China's rapid rise to the top of the greenhouse gas producers

[JeffL]

We talked a little about China and greenhouse gases in another thread, so I thought this article in FT might be of interest. Basically, China will surpass the US as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases this year. Other interesting data:

"In a report released on Wednesday, the IEA said China was likely to overtake the US as the world’s largest energy consumer soon after 2010. Chinese primary energy demand was forecast to more than double from 1,742m tonnes of oil equivalent to 3,819m tonnes by 2030. China was “by far the biggest contributor” to an expected 57 per cent increase in global energy-related CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2030, the IEA said."

I don't think you have to be a subscriber to read, if so let me know:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/723caade-8...nclick_check=1

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, subscription only.

[Anaxagoras]

The economist has been running a bunch of articles about this as well. The CCP has begun to see the benefit of being greener, but it has been unable to reign in the regional governments. Fascinating problem... and one the U.S. can't affect in the slightest. Right now, anyways.

BTW... I'm seriously wondering if Jeff's post will be interpreted as right wing. This oughta be interesting.

[JeffL]

The economist has been running a bunch of articles about this as well. The CCP has begun to see the benefit of being greener, but it has been unable to reign in the regional governments. Fascinating problem... and one the U.S. can't affect in the slightest. Right now, anyways.

BTW... I'm seriously wondering if Jeff's post will be interpreted as right wing. This oughta be interesting.

How in the world can a post to a link on projected emissions data from the IEC on China be interpreted in any form of left or right wing? You've really got to be looking for bogie men...

[JeffL]

Hmm, if you go to the FT home page you can go to the article without registering, etc. by going to the China section and finding the article. Since you can get it that way, I guess it would be ok to post it:

China is firmly opposed to any inclusion of binding targets for reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions in a planned new international pact to fight global warming, the European parliament’s climate change committee said on Wednesday.

However, after meetings with senior Chinese officials, one member of the committee hinted at a route to possible compromise, suggesting Beijing might be willing instead to commit itself to anti-climate change action along with other developing countries.

Negotiators from 191 nations will meet in Bali in December to begin talks on a successor to the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which expires in 2012.

The US has insisted developing countries such as China and India must shoulder part of the burden of cutting emissions, even though their historic and per capita contribution to global warming is far less than that of rich nations.

China, which the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts will surpass the US as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases this year, insists that it should not be subject to any restrictions that might harm its development prospects.

“Unlike the European parliament or the European Union, the Chinese believe that it will not be possible, in the agreement which follows the Kyoto protocol, for China to accept any binding obligations,” said Guido Sacconi, chairman of the parliament's climate committee.

However, Mr Sacconi said he was confident agreement would be possible in the talks to replace the protocol – adding that the more substantive obstacle to agreement came from elsewhere.

“The problem is rather that of other superpowers, other areas of the world, who may not wish to join in and follow the same course,” he said in an apparent reference to the US.

Barbara de Brun, an Irish member of the European parliament committee, said that instead of rejecting binding emissions targets, China could promise to contribute to action against climate change alongside other developing countries.

Hinting at possible room for compromise, Ms de Brun drew a distinction between Beijing's rejection of binding obligations and possible willingness to promise action “in an international forum”.

"There is some indication that would seem to me to open the possibility that within negotiations...China itself would make certain commitments," she said.

While China’s role in a post-Kyoto regime remains a matter of dispute, the implications of the country’s rapid industrialisation for global greenhouse gas emissions is clear.

In a report released on Wednesday, the IEA said China was likely to overtake the US as the world’s largest energy consumer soon after 2010. Chinese primary energy demand was forecast to more than double from 1,742m tonnes of oil equivalent to 3,819m tonnes by 2030. China was “by far the biggest contributor” to an expected 57 per cent increase in global energy-related CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2030, the IEA said.

In addition to that, (this is me and no longer the article) another article stated that China is putting about one large coal driven power plant up per day. Bottom line, you can't ignore these guys if you are concerned about greenhouse gases.

[cliffski]

you can't ignore them, but you can't ignore their relative wealth per capita either. Bottom line is, you cannot vaguely expect a guy in china to feel bad about buying a refrigerator for the first time in his families history when he looks at the US and sees people driving Hummers.

There's no doubt china will end up generating more C02 than the US, they have many more people. I don't think that's really the issue (although some right wing thinkers like to make it the issue). The real issue is what is more reasonable, to ask the Chinese not to drag their population out of poverty, or to ask the rich western nations that throw out energy like its unfashionable to rein in on their usage?

China isn't going to feel bad about C02 as long as the west doesn't seem to take reducing emissions seriously, and right now, apart from a few countries like Germany and Iceland, we appear to not give a shit. Air travel is still rocketing and untaxed, and US car energy efficiency is still dire.
I don't see the problem with continuing to pressure rich countries to cut their emissions. Obviously it helps reduce the total, and it also allows us to not look like dicks when we ask china to do the same.

And even ignoring all that, its clear that oil isn't going to last forever. the sensible nations are the ones who are preparing for a long term without heavy oil dependence (like Iceland), and positioning themselves to be world leaders in the new green energy tech. Why would any nation not want to do that? Oil companies will lsoe out, but the nation as a whole surley will not.

[JeffL]

Hmm. I'm not sure what the "feelings" part has to do with anything. You can't expect someone in China to feel bad about so-and-so? You can't expect China to feel bad about emissions as long as the U.S. doesn't?

To me, the more interesting part of this is the data. China is on track to be the largest producer of greenhouse gases in the world, by far. So if we're interested in reducing these, somehow that has to be addressed. I'm not sure why it suddenly has to be tied to the U.S. in any way, whether the U.S. decides to make major changes in agriculture and transportation or not, or "feelings" - the atmosphere really isn't going to care about feelings and emotions.

As for sensible nations, we've been predicting oil running out in xx years since I was writing Fortran programs in college classes in the 70s. It will run out, but I think the danger in oil isn't running out, there is a huge amount still untapped, but rather the extremes that countries will go to to get it, as we've seen.

[MikeJ]

I'm not sure why it suddenly has to be tied to the U.S. in any way, whether the U.S. decides to make major changes in agriculture and transportation or not, or "feelings" - the atmosphere really isn't going to care about feelings and emotions.

Sure, but the human element determines whether we can actually make those changes or not. Say the US wanted to cut greenhouse gas emissions and decided that in order to do that, everyone living west of the Missippi at the time the law was passed can't drive a motor vehicle, use electricity or use goods and services that require any of these. The atmosphere doesn't care where the cuts are made, so what's the problem?

The overall fairness of an emissions regime is going to be a major factor in determining whether it gets implemented.

[JeffL]

Sure, but the human element determines whether we can actually make those changes or not. Say the US wanted to cut greenhouse gas emissions and decided that in order to do that, everyone living west of the Missippi at the time the law was passed can't drive a motor vehicle, use electricity or use goods and services that require any of these. The atmosphere doesn't care where the cuts are made, so what's the problem?

The overall fairness of an emissions regime is going to be a major factor in determining whether it gets implemented.

I think the point is that the atmosphere doesn't care where the cuts happen, so what's the problem, why worry about China? (not meant in a sarcastic tone, just seeking clarification.)

Well, the point of the article is that China is moving at such an enormous rate that it will be, by far, the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions very shortly. Big enough that it may overwhelm the rest of the world's attempts to have an impact. If the levels in the world today are a major problem and a world threatening crisis, the amount of change needed and the impact of those changes (far beyond drive a small car instead of an SUV, changing light bulbs, etc.) is going to be radically increased at the predicted rate that China is increasing the emmissions.

Note, I haven't proposed any solutions or courses of actions, just noting the data, i.e. if China goes in this direction, and it is, there are some major implications for the severity of the issue and changes required. Also, I do think it is more than a bit naive to think that China will base what it does in terms of production on any steps the U.S. takes.

[Huzurdaddi]

The overall fairness of an emissions regime is going to be a major factor in determining whether it gets implemented.

I think a more fair metric than a nation's total greenhouse output is a per capita measurement, luckily wiki comes to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_per_capita

Aggregate numbers are important as well, but attempting to strong arm a country who's output of greenhouse gas is 1/6 that of industrialized countries sounds, well, comical. When one considers the historical per capia green house this topic is even more silly.

Wiki has two nice graphics (note: both go only until 2000, given China's increase in GDP it has certianly risen. Since their GDP as grown by a little less than 10% per year, any more than a doubling is unlikely):





BTW Jeff, kudos on another fair and balanced topic. You win.

[James Gutierrez]

So it's Canada's fault. I knew it.

[MikeJ]

I think the point is that the atmosphere doesn't care where the cuts happen, so what's the problem, why worry about China? (not meant in a sarcastic tone, just seeking clarification.)

No. My point is that things like perceptions of what is fair are a very important aspect of the problem. The atmosphere doesn't care about feelings or where cuts are made, but people definitely do. Since it's people that have to implement the cuts, feelings matter.

You are definitely right that China is going to be a big factor. Some sort of emissions restriction plan that just ignores China is going to be a huge failure.

Also, I do think it is more than a bit naive to think that China will base what it does in terms of production on any steps the U.S. takes.

I guess I am naive then. If the rest of the world (including the US) is on board with a serious climate change plan, then China is going to feel a lot of pressure (diplomatic and economic) to make concessions.

What would a world emissions agreeement that China could accept look like? Clearly, high-population developing countries are going to argue that any limits should be based on population, or even that they should get a century of unlimited emissions like the West has had. Highly industrialized countries with more efficient industries have an incentive to argue for some intensity-based limit, something like X tons of carbon equivalent per billion dollars of GDP.

I don't know how you get the countries to agree on this stuff, but I do think some agreement is neccessary to get results. Even an undemocratic country is unlikely to implement any agreement that its population feels is radically unfair.

[Jason McCullough]

Did they burn Canada to the ground in the 19th century or something? Man.

I imagine any climate management regime would have to be done on a per-capita income basis.

[MikeJ]

When one considers the historical per capia green house this topic is even more silly.

Yeah, I think historical emissions is a pretty screwed up way of looking at it, but I'm Canadian, so obviously I'm biased. It's a very 'sins of the fathers' sort of thing, especially when it wasn't even recognized at the time that there was anything wrong. Also, continually moving the emitting industries to countries with historically low per-capita emissions doesn't seem as though it will help reduce emissions.

Also, it looks on your chart as though counties in which oil is found are blamed for its combustion. Canada has a lot of energy-intensive resource-extraction industries, so I guess we are bad, bad people. On the other hand, those extracted resources are used all over, including lily-white Europe.

This is why I think a per-ton tax or emissions trading scheme makes a lot of sense. The emitting extraction industries get taxed (or have to buy emissions credits), then they pass that cost on to their customers (who are the reason the industries exist in the first place). In a tax system you have to figure out who gets the taxes. In an emissions-trading system, you have to figure out a fair way of allocating emissions credits (and the extra burden of policing it all).

[Linoleum]

It's not just pure domestic growth issues. For all practical extents and purposes the US and Europe have been outsourcing pollution to China for years. Now it's extending to emissions.

Just wait until we see the first round of WTO wrangling regarding tariffs to offset the cost of implementing local/regional regulations and limits.

[MikeJ]

Did they burn Canada to the ground in the 19th century or something?

No, it's just a relatively small number of people doing a lot of farming, mining and drilling.

[Fugitive]

So it's Canada's fault. I knew it.

It's cold up here!

No, seriously, there was some kind of personal CO2 generation calculator bandied about here a while ago, and a *huge* chunk of it was based purely on your location and the climate thereof. An ascetic living in North Dakota was still a far, far worse CO2 polluter than a gas-guzzling, frequent-flyer businessperson in California.

[JeffL]

No. My point is that things like perceptions of what is fair are a very important aspect of the problem. The atmosphere doesn't care about feelings or where cuts are made, but people definitely do. Since it's people that have to implement the cuts, feelings matter.

You are definitely right that China is going to be a big factor. Some sort of emissions restriction plan that just ignores China is going to be a huge failure.

I guess I am naive then. If the rest of the world (including the US) is on board with a serious climate change plan, then China is going to feel a lot of pressure (diplomatic and economic) to make concessions.

What would a world emissions agreeement that China could accept look like? Clearly, high-population developing countries are going to argue that any limits should be based on population, or even that they should get a century of unlimited emissions like the West has had. Highly industrialized countries with more efficient industries have an incentive to argue for some intensity-based limit, something like X tons of carbon equivalent per billion dollars of GDP.

I don't know how you get the countries to agree on this stuff, but I do think some agreement is neccessary to get results. Even an undemocratic country is unlikely to implement any agreement that its population feels is radically unfair.

Didn't mean that to be a personal shot (the naive comment) - just that China right now is purely focused on economic growth at the highest rate possible, and when you are in China talking with business leaders they don't seem to have any concern about climate change at all.

I'm not sure why the sudden ouburst of trying to prove China is not an issue - is there a huge Pro-Jintao political movement here? ;)

As for solutions, because no matter how you try to spin it, per capita, per square foot, per cat, whatever, China's economic plans are resulting in a huge increase in emissions, I think the most pragmatic solutions would be some types of incentives for helping China to go with more environmental friendly power sources (as one example) rather than putting up a coal based power plant at a rate of one per day. For some reason, people tend to make everything a "this vs. that" approach - in this case, there needs to be a cooperative approach that recognizes China's desire and determination to grow at an enormous pace, which they will do no matter what anyone else says or cares about. OK - so let us (whoever the "us" is that has the solutions) go in to China's government and say, hey, let us help you grow, what if we provide you some solutions and approaches that are more environmentally friendly, how about if (for example) we invest in some of those plants and factories and powerplants and build them with some more modern approaches?

I'm not wise enough to know what the actual answer is, but it does need to be some type of win/win cooperative approach.

[JeffL]

It's not just pure domestic growth issues. For all practical extents and purposes the US and Europe have been outsourcing pollution to China for years. Now it's extending to emissions.

Just wait until we see the first round of WTO wrangling regarding tariffs to offset the cost of implementing local/regional regulations and limits.

There's a lot of truth to that. In just one example, for illustrative purposes, a huge chunk of the coatings industry in the U.S. is moving to China. It is following the industrial market, where a hundred thousand of the same small part is now produced in China instead of Ohio, and now the natural progression is those parts will be coated in China rather than shipped to the U.S. and coated here. Lots and lots of emissions in the coatings process and plants (being phased out here with legislation already in place or set to kick in in a few years.)

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, I think historical emissions is a pretty screwed up way of looking at it, but I'm Canadian, so obviously I'm biased. It's a very 'sins of the fathers' sort of thing, especially when it wasn't even recognized at the time that there was anything wrong.

I think it's pretty useful - they made lots of money putting out that carbon, and half the reason people are rich today is that their ancestors did that. I agree emissions trading makes sense, there just really needs to be income adjustments.

[JeffL]

I think it's pretty useful - they made lots of money putting out that carbon, and half the reason people are rich today is that their ancestors did that. I agree emissions trading makes sense, there just really needs to be income adjustments.

Jason, don't you think that emissions trading slows down actual solutions? If we're in a situation where current emission levels are a severe problem, I would think that trading systems just keep you at a zero net sum level, rather than an actual significant reduction. Unless I'm completely misreading the publications of how that is proposed to work (which is entirely possible.)

And I can see where you and I see things in a very fundamentally different way - not right/wrong, just how we process information. As a scientist, I'm looking at the data and not concerned at all about who got wealthy or how we got where we are today, just how do we do X to most effectively get to Y (where Y is the reductions required at a quantitative level that will correct any problems.) So - your approaches look extremely emotive and not neccessarily focused on actually solving a problem - and I suspect my approaches seem cold and lacking in the human factor? ;)

[Huzurdaddi]

Did they burn Canada to the ground in the 19th century or something? Man.

LOL. I think it is just a concquence:

1) of having an economy that is highly levered to the primary sector
2) having people in distant locations (which is somewhat related to 1)

Australia has a pretty similar economy and seems to have pretty similar stats. From the historical graphic it looks like Russia was similar before its economy went nutty.

[Jason McCullough]

So - your approaches look extremely emotive and not neccessarily focused on actually solving a problem - and I suspect my approaches seem cold and lacking in the human factor? ;)

If there's one thing the last decade or so has taught me, it's that how and why are often more important than what.

In this case, the various whats should resolve themselves - sequesterization , trading, biofuels, magic, whatever. By contrast, the why and and how seem extremely contentious and open to horrible failure. China isn't going to let us treat them like a rich first world country on this, for example, so any attempted fix using that is going to fail. Additionally, justice-wise, who can or should pay the bills is really important on something this big.

As to emissions trading, what's the alternatives? Theoretically you can cut emissions all you want by lowering the tradeable cap, subject to the limits of the innovation rate.

[Alan Au]

Ah yes, the joys of calculating things per capita. Canada, with its lower population, has higher per capita pollution. China, with its huge population, enjoys a lower per capita rating.

- Alan

[Dirt]

Ah. The demonization of China continues.

[JeffL]

[quote=Jason McCullough]

So - your approaches look extremely emotive and not neccessarily focused on actually solving a problem - and I suspect my approaches seem cold and lacking in the human factor? ;)/quote]

If there's one thing the last decade or so has taught me, it's that how and why are often more important than what.

In this case, the various whats should resolve themselves - sequesterization , trading, biofuels, magic, whatever. By contrast, the why and and how seem extremely contentious and open to horrible failure. China isn't going to let us treat them like a rich first world country on this, for example, so any attempted fix using that is going to fail. Additionally, justice-wise, who can or should pay the bills is really important on something this big.

As to emissions trading, what's the alternatives? Theoretically you can cut emissions all you want by lowering the tradeable cap, subject to the limits of the innovation rate.

See, in my 5 decades I've learned that often the best of intentions and emotions can result in feeling good but not accomplishing what is actually needed to improve things. ;)

You're right about China, they aren't going to let anyone dictate anything to them. We're on the same page there - we need a win/win cooperative approach.

Rather than emissions trading, actually lowering the total emissions without any of the trading games. As for the what's needed working themselves out - I'm less optimistic than you on that.

[Jason McCullough]

I dunno, tradable permits worked just fine for acid rain. You lower the overall level by banning all production that's not associated with a permit.

[JeffL]

I dunno, tradable permits worked just fine for acid rain. You lower the overall level by banning all production that's not associated with a permit.

Yeah, but the substantial improvement came when the government basically said stop it or else. Then companies (and I watched this when it happened) started installing FGD scrubbers which pretty effectively just removed the problem from the emissions. It was a pretty simple problem and a pretty simple solution, it just needed to be required for companies to install the capital (the scrubbers.) And actually, a number of companies were installing them before they were forced to. The data I've seen indicates that permit selling wasn't all that significant in the reduction. Again - straightforward problem, NOX and SOX, it was clear where it was coming from, and there were significant economic penalties if you didn't reduce them - and the technology to remove it was pretty simple and really didn't have any adverse effect on the production or transportation.

Hey, I'm not strongly against making pollution a tradeable commodity, I just think (perhaps in too simplistic a manner) that the more straightforward path is direct reduction.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I can't believe my lyin' eyes -- McCullough pimping pollution credits and lackey smacking that shit down. What the fuck HAPPENED here? Am I seeing this through an upside-down portal?

[Jason McCullough]

That's interesting, everything I've seen on the subject talks like it was the emissions. The professionals will figure it out, I guess.