China and climate change
February 27th, 2010 at 1:42 pm by David FarrarTake a look at this NCPA collection of sobering figures (drawn from the work of a physics professor at UCAL Berkeley) for an explanation.
- China’s emissions intensity (CO2 per dollar of GDP) is five times greater than that of the United States.
President Hu Jintao plans to reduce China’s CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 4 percent per year for 5 years. If carried on it would reduce China’s CO2 emissions intensity 70 percent by 2040. But even if it works:
- If China cuts its emissions intensity 45% it will still surpass the U.S. in per capita annual CO2 emissions by 2025.
- Indeed, every 10% cut in U.S. emissions would be negated by one year of China’s growth.
- Because China’s economy is growing by 10% p.a. a 4% cut in intensity is actually a 6% annual increase in emissions.
- CO2 emissions are increasing similarly in India and other developing countries – far surpassing rich countries’ output.
- Even if China and India’s goals are met – and other developing countries make similar cuts- total atmospheric CO2 would rise from 385 parts per million currently to 700 parts per million by 2080
The leaders of China and India can not risk constraining their growth, even if they were persuaded that they should give higher priority to CO2 emissions.
I did my own calculations a few weeks ago:
China said it will “endeavour” to cut the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005. The “carbon intensity” goal would let emissions keep rising, but more slowly than economic growth.
Now even putting aside the fact China won’t agree to any verification of their emissions (ie they can simply make up their figures), what does their pledge mean.
Let us assume that their business as usual case is that emissions will increase in line with economic growth.
Now their GDP in 2005 was US$2.24 trillion. In 2020 it is estimated to be around US14.6 trillion. That is a 640% increase in GDP.
Now if their emissions intensity is 40% less, then the increase in emissions will be 385%.
So China’s pledge is they will only increase emissions by 385% by 2020.
Now their level of emissions in 2006 was 6,103 million tons. So China’s projected increase in emissions is around 23,000 million tons. …
In fact China’s pledge to reduce intensity by 40% means their total level of emissions in 2020 could be as high as 33,000 million tons.
And you know what. That is more than the rest of the world produces today. The world, excluding China, produces 22,000 million tons. With China it is 28 million tons
So the entire world could go carbon neutral, and China would still push world emissions up 20% from 2006.
This is the reality the world faces. It does not matter what the USA does, what the EU does, even what India does. Global emissions are going to increase significantly, just from China alone.
Related posts:
- Copenhagen is worthless
- Greens announce new emissions reduction policy – abortion
- Important Questions on Global Warming
- Is geoengineering the answer to climate change?
February 27th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
I’ve heard Al Gore say this a few times “If China does nothing, nothing else matters, if China acted, we wouldn’t need to do anything.”
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
CO2 emissions are of course irrelevant. The destruction of the arctic albedo by soot from dirty Chinese coal-fired power stations is, however, an important issue that has yet
Vote:to be tackled at a significant diplomatic level.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Is what you are trying to do here, forecasting carbon emissions over a long period based on GDP, any different to forecasting something like global average temperature or global sea levels over the same period. i.e. an exercise in guess work and futility?
One thing you don’t account for is the continued growing public awareness of carbon emissions. If the rest of the world improves and china does not, then how much does that devalue further the ‘made in china’ brand? I know I for one would be even less inclined to by Chinese made product if I had the perception they were not pulling their weight while everyone else was. I can guarantee I would not be the only person who would change my spending habits. OK, so that affects only the consumer product for export market, but it would have some effect.
I just don’t see pointing to the biggest bully on the block and saying “Hey he isn’t changing his ways, why should I’ as a valid excuse.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 2:35 pm
This kind of reminds me of Carless Days back in 1970s New Zealand in our attempt to alleviate the looming ‘Oil Crisis’.
From memory our annual fuel bill equated to one days consumption by the US.
The term ‘Pissing in the wind’ comes to mind.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Is it a global duty to destroy the Chinese economy then?
Vote:We have a Free Trade agreement.
Does this mean that we have to import and purchase Chinese products?
Does it make more environmental sense to boycott Chinese goods which every New Zealander could do than spend every waking moment thinking about reducing our individual carbon footprints?
February 27th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Quite clearly we need to have a few meetings about this issue in say the Maldives and then perhaps ban some lightbulbs.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
all th emoney boys say that poverty exists because these lesser countries don’t get there economics sorted out.
i say whats good enough for the yanks and us a few years ago is also good enough for the chinese to play catch up with.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
ahhh, car less days .. I think I went for Tuesday
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
jaba 4:08 pm,
I think Dad went for … two cars
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
“So the entire world could go carbon neutral, and China would still push world emissions up 20% from 2006″
Would someone please go tell Shonkey and the mad wanka Nick Smith.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Of course the NZ ETS isn’t taxing the coal we sell them providing a massive export bonanza for NZ over the next few decades. The way the ETS works tells us that it’s not important to stop the burning of the coal, just important that we are not seen to be burning it here in NZ.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
And we are getting taxed via the ETS for what reason again Nick? Explain that to me please, maybe I missed something.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
“Would someone please go tell Shonkey and the mad wanka Nick Smith.”
Even their acolytes. lackeys, and minions are fearful to broach the news: there is no AGW. I suspect the pair of above weasels know it but are using the ETS to increase taxation.
Another broken promise. Way to go, Labour-lite.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Just think of the oil and energy demand in the coming years. 10% growth every year along with India’s growth is a lot of oil.
China is now the largest market for cars, they have every right to match America and Europe in lifestyle and economic strength and no one can tell them that they cannot.
And then their are the other 4 billion who also want what you have. Your diet, housing, power usage, lifestyle.
What does the future hold?
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I think someone failed to realize that a big portion of China’s carbon emission are on be half of the western countries.
Few western countries still producing cast iron pipes and fittings for example. They can import these from China or Indonesia and alike for cheap. Many such high polution industries have been moved overseas. it would be interesting to see how much emission in China are result of produce and export products to the developed countries.
A world wide ban/reject on product from certain countries because of carbon emission would be interesting. When western countries have to do all the dirty works themselves they may realise it wasn’t that simple about “not doing enough to reduce carbon emission”. they would have to pay the price, directly or indirectly.
One particular factor with China and India is they have too many people. Even if their average living standard raise a tiny bit it would put significantly more carbon emission. Many westerners have been criticising China’s 1 child policy. Now if you imagine today’s China having 1.7 or even 2 billion ppl.
Yes China bares a great responsibility to reduce carbon emission. No it’s not that simple to just close the factories or power plant.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 8:06 pm
And yet the Chinese kick our arse with their commitment to renewable energy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/26/china-invests-solar-energy
As do Australia:
http://www.energymatters.com.au/government-rebates/
As does the USA:
http://www.dsireusa.org/Index.cfm?EE=0&re=1
As does every other developed country in the world. We are going backwards in our use of renewables.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
kaya: There. Is. No. Money. We’re borrowing a billion a month right now just to keep our heads above water. The fact is our economy isn’t large or rich enough like China, Australia or the USA to afford subsidies or rebates for renewables. (A lot of our present social and economic problems stem from our relative economic decline and lack of a diversified economic base, but that’s another story.)
Where does this statistic come from that China’s growth rate is 10% a year? I’m very sceptical.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
kaya
But we have a publicly owned train set, and a no fault insurance scheme that no other country in the world can afford.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
ISeeRed – There.Is.No.Money because we waste a fortune on wasters like EECA and on feasability studies and consultants and shiny arsed pen pushers who do nothing but suck the life out of our economy and stifle real growth. This country must have more bureaucrats per capita than any other country in the world. The ones who do fuck all but have meetings and maintain their positions.
Anyway, who said not having money is part of the equation? The USA deficit of 12 TRILLION dollars means they don’t fit on your list of “large and rich” but it seems to be irrelevant and certainly doesn’t stop them giving incentives for renewables.
Apparently Ireland is broke: http://www.wowenergy.ie/energy-grants.htm
And I hear Greece is in a spot of bother: http://www.comel.gr/en/solar_greece.html
Portugal is another of the PIGs isn’t it?
http://www.penguinaircon.com/index.php/Solar-Panels-Air-Conditioners-in-Portugal/algarve-solar-panel-grants-in-portugal.html
If you don’t like grants then what about incentives? Look up feed in tariffs and ask why we don’t take that approach, 19 European countries seem to think it isn’t a bad idea.
Vote:NZ won’t because the Govt owns the power companies (indirectly) and therefore gets dividends from them, the thought of people starting to generate some of their own power terrifies them.
February 27th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
And train sets, and hydro schemes in the Kaipara, what a joke.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
So, surprise surprise. New Zealand (or Australia) leading the world in climate change legislation is really going to make a difference. Yeah Right! The whole thing is a rort. Another tax or wealth redistribution system is all it is.
Vote:February 27th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Truth is the evidence is strong that more CO2 does no harm, and in fact may provide the means to feed the 10B expected by mid century. But AGW turns out to be just a Trojan Horse hiding this much more sinister beast:
Vote:http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022510_greeneconomy.pdf
Be afraid, very afraid.
February 27th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
ISeeRed – the 10% GDP growth rate has been held “true” in last decade. For last year I think China managed to keep it at a bottom line of 8%, though many would argue the accuracy of data from the government.
A problem is much of the GDP growth relies on foreign investment, export and realestate/construction industry. In my hometown new apartment are selling for roughly NZ$2000 per square metre (and that’s only including 70 years usage of the land)., about half year worth of average salary. Some ppl doubt if China could keep up the growth. China would have to rely more on domestic market in today’s economic down turn, particularly the new generations (old pals tend to save).
Vote:February 28th, 2010 at 1:03 am
kaya, what part of THERE’S NO FUCKING MONEY do you not understand? Yeah, we should continue borrowing and spending and piling on deficit after deficit onto an ever-growing mountain of debt just because other economic basketcases like Portugal and Greece are, just to subsidise your personal hobbyhorse.
I’m into space. I think it’s cool and the way of the future, like you do with “renewables”. Therefore, NZ should start its own space programme. I’ll rationalise it by saying other countries like South Korea and Israel have one, it’d create high-skilled, well-paying jobs, spark new technologies and industries, lead to new scientific discoveries.
Oh wait, THE COUNTRY IS FUCKING BROKE.
Still don’t get it? OK, kaya, have you thought of doing drugs? You know, other people do drugs and it feels good while you’re high, just like some get high thinking of themselves as “green” and “caring”. Pity about the long-term consequences, the self-destructive spiral into ruin and despair, even death. Yes, we’ll just ignore those.
Actually, comparing a drug addiction to the present borrowing binge in the West is a pretty good analogy.
Vote:February 28th, 2010 at 10:00 am
ISeeRed – I thought I explained pretty simply that I understand THERE’S NO FUCKING MONEY, obviously not simply enough for you. Don’t worry about the money, the money isn’t real, ask the USA! You really believe they are going to pay back 12 trillion? Tuis all round.
Renewables aren’t my personal hobby horse, the thread is about China and their emissions, I am pointing out they are doing more than many give them credit for. However renewables make sense and they pay for themselves in a relatively short time.
They reduce power bills and reduce the need to build more power generation facilities. They reduce our carbon emissions and therefore reduce the tax we will have to pay because both political parties have pushed us into a stupid fucking ETS. They enhance our image as “clean green NZ”. They create the skilled jobs just like in your space programme.
I get pissed off because our energy minister and our various money pits who are supposed to sort out our energy issues are a waste of time and money. Have a look at what EECA have cost the country since their creation and what have we got in return? A dodgy scheme for home insulation that is badly designed and badly administered. Not the best investment ever.
Vote:I agree space programmes are cool but is there a financial return? If so go for it. The money isn’t real!!
February 28th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
And actually, perhaps we are going about this the wrong way, perhaps what the west should be doing is toning everything down big time and giving the emerging economies there time in the sun, we had ours.
Vote:February 28th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Menace please lead by example and turn your computer off and get the electricity disconnected from your house and have your car crushed right now.
Vote:February 28th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
redbaiter, just step out onto the road and do us all a favour
Vote: