| 碳交易市场体系中的碳排放基准线:应用实践、研究进展与展望 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 梁为纲,赵晓丽,周凌峰,王晓蕾,汪霞.碳交易市场体系中的碳排放基准线:应用实践、研究进展与展望[J].环境科学研究,2022,35(10):2244-2251. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 梁为纲 赵晓丽 周凌峰 王晓蕾 汪霞 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 中国环境科学研究院，环境基准与风险评估国家重点实验室，北京 100012 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家杰出青年科学基金(No.41925031)；国家自然科学基金重大项目(No.41991315)；中央财政科技计划结余经费(No.2021-JY-11) |
| |
| 摘 要： | 碳交易作为一种碳减排的市场化手段和政策工具，在推动绿色低碳可持续发展中发挥着重要作用. 碳排放基准线是碳交易市场体系的重要组成部分，其对标行业先进碳排放水平，是碳交易机制中使用基准线法计算碳配额的主要依据. 我国已发布了全国发电行业的碳排放基准线，随着碳交易市场的稳步推进和发展，对于其他行业碳排放基准线的研究和制定需求愈发迫切. 本文以水泥行业为例，概述了碳排放基准线的制定方法，梳理了国内外碳排放基准线的应用实践及研究进展. 总体上，当前我国碳排放基准线工作滞后于欧美地区，面临覆盖行业少、行业内部标准不一、数据基础薄弱、区域及企业间差异未充分考虑等问题，难以保证碳配额分配的科学性和公平性. 未来，建议以发电行业为突破口，尽快统一各行业内部基准线制定方案，优先考虑高碳行业；构建适用于我国碳市场的产品分类体系，完善不同主体的碳核算技术标准，明确不同产品的碳核算边界；加强对企业活动数据的监管力度，严格碳配额核算、分配过程，保证碳额分配的透明、公平；围绕地区或企业间的差异量化与配额修正等关键问题开展深入研究，提高基准线适用水平.
|
| 关 键 词： | 碳排放基准线 碳交易 碳排放强度 研究进展 |
| 收稿时间： | 2022-05-30 |
Carbon Emission Benchmark in Carbon Trading Market System: Application Practice,Research Progress and Prospect |
| |
| Affiliation: | State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China |
| |
| Abstract: | As a market-oriented means and policy tool for carbon emission reduction, carbon trading plays a vital role in promoting green, low-carbon, and sustainable development. The carbon emission benchmark (CEB) is an essential part of the carbon trading market system. In the carbon trading system, CEB provides the basis for calculating carbon allowances by benchmarking the advanced carbon emission level of the industry. Currently, China has only issued CEBs for the national electricity industry. With the rapid development of the carbon trading market, the formulation of CEBs for other industries is becoming increasingly urgent. This study introduced the formulation methods of CEBs taking the cement industry as an example, and reviewed the application practices and research progress of CEBs at home and abroad. In general, China lagged behind the European Union and the United States with problems such as a lack of industries coverage, inconsistent standards within the industry, poor data foundation, and insufficient consideration of regions and enterprises variations, which made it difficult to ensure the scientificity and fairness of carbon allowance allocation. The following suggestions were therefore provided. First, the electricity industry should be taken as a model to unify the standards of benchmarks formulation within other industries as soon as possible, and high-carbon industries should be prioritized. Second, the product classification system for China's carbon market needs to be constructed, and the carbon accounting technical standards of different entities should be improved to clarify the carbon accounting boundaries of different products. Third, the submission of enterprise activity data and the accounting of carbon allowance should be strictly supervised to ensure the transparency and fairness of carbon allocation. Fourth, key issues such as the quantification of differences between regions or enterprises as well as correction of the allowance should be studied in depth to improve benchmarks' applicability. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
| 点击此处可从《环境科学研究》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《环境科学研究》下载全文 |
|
