Aligning China’s local and national carbon markets under global carbon pricing

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Provides a novel triangulated institutional analysis framework and empirical evidence on multi-level carbon market integration under CBAM pressure.

🏢実務担当者:Offers insights for corporate sustainability teams on how carbon market developments and CBAM timelines may affect supply chain and compliance strategies in China.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights the need for coordinated local-national carbon market design and the role of international carbon pricing mechanisms in driving domestic reform.

The pressing challenge of climate change, driven by escalating carbon emissions, necessitates urgent global action and innovative policy frameworks. Among various strategies, Emissions Trading Systems (ETS) have emerged as a pivotal tool to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions while fostering economic efficiency. However, as countries strive to meet ambitious carbon neutrality targets, China faces a critical specific challenge: the integration and expansion of its nascent national carbon market (CN-ETS) amid the complexities of transitioning from the local carbon markets (CL-ETS). And it was exacerbated by data inconsistencies and regulatory complexity. Despite the growing body of research on carbon markets, a significant knowledge gap persists regarding insufficient understanding of how multi-level carbon markets (local/national) can synergistically coexist to accelerate sectoral coverage while leveraging international policy pressures (e.g., CBAM). Our study employs Triangulated Institutional Analysis (policy archaeology, cognitive mapping, quantitative validation) of 346 documents and 22 expert interviews. Key findings reveal: (1) CN-ETS expansion is constrained by MRV (Measurement, Reporting, Verification) bottlenecks; (2) EU CBAM imposes a 2034 deadline for full CN-ETS maturity; (3) CL-ETS pilots retain vital "triple innovation functions" (SME coverage, carbon finance, regulatory experimentation) under a dual-track coexistence model. We challenge three prevailing assumptions: "domestic priority" (CBAM drives domestic reform), "system-first" (local pilots enable national legislation), and "technological determinism" (political mutual recognition trumps pure tech upgrades). Our framework offers emerging economies a strategic blueprint for carbon market integration under cross-border carbon pressures.