China Emissions Exchange. The companies are in no hurry to make decisions about when to buy or sell their carbon credits, the number of credits they should sell or the prices they should ask. They won’t make those decisions until the first year of their contracts ends in June 2014, he added. However, with limited emission allowances, the companies have already felt pressure to cut emissions and need to take advice from low-carbon consulting services, according to Xiao. He said consultancies that specialize in carbon trading offer a variety of services that could help businesses improve their ability to monitor emissions sources and collect verifiable data. The consultancies can also help companies investigate their greenhouse gas emissions, reduce emissions by optimizing management, technology and corporate structures, exploit potential carbon assets, log accurate records of carbon assets and make a profit from carbon investment. “Carbon trading is used as a tool to promote energy saving and the reduction of emissions,” said Chen of the China Emissions Exchange. “During the process of developing the market, we will provide not only a trading platform but also a wide range of financial support to help businesses build their carbon management and trading systems.” For example, the exchange is planning to help a wind power company issue a 1 billion yuan bond in early September. Futures and options Carbon market helps cut emissions Because only carbon credits and Chinese certified emission reductions are tradable in China, experts and professionals have called on the central government to open the futures and options market as soon as possible. “Without futures and options, it is hard to find long-term investment value in the carbon-trading market and the development and application of low-carbon technologies will be hindered by a lack of funding,” said Xiao. Ge pointed out that carbon credits can be problematic financially and the risks must be countered by risk-management tools, such as futures and options. The China Emissions Exchange holds a training session once a week, where it provides training for participating companies and listens to their demands. The ultimate aim of the exchange’s founders is to build a carbon-trading financial center in China. “Cultivating the carbon-trading market in China will be a long process. We shouldn’t pull at seedlings to help them grow, or dream of huge transaction volumes immediately. That’s unrealistic. We’ve got a lot of work to do to build a solid foundation for the market,” said Chen. Contact the writer at jiangxueqing@chinadaily.com.cn Wu Wencong also contributed to this story. Continue reading
Farm Bill Defeat Shows Agriculture’s Waning Power
Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated Press Speaker John A. Boehner failed to draw enough Republican support for a bill last month. By RON NIXON Published: July 2, 2013 WASHINGTON — The startling failure of the farm bill last month reflects the declining clout of the farm lobby and the once-powerful committees that have jurisdiction over agriculture policy, economists and political scientists said this week. Although a number of factors contributed to the defeat of the bill — including Speaker John A. Boehner’s failure to rally enough Republican support and Democratic opposition to $20 billion in cuts to the food stamps program — analysts said the 234 to 195 vote also illustrated the shift in the American population and political power to more urban areas. “There are a small number of Congressional districts where farming continues to carry much sway,” said Vincent H. Smith, a professor of agricultural economics at Montana State University. “Especially in the House, the farm lobby has been substantially weakened.” For much of American history, the agriculture sectors wielded tremendous political power. Farm groups were able to get key farm legislation passed by rallying millions of farmers in nearly every Congressional district. Influential farm state legislators like Representative Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi, a Democrat who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee on agriculture, brought billions in agriculture financing to their states and fought off attempts to cut subsidy programs despite pressure from both liberals and conservatives. Mr. Whitten died in 1995 after 53 years in Congress. But as Americans have moved to the cities and suburbs, farmers and lawmakers representing districts largely dependent on agriculture have seen their political muscle steadily decline. Just 2.2 million people now work in farming in the United States, or about 2.5 percent of the total work force. Farming now accounts for about 1 percent of gross national product, down from a high of about 9 percent in 1950. Only 40 lawmakers represent largely farming districts, according to research by Mr. Smith in 2006. He said that number was probably smaller today. Nonetheless, agriculture groups said they continue to have influence and blamed increased partisanship for the inability of Congress to pass the farm bill. “Agriculture used to be a nonpartisan issue that both Democrats and Republicans could support,” said Danny Murphy, president of the American Soybean Association. “Now people are lining up to take sides; it’s nutrition or farm programs,” he said. “For us, it’s a nonissue. We’re farmers, how can we be against food?” Barry L. Bequette, dean of the School of Agriculture, Research, Extension and Applied Sciences at Alcorn State University in Lorman, Miss., said the issue was not a lack of power. “Farmers just haven’t learned how to utilize the power they have,” he said. “All the groups are fractured and focused on their own narrow issues.” But agricultural economists like Mr. Smith said the Congressional response to last year’s drought and this year’s debt talks provide more evidence of the waning political influence of agriculture. Last summer, as the worst dry spell in 50 years was causing widespread damage to farmland and livestock, national farm organizations pushed for the passage of a farm bill that would provide relief. But the groups were unable to muster enough support to even get the bill to the floor for a vote. Representative Frank D. Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma and chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, which did pass a farm bill , made several appeals to House leaders to bring the legislation up for a vote, but they declined. When the Obama administration and Republican leaders worked out a compromise to avert automatic tax increases in January, Mr. Lucas and Senator Debbie Stabenow, the Michigan Democrat who is chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, tried desperately to get the farm bill included in the talks. Both touted the savings they had achieved in both the House and Senate version of the bills. But their pleas were largely unheeded. The Senate instead chose to include in the tax package a slimmed-down farm bill proposal by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader. Mr. McConnell’s proposal extended only portions of the current farm bill, which was passed in 2008. The extension did not provide disaster assistance for livestock owners, who had to kill thousands of cows, pigs and chickens because of rising feed prices and lack of water. It eliminated money for conservation programs and financing for fruit and vegetable growers and organic farmers, and cut a program that pays milk producers when feed prices increase. The proposal did contain provisions to prevent milk prices from rising and left in place direct payments to farmers or farmland owners, whether or not they grow crops. The payments, which total about $5 billion a year, have long been criticized as examples of wasteful government spending. The bill passed the Senate by 89 to 8, with a reluctant Ms. Stabenow voting for it; it passed the House by 257 to 167. Mr. Lucas also voted for the House bill. Farm groups said they felt equally ignored. An exasperated Ms. Stabenow summed up the feeling of both farm state lawmakers and the farm sector in an interview shortly after the deal was announced. “There is absolutely no way to explain this other than agriculture is just not a priority,” she said. Collin C. Peterson, the Minnesota Democrat and ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee, sent a letter to House leaders involved in the debt talks. “I could not believe that you and your leadership team could treat the committee with such disrespect,” he wrote. Continue reading
Brazil’s Unrest: Should Investors Worry?
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/06/19/brazils-unrest-should-investors-worry/#ixzz2WqmHIlTT Jun 19, 2013 4:11pm by Jonathan Wheatley The scenes have been extraordinary. Not only the size of public demonstrations in Brazil’s major cities over the past week but also the violence with which they were met by supposedly elite police units have made for surprising and shocking viewing. Are investors worried? And should they be? The short answer to the first question is, apparently, No. To be sure, Brazilian stocks have had a rough ride lately but equity investors are far more worried about the US Federal Reserve than they are about protesters, and the Bovespa index has been heading south since long before they took to the streets. The same is true of the currency and other assets. Beyondbrics has not seen a single analyst make any connection between the demonstrations and asset prices (we would be more than interested to be advised otherwise). To the second question, though, the answer must surely be, Yes. “What is going on is the result of slow growth and that is unlikely to go away,” says Alfredo Behrens, a professor of management at FIA, a business school in São Paulo. Which about sums it up. As one articulate young video blogger puts it, this month’s protests are about more than the 20 centavo increase in bus and metro fares that initially sparked them: “If everything was working, health, education, public transport itself,” she says, “nobody would be on the streets demonstrating.” Parallels have been drawn with the recent protests in Turkey (indeed, protesters in São Paulo and Istanbul saluted each other). Other parallels could be drawn with recent demonstrations in Chile, and even with the upper middle class protesters of Moscow and Chinese micro-bloggers. In all cases, newly economically-enfranchised people, the much-cited new middle classes, are looking about and finding themselves dissatisfied, often because their taxes are not being properly spent. They may feel their freedoms are being curtailed in other ways, too, but common among them is a sense of getting the bad side of a bargain with the state. Many have been quick to point out that Brazil’s protesters may be more privileged than the newly-enfranchised “classe C”. As newspaper Folha de S.Paulo noted on Wednesday, three quarters of the demonstrators have university degrees and more than half are aged under 25. But to dismiss them as a bunch of upper crust urbanites with nothing better to do would be a serious mistake. The educated young have led big revolutions in Brazil in the past (and around the world). And the first thing on the shopping lists of many joining the classe C has been a university eduction for their children. Why should investors worry? One threat to their interests is that the government may react in an overly placatory manner. Reversing the increase in transport fares would be fiscally irresponsible. (Doing what some protesters demand and making public transport free would be fiscal suicide.) The government may be doubly tempted to damp down the protests with floods of cash by the fact that next year is election year – and voter support for President Dilma Rousseff, until recently seen as a shoo-in for re-election, has slipped severely in recent weeks. Another threat is that the government may simply ignore the protests, assuming they calm down over time. That would leave Brazil stuck in its low-growth rut. This may no longer be as appealing to policy-makers as it once was. Slow growth of around 2.5 per cent is probably enough to keep unemployment at a level acceptable for voters. But voters are getting upset all the same. Ideally, of course, the government will listen to the voices from the streets and take energetic action to fight corruption and inefficiency in the public service. On the evidence of recent performance, the chances of that are slim. Even the leading Brazilian politicians who were convicted last year for corruption in a landmark case have yet to actually do any time. Continue reading
