Don’t be Shanghaied! China has started down the carbon cutting highway

How often do we hear the argument that Australia’s moves to limit carbon emissions will achieve nothing unless China finally takes some action? This fails to recognise that China’s city mayors, the government officials who are actually responsible for urban transport, are enacting the most vigorous…

Shanghai2_205-1311834332
Car ownership is tightly regulated in Chinese cities such as Shanghai. Dr Matthew Burke

How often do we hear the argument that Australia’s moves to limit carbon emissions will achieve nothing unless China finally takes some action?

This fails to recognise that China’s city mayors, the government officials who are actually responsible for urban transport, are enacting the most vigorous of policies available to curb growth in automobile ownership and limit carbon emissions from the urban transport sector.

To say China is doing nothing is clearly ignorance or deceit.

As I suggested recently in The Conversation, Australians would likely vote anyone proposing restrictions or price increases on motoring out of office. Yet strong measures are possible in the Chinese political system and are being enforced to create very liveable and equitable cities.

Shanghai has been especially proactive on this issue. At around 18 million people, depending on where you draw its boundaries, it is similar in size to Australia’s entire urban population, Australia being one of the most urbanised countries on earth.

Sure, Shanghai has built massive freeway networks and has retrofitted its old core to suit high-speed car travel.

They host F1 Grand Prix, run car shows and there are ostentatious displays of luxury car ownership. But despite exceptional wealth creation and the spectacular growth of the middle and upper classes, car ownership itself remains very low in the city, compared to other Asian mega-cities. Why?

Faced with exploding car registrations and a paucity of road space, the municipal government borrowed ideas from Singapore.

The key policy measure is essentially a ‘cap and trade’ system. The number of available car registrations is capped at a low level by regulation.

Prospective car users have to bid in an auction (‘trade’) for the right to register a vehicle. It costs around RMB50,000 (A$7,000) minimum just to secure a permit, in addition to the usual taxes and charges.

The limits prevent many in the middle class from pursuing car ownership. Unlike Australia, upper middle-class households in the outer suburbs tend to have only one car.

There has to be a trade-off to allow for this repression to be accepted by the populace. As in Singapore, this comes in the form of infrastructure and service delivery to create a world class public transport system, including the world’s largest (and possibly cleanest) metro system.

The system keeps expanding and there will be 20 lines by 2020.

Buses are plentiful and air-conditioned (though crowded in peak hour). Bicycle provision remains good. And regulation encourages rather than prevents the use of electric bicycles and scooters, which some truly tragic legislation in Australia prevents, much to our detriment.

Perhaps the clearest indicator is that few children are driven to school by car in Shanghai, even in the middle and outer suburbs where car ownership is higher.

The results are stark between the Chinese cities that have followed this approach and those that haven’t.

After three decades of economic progress, in 2008 per capita car ownership in Shanghai was almost a third that of Beijing, where only very recently have the authorities adopted the same measures.

Bike and e-bike use has remained relatively steady in Shanghai since 2005 while it has plummeted in Beijing.

Professor Pan Haixiao of Tongji University, who is visiting Brisbane in September, has reported on this for the OECD recently, demonstrating just how advanced sustainable transport policy is in Shanghai, as well as highlighting the remaining challenges.

China could do more on other fronts, but next time you hear someone in the carbon debate say “Until China does something, Australia should sit on its hands”, ask yourself whether we should halve the number of car registrations available in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide like the Chinese are doing.

Would we be willing to give up half our cars, as the population of Shanghai effectively has, and that of Beijing is starting to experience?

Join the conversation

9 Comments sorted by

  1. Roger Evans

    Company Director/Chartered Accountant

    This story has everything to do with limiting motor vehicles on the streets of Shanghai and very little to do with conscious Chinese efforts to restrict carbon emmissions. It should be noted that China is now the worlds biggest market for autos.

    report
    1. Paul Richards

      Paul Richards is a Friend of The Conversation.

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      D o u g ' s - link is to a writer of the article in Forbes, and a regular contributor to the known anti anti-global warming sceptics the Heartland Institute.

      Both scientists who wrote the paper quoted, regularly contribute to the Institute. A 'libertarian' American public policy 'think tank' or far right political organisation lobbying congress in opposition to any a global warming response.

      The Institute rigorously lobby against tightening tobacco policy, amongst other typical 'think tank' interests…

      Read more
    2. Douglas Cotton

      B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

      In reply to Paul Richards

      The debate is about whether anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide is having any effect on climate. It is not about who has some "accepted" peer-review status - that is, review by a peer who believes the "establishment" viewpoint at this point in history. As is common in history, those scientists who make ground-breaking discoveries that negate current theory are not often members of the club.

      I myself have no financial interest and have written and funded the promotion of http://earth-climate

      Read more
  2. Frank Moore

    Consultant

    As a close reader of this debate, I cannot recall anyone of any substance stating: To say China is doing nothing is clearly ignorance or deceit.
    What has been stated by no less than the Leader of the Opposition is that PRC's total emissions are expected to grow by some 500%. In effect, doubling the world's output of green house gases. Given the size of this threat, combating this growth in emissions ought to be the key focus of anyone in this field. The fact that it is not, is in itself, disturbing…

    Read more
  3. John Harland

    bicycle technician

    Most states of Australia already have such a "cap-and-trade" restriction on car registrations.

    Unfortunately it is only applied in relation to taxis.

    Frank, I wonder if you could cite someone more credible than Savonarola.

    report
    1. Frank Moore

      Consultant

      In reply to John Harland

      John Hartland,
      you need to drop the partisan slagging.

      If you deny the PRC's projected impact on World Emissions via quoting other sources, be my guest...

      I find it AMAZING that so many climate change spruikers, are, at the same time, PRC apologists, appeasers and deniers... An utterly amazing level of hypocrisy.

      If you are in any way concerned about CO2 levels and climate change, your public enemy #1 is the PRC. If it isn't, the effect of your opinions is the same as a climate change denier...

      report
  4. John Harland

    bicycle technician

    Frank, I don't regard the Leader of the Opposition - or any other politician - as an authority without some idea of where the data comes from.

    As to China and emissions, it is important to distinguish between the aggregate emissions of a billion people and the per-capita emissions. The aggregate emissions will be higher than for Australia with just 2% of China's population.

    Per capita, the Chinese - and the Indians - are well below our output. If we believe that we cannot do with lower emissions per capita yet retain our Standard of Living, what right do we have to preach to others living at lower per capita emissions and lower Standard of Living?

    If we want to preach to the Chinese, or any other nation, it would help for us to be setting a better example than we are. It would have been better if we had started 30 or 40 years ago, but perhaps it is not too late.

    report
  5. John Harland

    bicycle technician

    I should add that I find the prospect of such a predicted rise in emissions absolutely horrifying. However hypocritical preaching by wealthy countries with high per-capita emissions will do nothing to stem it.

    How can we set a better example, and how else can we help? Not just China but other countries aspiring to bring their people out of poverty?

    report