Accomplishing carbon peaking in 2030 and carbon neutrality in 2060 is one of the strategic goals of China in building a great modern socialist country in all aspects. Moreover, this year marks a critical year for facilitating the accomplishment of the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals (the “dual carbon” goal for short). In the view of Professor Zhu Dajian, the “dual carbon” goal is an “inverted U” transformation that covers every aspect. Today, Zhu will talk about his personal thoughts on this in the speech.

What is an “inverted U” transformation?

As we all know, carbon dioxide emissions have always climbed along with economic growth and social development. The carbon peaking aims to set a stable ceiling for carbon dioxide emissions while carbon neutrality aims to significantly pull down the carbon dioxide emissions from the ceiling and reach a balance between carbon emissions and absorptions. That means, carbon peaking and carbon neutrality will create an “inverted U curve” in carbon dioxide emissions. How do we understand this “inverted U” transformation? This concept can be further interpreted and analyzed theoretically in four aspects, i.e. temperature and emissions, environment and development, technological revolution, and global governance.

First, an “inverted U” transformation from the point of greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon peaking and carbon neutrality, in a narrow sense, involve carbon dioxide emissions related to coal, oil, gas, and other fossil energy. But in a broad sense, it also covers all greenhouse gases, including methane, hydrofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, etc. It is noted that the carbon neutrality refers to the carbon sequestration and carbon capture for the remaining 10% to 20% emissions rather than net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, to understand the carbon neutrality, we need to avoid two misunderstandings: first, the carbon neutrality refers to net-zero emission; second, the carbon neutrality refers to high emissions plus high neutrality without substantial emission reduction at the source.

Second, an “inverted U” transformation from the point of environment and development. While carbon peaking and carbon neutrality sound like environmental concepts, they are much more than that. The essence of development under the “dual carbon” goal is to realize high-quality development, and disconnect the relation between economic and social development and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, to understand the development under the “dual carbon” goal, we also need to avoid two misunderstandings: first, emission reduction necessarily compromises development; second, carbon surging and reduction is the only way to realize development. For example, China does not intend to control per capita electricity consumption and total electricity growth by controlling per capita carbon emissions and total carbon emissions. It is even unnecessary to control it if renewable energy and green power are used. In fact, China’s current per capita electricity consumption is 5,000 kWh, which still lags behind that of the developed countries. Therefore, emission reduction does not intend to compromise development; instead, it aims to change the way of development and accomplish high-quality development.

Third, an “inverted U” transformation from the point of technological innovation and industrial revolution. Since 1750, the four rounds of technological innovation and industrial revolution around the world have all increased carbon emissions. The current “dual carbon” goal aims to reduce carbon emissions to the neutral state, thus bucking the trend of all previous industrial revolutions and their technological connotations. There are three major technological innovations related to carbon neutrality: the zero carbon technology based on renewal energy, the carbon reduction technology that increases energy efficiency and reduces carbon dioxide, and the negative carbon technology that absorbs carbon emissions by natural and artificial means. Although there is a cost to technological innovation and conversion, we are now at the starting point of the learning curve. With increased policy-based control over greenhouse gas emissions, the cost of traditional carbon emission technologies will be increasingly high, so the gains of taking actions early will increase with time.

Fourth, an “inverted U” transformation from the point of global climate governance. Although the global climate governance aims at controlling the temperature rise within 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, this figure can only be controlled within around 1.5 degrees Celsius with all anti-climate-change policy efforts combined throughout the world. Why will this happen? Because different countries enjoy impacts and benefits to different extents in the global climate governance. The large developed countries were historically major emitters, and the large developing ones are major emitters of the moment, but the small developing countries, especially island countries, are minor emitters but major sufferers. Therefore, the “dual carbon” goal is undoubtedly a revolution that requires to further improve global governance.

China’s strategic thinking and roadmap for realizing “dual carbon”

China has very systematic thinking and layout for the “dual carbon” goal. Instead of only reducing carbon emissions, China combines it with the construction of a great modern socialist country in all aspects and fundamentally changes the mode of development. China’s general thinking and roadmap for development under the “dual carbon” goal can be understood based on the following three elements: where is China now, where is China going, and How does China get there.

I. Where is China now?

As far as the current actual emissions are concerned, China is now facing two public opinion challenges in the world. One is that China’s total carbon dioxide emissions have surpassed the United States and topped the world since 2007. The other is that China’s per capita emission is more than 7 tons, which has bested the world per capita mission of 4.75 tons. In this regard, it is especially important for China to participate in global climate governance in a spirit of common but differentiated responsibilities. On the one hand, China is a major developing country where 1.4 billion Chinese people have not yet completed their development tasks and domestic affairs need to be handled well. On the other hand, we need to globally take the responsibility corresponding to a major developing country.

II. Where is China going?

The carbon peaking may be analyzed in three different scenarios: The first scenario, which I call the mode A, is that we stick to the old emission path that all developed countries have followed. The average carbon peaking standard for developed countries is 10 tons of carbon dioxide emissions, even 20 tons for the United States. Here I only indicate carbon dioxide emissions related to energy, and the figure will be 20% higher if all greenhouse gases are included. Calculated based on this figure of 10 tons, 1.4 billion Chinese people will emit 14 billion carbon dioxide by 2030. However, our carbon dioxide emissions related to energy were 10 billion tons in 2020. An increment of only 4 billion tons in the next decade will be very disadvantageous for China and even for the world.

The other mode, which I call the mode B, is demanding China to reduce emissions aggressively. The United States said China should practice carbon reduction instead of carbon peaking. Considering the global per capita emission of around 5 tons, if our per capita emission is reduced to 5 tons in 2030, totaling 7 billion tons for 1.4 billion Chinese people, which will be a constraint for necessary economic and social development imposed by carbon dioxide emission reduction, which is obviously unrealistic and unreasonable.

I think it is an acceptable goal of 8 tons of per capita emission for China’s carbon peaking by around 2030, which means the total carbon dioxide emission related to energy will be around 10.5 to 11 billion tons. I call it the mode C. If we follow this mode, our highest per capita emission will be 2 tons lower than that of developed countries, and the emission growth is only 1 billion tons in ten years while the per capita GDP is doubled. According to the plan, our per capita GDP will have reached the level of moderately developed countries by around 2035. This means our total GDP needs to be doubled, which can only rely on sustainable development. Therefore, according to the analysis on the three scenarios, China’s carbon peaking goal of 2030 must be a realistic and feasible path that can not only maintain economic and social growth but also contribute to the combat against climate change.

III. How does China get there?

To accomplish the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals, China faces four structural challenges, which are the energy structure dominated by fossil energy, the industrial structure dominated by heavy chemical industries, the transportation structure dominated by road transportation and freight, and the land construction structure characterized by urban land expansion and functional separation. These four structural challenges, namely energy decarbonization, new industrialization, travel mode and transportation modernization, as well as city modernization and new urbanization, are actually the four issues that need to be addressed for Chinese-styled modernization.

The next decade plays a critical role in realizing the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals. To realize these goals, we need to analyze three influencing factors, i.e. energy substitution (measured by the carbon emission per unit energy), energy efficiency improvement (measured by the energy consumption per unit GDP), and economic growth (economic growth measured). To realize the carbon peaking goal in 2030, we have to understand the following three key points.

First, let’s look at the energy structure. We absolutely need to make efforts to increase the share of renewable energy, like by 1 percent each year, for instance. But in 2030, renewable energy will only take up 25% of the entire energy structure. So it is very important to improve the efficiency of traditional energy forms in this decade.

Next let’s look at the consumption sector. Terminal energy consumers are divided into four sectors, namely electricity, industry, construction, and transportation. General speaking, the consumers in the electricity and industry sectors use energy for production and manufacturing, while those in the construction and transportation sectors use energy for consumption.

Lastly, let’s look at the relationship between economic growth and carbon productivity. Carbon productivity is composed of energy substitution and energy efficiency. I believe the year 2030 is a perfect moment for realizing the carbon parking goal, not a decade before or after. It can correspond to our physical accumulation and technological accumulation and the effort of comprehensively building a modernized country, thus being a critical starting point for the “dual carbon” goal.

What can social science do to accomplish the “dual carbon” goal?

In the last section, I analyzed the connotation, strategic thinking, and roadmap for accomplishing the “dual carbon” goal. Then what is the significance of development under the “dual carbon” goal for social science research? What can social science do to accomplish the “dual carbon” goal? I will expand on this issue in five aspects.

Economic growth: Speaking of carbon peaking, precisely it refers to net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. Positive GDP growth leads to carbon emissions. Energy substitution and energy efficiency improvement reduce carbon emissions. Carbon peaking means that carbon emission and emission reduction change in opposite directions but are completely equal in magnitude, thus forming an offset. Therefore, we need to consider both economic growth and carbon productivity when discussing economic growth in the future, and make the optimal decision.

Social equity: For example, how do we understand the equity of emission rights and carbon emissions? America and European countries say China’s per capita emission has surpassed the global average. However, we think per capita emission shall be calculated based on historical accumulation. China’s per capita emission is relatively high because we have been applying an export-oriented economic mode since the reform and opening up. But if we convert the production-side calculations into consumption-side calculations, our per capita emission can be reduced by more than 10%. Scholars therefore can make more efforts to ensure the international community to recognize the new calculation method.

National governance: As for the national governance for combating climate change, the United States has pulled back twice regarding its participation in global carbon dioxide governance. The first pullback was that the Bush administration overturned the protocol signed by the Clinton administration. The second pullback was that the Trump administration overturned the protocol signed by the Obama administration. The Democrats and the Republicans in the United States hold opposite attitudes to the carbon dioxide issue, so their policies do not aim at the same direction, but vary with administration changes. However, China deals with climate changes and development under the “dual carbon” goal in the way we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. With the state force and long-term institutional advantages, we comprehensively deploy and resolutely implement the promise we make. According to recent foreign media reports, China enjoys a far better international reputation than the United States in its response to climate changes, especially in its policies to combat climate changes.

Ecological conservation: Many take the “dual carbon” goal as a purely environmental issue that only needs the concern of environmental protection practitioners, while the rest don’t need to care about or understand it. In fact, national decision makers regard the development under the “dual carbon” goal as important facilitators of green development and ecological conservation. They have emphasized that the “dual carbon” goal signifies a game-changing transformation of economic and social development, and plays a fundamental role in our efforts of building a great modern socialist country in all aspects in a hundred years following 2021. To interpret and study ecological conservation from the perspective of the development under the “dual carbon” goal, we have to make it clear that ecological conservation neither solely relates to ecology or environment, nor to conservation or development. It is systematic integrations of the ecology and conservation as well as the lucid waters and lush mountains and invaluable assets.

Mindset and culture: The development under the “dual carbon” goal entails a mindset change from linear extrapolation to vision retrospection. We used to apply the mindset of linear extrapolation to boost economic growth and social development, in which the present is the independent variable and the future is the dependent variable. So the future is linearly deduced from the present. However, the development under the “dual carbon” goal requires a vision-retrospective and target-oriented mindset. Taking the carbon peaking in 2030 for example, the future carbon emissions are independent variables and the present economic structure and growth speed are dependent variables. Changing the industrial structure, energy structure, transportation structure, and land use structure reversely from the expected scenario is vision retrospection.

Accomplishing the carbon peaking and carbon neutrality goals is an inherent requirement for applying the new development philosophy, creating a new pattern of development, and facilitating high-quality development. It’s also a major strategic decision made by the Party Central Committee for coordinating domestic and international situations. As a sweeping and intensive revolution, the “dual carbon” goal is never easy to reach, but require joint efforts from everyone.

Source: Shanghai Observer, February 27, 2022