Social Cost Dilemmas and Optimization Paths of Dual Carbon Transition in Major Developing Countries: A Comparative Study of China and India

As the world becomes faster and faster at reducing carbon emissions, China and India are two countries that play a really important role. They are the two countries that produce the most carbon emissions. Both countries are working on reducing their carbon emissions, which is good news for the planet. However, it will be difficult for them to make these changes because their coal industries are still very important for their energy, jobs and people's livelihoods. This paper looks at two examples of how places have made the change: Datong in Shanxi Province, China (where the government has been in charge of the change) and Jharkhand State in India (where the market has driven the change, with help from other countries). Using the Ruhr region of Germany as an example, it creates a way of analysing the changes based on Just Transition theory. This looks at how the change is managed, the institutions involved, the social costs and how these compare to the Ruhr region. It does this by studying other research, comparing the two examples and studying the cases in detail. Research shows that in China's government-led system, reducing the workforce without enough support from institutions can lead to a cycle of 'structural unemployment – high occupational disease incidence'. In India's market-driven approach, unclear land ownership and gaps in regulations can lead to a cycle of 'income insecurity – compromised land rights'. Considering the limits on China's ability to keep up its spending and the problems with land ownership in India, the study looks at what has been done in the Ruhr region of Germany to work together, change industries, and get the public involved. It suggests a plan to make the most of what Datong has to offer, including changing industries, improving skills, protecting people's health, and making sure the city can keep spending what it needs to. For Jharkhand, it suggests a plan to make the most of the land, give people money, make stronger rules, and make international aid more consistent. This study fills a gap in research comparing the social costs of the coal industry in different countries during a period of change. It adds to our understanding of how social costs are passed on or transferred and provides examples of how to achieve multiple goals at once, such as reducing emissions, promoting development, and protecting people's livelihoods in regions around the world where coal is produced.