Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31087229›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental geochemistry and health2020

A comparative analysis of Chinese regional climate regulation policy: ETS as an example.

Jingjing Jiang, Bin Ye

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental geochemistry and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Spatio-temporal variation and daily prediction of PMEnvironmental geochemistry and health · 2021
    Article
  4. Forecasting Nitrous Oxide emissions based on grey system models.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jingjing JiangSchool of Economics and Management, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), Shenzhen, China. jiangpku66@gmail.com.
Bin YeSchool of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

National Aerospace Science Foundation of China 71603110National Aerospace Science Foundation of China 71803074
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An effective and powerful regulation is indispensable for the development and smooth operation of a cap-and-trade emission trading scheme (ETS). Seven regional pilot ETSs have been established and gradually improved in China, from which the experiences and lessons learned may provide useful references to facilitate China's national ETS regulation. This article systematically reviews and compares the practices and policies of carbon trading regulation in China's seven pilot schemes from three major aspects of regulatory institutions and subjects, regulatory objects and content, and regulatory means and techniques, and covering both internal and external regulatory architectures. The comparative analysis has demonstrated that the regional pilot schemes have made notable achievements in developing ETS regulatory systems with Chinese characteristics, but they still have considerable deficiencies. Referencing both international and domestic pilot experiences, this study recommends that China's national ETS improve regulatory institutional basis, foster an extensive participation of pluralistic regulatory subjects with a clear division of powers and responsibilities, establish effective regulatory systems on carbon finance, and continuously enrich regulatory techniques and platforms.

Indexed as

CarbonChinaClimateEnvironmental PolicyGreenhouse GasesPilot ProjectsCarbonGreenhouse GasesCarbon tradingChinaClimate regulationComparative analysisRegional pilots

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.