Emissions trading scheme (ETS) has been adopted by an increasing number of countries and regions for carbon mitigation, but its actual effect depends on specific program design and institutional context. Before launching the world largest ETS, China experimented with seven independent regional pilots, whose effects are only indirectly explored. Here we provide firm-level evidence of the innovation effect directly from China’s pilot emissions trading, based on latest patenting information and a quasi-experimental design. China’s pilots increase low-carbon innovation of ETS firms by 5–10% without crowding out their other technology innovation. The increase from ETS firms accounts for about 1% increase of the regional low-carbon patents, while a similar increase from large non-ETS firms is also induced by the ETS. Most importantly, the effect is not associated with permit price, auction, or firm characteristics, but is driven by mass-based allowance allocation. A rate-based approach, however, is adopted by China’s national market.

Summary Circular economy concepts, practices, and policies are increasingly drawing attention as important means for the pursuit of sustainable development. This article uses a conceptual framework to catalogue and investigate policy efforts for the circular economy in China. Based on the framework, policy prototypes and specific examples are identified: resource‐oriented, production‐oriented, waste, and use‐oriented and life cycle policies. A comprehensive review of 280 related policies shows that China has a long history of resource‐oriented policies and implemented production‐oriented policies very quickly after the year 2000. China's policies toward the circular economy became more comprehensive through time, with a broad engagement of government agencies, an extensive and progressive coverage of recycling opportunities, production initiatives across multiple scales, and use of different policy instruments. The continuous progress has been driven by proactive state actors and their learning from the international society. The current policy framework, however, is concerned more with the means rather than the ends of the circular economy, and relies too much on direct subsidies and other financial incentives. Policy making can be improved by more explicit consideration of the whole production life cycle and use of market‐based policy design.

No abstract

No abstract