Session 1. Oral Presentation for: The market substitution argument – what can we learn from the 2020–2023 Chinese coal import bans?
市場代替論：2020～2023年の中国石炭禁輸から学べること (AI 翻訳)
Andrew Garnett
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
中国の2020～2023年にわたるオーストラリア産石炭の実質的禁輸を事例に、エネルギー需要の非弾力性に基づく市場代替論（MSA）を検証。禁輸中、中国はインドネシア、ロシア、モンゴルからの輸入増と国内生産拡大で代替し、石炭消費・排出量の減少は見られなかった。短期的には供給途絶が化石燃料消費削減に直結しないことを実証し、LNG輸出へのMSA適用可能性も示唆。
English
Examining China's unofficial ban on Australian coal imports (2020-2023), this study tests the market substitution argument (MSA). It finds that China substituted Australian coal with imports from Indonesia, Russia, and Mongolia, and increased domestic production, resulting in no reduction in coal consumption or emissions. The study suggests MSA applies to LNG exports and highlights that supply disruptions alone do not lead to near-term fossil fuel reduction.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
本論文は中国市場に焦点を当てるが、日本にとっては資源調達リスクやエネルギー安全保障の観点で参考になる。また、石炭火力の段階的廃止を進める上で、単なる輸入制限では排出削減に繋がらないという教訓は、日本のGX政策における国際協調の重要性を示唆する。
In the global GX context
This paper provides empirical evidence on the market substitution argument, a key contention in legal cases for fossil fuel projects. It demonstrates that trade disruptions alone, without complementary demand-side policies, do not reduce global emissions. This challenges the assumption that restricting supply from one source can effectively decarbonize energy systems and informs global discussions on coordinated climate action.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides empirical validation of the market substitution argument using a natural experiment, relevant to energy economics and climate policy researchers.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights that supply chain disruptions in fossil fuels may not reduce emissions without demand-side measures, useful for corporate climate risk assessment.
🏛政策担当者:Emphasizes that unilateral import bans are insufficient; effective climate policy requires international cooperation and demand reduction.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Presented on 19 May 2026: Session 1 Following diplomatic tensions between Australia and China in the late 2010s, China implemented an unofficial ban on Australian coal imports from late-2020 until early-2023 (the Ban). The Ban provides an opportunity to review what transpires when a major commodity trading relationship is disrupted. Specifically, we look at whether substitution occurs, and the market substitution argument (MSA), given its relevance to legal cases involving fossil fuel exports. In the context of energy, the MSA states that the demand for energy commodities is relatively inelastic and therefore in the absence of supply of an energy commodity from a given source an alternative supplier will still provide the energy commodity. This is relevant to coal exports, where the courts have been asked to consider whether the MSA is sufficient to support coal mine approvals. We contend that the MSA is relevant to liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. Coal import, production and consumption data during the Ban illustrate that China substituted Australian coal imports with greater imports from Indonesia, Russia and Mongolia, while also boosting domestic production to avoid shortfalls. There are strong climate change related arguments to avoid the ongoing unabated combustion of fossil fuels for energy. We have illustrated with data, however, that at least in the short term, a reduction in Australian coal exports to China didn’t lead directly to lower coal consumption or lower emissions in China. To access the Oral Presentation click ‘Supplementary data’ below. To read the full paper click here
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1071/ep26523first seen 2026-07-09 04:56:03
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。