Environment

China Says Consumers Should Pay for Greenhouse Gases

by Barbara McPherson | March 17, 2009 at 09:26 am

155 views | 44 Recommendations | 6 comments

China's top negotiator for the upcoming conference in Copenhagen this December has stated that the consuming nations should shoulder responsibility for carbon dioxide emissions. China is currently the top producer of carbon dioxide emissions.

This stand is in direct opposition to the view by many Western negotiators that the producers of greenhouse gases should pay for carbon emissions.

Countries that consume rather than manufacturegoods should shoulder responsibility for the greenhouse gas emissions generated in the production of exports, China's top climate change negotiator said this week.

The tough bargaining position set out by Li Gao, whose country is now the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, looks set to be a major hurdle for the Obama administration as it seeks to find common ground ahead of a crucial climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December.

1 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

Amy Judd

at 13:11 on March 17th, 2009

This is ridiculous - once again they are trying to get out of paying; this makes me angry.

eastvanray

at 14:57 on March 17th, 2009

Simple solution. Boycott Chinese made products. I aviod them at all cost and will only buy them when no reasonable alternative exists. Pretty much means say goodbye to WalMart, Target and all those discounters but owning better quality products made in 1st world countries as opposed to sweat shops does make you appreciate the added cost a bit.

Paschen

at 15:38 on March 17th, 2009

I do actually agree with their point. Yet Government are just as liable for the lack of legislation and allowing this wild pollution to go on.

eastvanray

at 17:28 on March 17th, 2009

The reality is an economic one. The degree of competition in the market for each item manufactured will determine how much of the added cost (no different than any other cost) can be passed on to the consumer and how much must be absorbed by the manufacturer.

The more competition for a particular good, the more will have to be born by the producer while at the other end if the market structure is more like monopoly or oligopoly (3 to 4 producers) then more of the added cost can be pushed on to the consumer as few substitutes exist. We will see but I still it is a good policy to avoid Chinese made products until their labour, environmental and human rights practices improve.

Roy C

at 17:53 on March 17th, 2009

If you tax the manufacturer, you, the consumer, pay the price. If you tax the consumer, you, the consumer, pay the price.

What is the difference?

eastvanray

at 17:58 on March 17th, 2009

It doesn't always work that way. If a Chinese company raises the price of their Chinese widget by the amount of the carbon tax and another company operating in say India decides they will absorb some of the tax (due to healthy profit margins) and therefore they raise the price of their widget by less, consumers will shift their buying preferences to the less expensive Indian widget. It's simple competitive analysis. It is a function of the structure of the market (number of producers) and the availability of substitute goods. Innovators will redesign manufacturing processes to reduce carbon output and therefore the carbon tax applied to their product. Taxes have a way of shifting both consumer choices and producer behaviour. Only a pure monopoly can actually pass on 100% of a cost increase to their consumers and no such monopolies actually exist within market-based economies (only in communist countries do monopolies exist but who gives a rats ass about communists anyway?).