China made good on its verbal commitment last Friday, laying out the details for its cap-and-trade program set to begin in 2017. The program would set set aside $3.1 billion dollars for climate finance costs for poorer countries.

These are huge steps forward, both physically and rhetorically, as December’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris approaches.

China is the world’s leading emitter of CO2. Because of this, it is common within the U.S. political sphere to counter any argument toward a cap-and-trade bill of our own by pointing out that China should act first. Now, environmental debate domestically will have one less hurdle to jump over and one less argument to rebut.

Still, China’s announcement is in no way a cure-all. Cap-and-trade can be difficult to effectively regulate, and China’s pilot programs have not all enjoyed immediate success. Cap-and-trade operates through a system of carbon permits, each with a set allocation of emissions allowed, and a trade market in place for entities that want to emit more to purchase permits from those who emit less than their permits allow them to. The ideal price for these permits is still being figured out and, until it is, expect a transitory period while the wrinkles are ironed out.

This system’s strength lies in its ability to regulate just how much carbon is being released into the atmosphere. Environmental policy makers and activists have long contested that this widespread market regulation will most effectively curb CO2 emissions and propel investment in renewable energy forward – and they are right.

Curbing global CO2 emissions is a multifaceted, highly politicized issue. China’s adoption of cap-and-trade is the best news for the movement in quite some time. It has enormous potential to help spur widespread cooperation at the ever important, fast approaching U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris.

James Hansen, former chief climatologist at NASA and current professor at Columbia University, is outspoken about the need for China and the United States to push collaboratively towards a global carbon policing system.

“A revenue-neutral carbon fee is something conservatives could support,” said Hansen, in an interview with Grist. “Behind the scenes, most of them are beginning to realize this is not a hoax; it’s a real issue that needs to be dealt with and [they] will come around on that reasonably soon. Most serious conservatives will want to deal with it in a way that’s consistent with conservative principles.”

Now, the question is whether U.S. Congress will budge, considering they have blocked almost identical measures before.

President Obama’s attempt to pass cap-and-trade in 2009 failed to pass the Senate, instead forcing him to pursue other channels, such as environmental regulation through the EPA and via the clean air act. While still worthwhile, these channels offer minimal healing to a larger wound, and are vulnerable to lengthy lawsuits.

China’s detailed cap-and-trade plan began a great week for the environmental movement, one that was punctuated by Shell’s announcement that it will cease its plan to drill offshore in the Arctic, at least for now.

There appears to be growing momentum heading into December’s crucial global conference and, at least for the moment, a measured dose of optimism is warranted.

Azor Cole is a senior public relations major and geography minor. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at azcole@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @azor_cole.

Published on October 1, 2015 at 12:08 am