A rather young but rapidly accelerating biofuel industry has recently emerged in China. However, there is no legislation or policy specifically regulating biofuels or bioenergy. In addition, most of the regulatory functions are undertaken by policy initiatives rather than by law. As a result, the regulation and, in a broader context, governance of biofuels still face several major obstacles, including unclear development directions, ignored impact of biofuels development on society, environment and economy, and limited public participation. This paper argues that legislation on biofuels in the form of joint departmental rule is a departure for a comprehensive regulatory framework to overcome the current obstacles and to realize the sustainable development of the biofuels industry in China.
This article appears in the Special Issue: Green Economy and Sustainable Development.
The concept of “green growth” can be fruitfully connected to concepts and theories in neoclassical economics including market externalities, Ricardian and Hotelling rents, and policies that would correct externalities such as Pigovian taxes or a cap and trade system set to achieve emissions reductions consistent with cost benefit assessment. Partial equilibrium concepts have been extended to general equilibrium models, including their realization in relatively detailed empirical models that faithfully adhere to theoretical concepts of neoclassical economics. With such models we are then able to see how resource depletion and environmental degradation are affecting the economy, and how efforts to reduce the impact of these environmental and resource constraints could improve economic growth and performance.
The 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change created the basic international architecture for addressing climate change. That treaty was negotiated at a time when the research literature examining emissions mitigation and the role of energy technology was relatively limited. In the two subsequent decades a great deal has been learned. The problem of stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has proved far more difficult than envisioned in 1992 and the role of technology appears even more important when emissions mitigation strategies are co-developed in the context of multiple competing ends.
This article appeared in the Energy Economics Supplemental Issue: Green Perspectives.
This paper argues that the 2009 pledge of $100 billion in 2020 by rich countries for mitigation and adaptation should not be used for mitigation by commercial firms in developing countries, since that would artificially create competitive advantage for such firms and provoke protectionist reactions in the rich countries where firms must bear the costs of mitigation, thereby undermining the world trading system. The costs of heating the earth's surface should be borne by all emitters, just as the price of copper and other scarce resources is paid by all users, rich or poor. That will still leave scope for rich country help in adaptation to climate change and in bringing to fruition new technologies to reduce emissions.
This article appeared in the Energy Economics Supplemental Issue: Green Perspectives.