Discussion about this post

User's avatar
钟建英's avatar

Why only China’s doubling down matters? Why not accelerate zero carbon to 2026 for US and EU? Bigotry of low expectations? Why is the EU stalling wind farm investments? Why isn’t the EU and US giving China loans to make the “huge investment” needed to save the planet. Why are your expectations of the West so low?

Expand full comment
Jon Anda's avatar

Reflexivity is the subtext of national climate policies. Chinese and EU carbon markets mechanistically reflect US cap and trade for acid rain - but also reflect a broader expectation for where American energy policy might go. With five-eighths of global equity market cap domiciled in the US - you don't want your companies falling behind theirs. And the whole "biggest historical emitter" thing (remember contraction & convergence) was going to kick in, right? My point is this - while the consequentiality of the CCP decision on decarbonization is as you state - that decision will be reflexive of the fact that a) we didn't adopt the market mechanism we told them to use, b) we became the #1 oil & gas producer while they overinvested in RE and EVs that we won't buy now, even though we need the mitigation, c) the market for premium-priced green commodities, and the goods they are made into, has some traction in the EU but little in the US, and d) the US is selling its LNG to the same customers China had planned to be selling its cleantech to - and doesn't even count the GWP of methane leaks correctly (let alone pay for it)! China's big decision reflects that of its ostrich-like competitor, head buried in science-free sand.

Expand full comment
39 more comments...

No posts