The disparity of carbon dioxide emissions vividly illustrated by competing news stories

I noted this juxtaposing today, and thought I would share it. First this story from Reuters today:

EU capped emissions fall below expectations

* Carbon prices drop to record low
* Power sector down 3.1 pct, others off by 0.5 pct
* Germany emissions down 1.2 pct; UK off 7.2 pct (Releads with record low carbon price, adds UBS analyst quote)

By Jeff Coelho

LONDON, April 2 (Reuters) – Carbon prices plunged to record lows on Monday after data showing emissions in the European Union’s main scheme to fight greenhouse gases dropped below expectations last year.

Carbon dioxide emissions in the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) fell by 2.4 percent in 2011 from 2010, prompting carbon prices to fall by more than 11 percent to well below 7 euros a tonne.

While the preliminary data published by the European Commission on Monday suggests the bloc is on track to achieve its 2020 climate target, it also confirms a fall in power production due to weak industrial output and a slowing economy.

Many analysts had expected a slight rise in emissions for the year.

“The fall was mainly attributable to lower power generation and stagnating industrial production,” Matteo Mazzoni, an analyst at Nomisma Energia, told Reuters.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/eu-emissions-idUSL6E8F22GT20120402

==========================================================

Now this one from WSJ:

China Uses Nearly as Much Coal as Rest of World Combined, EIA Says

By CASSANDRA SWEET

China’s use of coal has grown quickly over the last decade and now rivals the amount of coal consumed by the rest of the world combined, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said Tuesday.

China consumed 3.8 billion short tons, or 3.45 billion metric tons, of coal in 2011, nearly half the world’s total consumption, the EIA said, citing international data.

A short ton, a measurement used in the U.S., is equal to 0.9 metric ton, a measurement used in most other countries.

Electricity generation in China has grown more than threefold since 2000, driving ever greater demand for coal, the EIA said.

China was also the world’s largest coal producer in 2011, producing more than 3.5 billion metric tons, or nearly 46% of global coal production that year, according to data published by the International Energy Agency. China was also the world’s largest net importer of coal in 2011, importing about 177 million metric tons of coal, according to the IEA.

The U.S. produced a little more than one billion metric tons of coal in 2011, or nearly 13% of the world supply, according to the IEA.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323829504578272233059490240.html

==============================================================

So on one hand, we have draconian regulations that are stagnating the economies of the countries in the EU, while at the same time, China is thumbing their nose at the idea and going at coal like pigs in a buffet line.

Nothing the western world does is going to make one bit of difference in the scheme of things, except to cripple their own economies while China laughs.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Coal, Energy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to The disparity of carbon dioxide emissions vividly illustrated by competing news stories

  1. MarkG says:

    I’ve often wondered which Western politicians are taking bribes from the Chinese to push policies that destroy their own economies. I’m sure when the final history of the ‘Global Warming’ scare is written a few decades from now there’ll be some interesting stories to tell.

  2. Niff says:

    Ah so……grasshopper.

  3. RockyRoad says:

    Do US and European politicians figure the Chinese will not take advantage of their growing economic power and use it to their even greater advantage? If so, said politicians are stupid indeed.

  4. Mike Smith says:

    I don’t see this as some great sinister conspiracy.

    China is simply doing what makes economic sense for China — generating energy by the cheapest means available.

    Europe and the USA are pursuing a lofty “save the planet” agenda which sadly, has no solid basis in scientific or economic theory. But our leaders are still running like lemmings toward their green utopia, apparently unaware of the looming cliff.

  5. Mike says:

    China becomes the new West, while the West becomes the new East, thanks in a large part to our climate scientist comrades and their parasitic environmental scumbag cousins, green pissing us back to the Stone Age.

  6. Chewer says:

    The theory of AGW never made it out of a working hypothesis, but the MSM with Mat Lauer this morning tells us that 4 out of 5 truly believe. One word that comes to mind is. “CULT”!
    The CAGW crowd must know that their end game has been changed for them and now consists of the masses with torches and pitchforks chasing them down!

  7. John F. Hultquist says:

    Carbon dioxide emissions in the EU’s emissions trading scheme

    This sounds as though they do not actually measure emissions across the EU but rather guess based on the paper (or digital) indulgences being created by bureaucrats and thieves. Several stories have surfaced about the disappearance of trees from forests and other individual acts of surreptitiously freeing unauthorized carbon. Then there seems to be imports of electricity from Norway (not EU) to Germany (EU). How is that counted? There are also reports of restricting electricity (cutting it off?) to many thousands that are a bit short of funds because of having low incomes. Tourism seems to be flat or down, in Greece, at least.
    If some or all of the above are operating to lower emissions, it is probably not a good thing.

  8. BrianMcL says:

    I’m guessing one of the reasons the power sector is down so sharply is because their business models assumed large profits selling their free carbon permits to their customers at market prices much higher than €7 / tonne.

    I wonder when we’ll see the reductions in our bills?

  9. Go look at EIA’s sources and methodology for how much/what type of coal China burns.

    I dare ya. Last time I tried, the results were sobering.

  10. Marc says:

    China’s per capita CO2 emissions are well below the U.S. and a little below the E.U.’s

    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&dt_code=NWS&obj_id=15150&ori=RSS

    REPLY: Per capita isn’t the issue, gross volume is. – Anthony

  11. SAMURAI says:

    This is why CAGW theory/draconian CO2 EPA rules and regulations will destroy Western economies and increase the drive of production to China.

    Since 2000, China’s coal burning electrical plants have increased coal consumption 300%!!, and now accounts for 50%! of ALL worldwide coal consumption.

    The draconian measures implemented in the US and EU haven’t decreased annual CO2 emissions, in fact, worldwide annual CO2 emissions have increased 60%!!! since 1997!

    Now here is the kicker…. Even though worldwide CO2 emissions have increased 60%, the global warming trend has statistically increased ZERO!

    Global temps are ACTUALLY FALLING slightly if you look at the RSS global temperature data.

    ….FALLING global temperatures.. You just gotta love it.

    So while all Western countries are busy destroying their industrial sectors and their economies in the process with expensive solar/wind power generation, VERY expensive CO2 emission standards and CO2 trading markets, China continues to eat our lunch by burning 300% MORE coal since 2000, and most of China’s power plants don’t even have scrubbers to remove black carbon, Hg, Pb, SO2, O3, and other harmful pollutants, so worldwide CO2 and REAL air pollution increases dramatically!

    But the irony of ironies is that global warming has stopped all on its lonesome for the past 16 years, even though Western countries have wasted $trillions on meaningless CO2 controls.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

    Now here comes the REAL ironic part…….

    China is now feverishly developing Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRS– technology developed by the US Defense Dept back in the 1960′s, btw–LOL!!) to replace their coal-fired plants. Once implemented on a large scale, China will be able to produce electricity at a cost/kWh CHEAPER than coal or any other source for that matter AND with ZERO CO2, Hg, Pb, SO2, O3, emissions. LOL!

    This is what happens when stupid politicians try to pick winners and losers in the market and when envio-wacko lobbyist control the EPA and Washington.

    Oh, the irony. I’m choking on it and the dirty air being pumped out by China.

    BTW, for more irony, when China implements LFTRs on a large scale, there will be second wave of production that shifts to China to take advantage of the cheapest electricity on the planet.

    When this second wave hits, Western economies will be so devastated by debt, CO2 rules/regs, high taxes and trashed currencies, that it will be very difficult for Western economies to invest the money to build LFTRs; we blew it all on debt, wealth redistribution programs, expensive rules/regulations, solar panels and windmills….

    We live in an insane world being run into the ground by lunatic politicians…..

  12. Simon says:

    Couple that with the complete inability for CO2 to heat anything by itself (no magical spontaneous heat generation to cause the mythical greenhouse effect), and you have the slam-dunk of politicians complicity exposure, or is that plain old stupidity and collective blindness?

  13. bikermailman says:

    Yet certain people tell us that China is a model for us to follow. On a number of fronts, including this one.

  14. RESnape says:

    Our ‘green’ friends in Oz must be apoplectic because of the demand for coal in China and India is expected to increase dramatically over the next decade in line with these countries’ projected need for coal for energy and manufacturing and the Australian coal industry is fuelling this need.

    http://www.australiancoal.com.au/exports.html

    Nothing like exporting to reduce the carbon footprint?

  15. pat says:

    australia exports its coal to china, but isn’t allowed to build coal-fired power stations.

    however, australia doesn’t need to count the CO2 emissions from the Chinese coal-fired power stations as part of its own emissions. LOL. anyway, everyone’s in on the act, and fossil fuels are the future:

    (pdf) Nov 2012: World Resources Institute: Working Paper
    (page 1) According to WRI’s estimates, 1,199 new coal-fired plants, with a total installed capacity of 1,401,278 megawatts (MW), are being proposed globally. These projects are spread across 59 countries. China and India together account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacities…
    (page 18) International public financial institutions are important and long-time contributors to the coal industry. Since 1994, multilateral development banks (MDBs) and industrialized countries’ export credit agencies (ECAs) have helped finance 88 new and expanded coal plants in developing countries, as well as projects in Europe. Together, MDBs and ECAs have provided more than US$37 billion
    in direct and indirect financial support for new coal-fired power plants worldwide. The World Bank has actually increased lending for fossil fuel projects and coal plants in recent years.78 An analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund concludes that the lending strategies of MDBs and ECAs in the energy sector do not sufficiently consider the environmental harm wrought by fossil fuel projects…
    http://pdf.wri.org/global_coal_risk_assessment.pdf

  16. TomRude says:

    Marc says:
    January 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm
    China’s per capita CO2 emissions are well below the U.S. and a little below the E.U.’s

    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&dt_code=NWS&obj_id=15150&ori=RSS

    REPLY: Per capita isn’t the issue, gross volume is. – Anthony.
    ===
    Well Anthony, Per Capita is the only issue… that concerns the eco-egalitarians when it comes to finding a scheme for individual wealth redistribution and guilt spewing justification of their totalitarism. Per Capita is a political tool, and a dangerous one.

  17. Jimbo says:

    Shift of production location?

    Sometimes you have to wonder at the insanity of politicians who lead Western economies. My prediction is that all the co2 reduction schemes will not affect the climate one bit. It will just carry on as normal. Yet, they will not stop because they have politicized the issue and now cannot lose face, no matter what.

  18. Jimbo says:

    Marc says:
    January 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm

    China’s per capita CO2 emissions are well below the U.S. and a little below the E.U.’s

    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&dt_code=NWS&obj_id=15150&ori=RSS

    And how is this going to affect global mean temperature? China’s standard of living and consumption is going up so expect a narrowing of the per capita Co2 emissions.

  19. M.J. Snyder says:

    Anthony:
    “…China is thumbing their nose at the idea and going at coal like pigs in a buffet line.”
    Snort!
    When I was a kid we heated our old farmhouse with coal. When the coal bin was about empty we’d scrape up the fines, put them in buckets and take them out to feed the pigs. They went wild over it! And all the minerals were good for them; not sure about their emissions though!

  20. Steve (Paris) says:

    SAMURAI says:
    January 29, 2013 at 9:31 pm

    “This is what happens when stupid politicians try to pick winners and losers in the market and when envio-wacko lobbyist control the EPA and Washington”

    I see your point but politicians in China are also stupid (to be diplomatic) at the fundamental human rights level but seem brighter in ecomomics – the communist party still calls the shots (litterally) after all. Western politicians have lost any sense they might have had of economics and, I fear, are quite preparped to erode human rights in the war against ‘carbon’. In fact I think there is ample evidence of that.

  21. Lew Skannen says:

    I have read several books about the madness and hysteria which overtook China in the 60′s and early 70′s with their ‘Great Leap Forward’. At that time they were an impoverished country bent upon self destruction while the West was an economic powerhouse and bastion of liberty. What a difference forty years makes!
    I am hoping for a Berlin Wall moment soon in which the whole shambles of the UN, the EU and all the symptoms of the underlying disease are all turned over as everyone wakes up to the absolute madness of what is going on now in the West.
    If we don’t have our Berlin Wall moment soon it is going to be a long cold era ahead of us.

  22. MorningGuy says:

    All the people here bitchen about cheap coal – just imagine what it would be like to live in a place like this http://www.smh.com.au/environment/beijing-under-cloud-as-air-pollution-threat-sparks-emergency-response-20130114-2cppl.html

    China will have their comeuppance in huge health care costs when their population turns older

  23. Andy Wilkins says:

    So, will Jimmy Hansen be marching off to China to go and stage a protest outside one of their new coal-fired plants?
    Nah, thought not – he only holds demonstrations and gives rabble-rousing speeches in the Western World, where the most that’ll happen when he gets arrested is that he’ll just have to fill out some boring paperwork to get released. Also, Hansen can’t beat people over the head with liberal guilt in China – they’ll just beat him over the head with a large police truncheon.
    As my mother here in Blighty says: Hansen’s all mouth and no trousers.

  24. RESnape says:

    Here in the UK the Government (whatever flavour) is attempting to mitigate the costs of energy to consumer’s (industrial and domestic). They have set up a multitude of schemes for industry which, on first blush, are designed to persuade manufacturing industries not to move abroad, until you peel away the layers to expose the futility.

    https://www.gov.uk/policy-impacts-on-prices-and-bills

    Likewise there are a multitude of schemes to help domestic consumers which are patently not working for the vulnerable in the UK because of the increasing numbers falling into energy poverty. 3.5 million in 2011 and a projected increase of 0.4 million in 2012.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fuel-poverty-annual-report-on-statistics-2012

    As to the fate of UK manufacturing because of ‘Green’ Tax hikes, who knows?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173414/Soaring-green-energy-taxes-force-firms-UK-industry-uncompetitive.html

    (PS those who are avid Daily Mail haters, just read the article)

    Enjoy

  25. Brian H says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    January 29, 2013 at 9:22 pm

    If some or all of the above are operating to lower emissions, it is probably not a good thing.

    Lower CO2 emissions are almost never a good thing. They reflect either lower or more expensive energy generation. Or, as in EU’s case, both.

    Stupidity is the only capital crime in Nature.

  26. R. Hewgill says:

    They have countries in Europe with massive unemployment. Especially among young people where in some countries it’s as high as 50%. They need to be worried about that.

  27. Colin Porter says:

    In 2011 China’s per capita consumption was 7.2 tonnes and increasing at the rate of 9% per annum. Europe’s consumption was 7.5 tonnes and reducing at the rate of 3% per annum. That implies that China’s per capita consumption is by now well ahead of Europe.

    Europe is among the leaders, if not the world leader in promoting regulation to restrict carbon dioxide production in the western world, yet it’s environmental apologists make allowances for developing countries to continue their expansion without restriction.

    This per capita increase coupled with the massive increase and domination of China’s “dirty” coal usage, which by now in 2013 is probably around 50% of world consumption, makes an absolute mockery of the European Unions stance. Surely, our regulators should now be saying that unless China complies with the same stringent rules, then we in Europe should not be destroying our economies by faithfully following and exceeding Kyoto requirements. What blind idiots we have to lead us.

  28. Marc says:

    “TomRude says:
    January 29, 2013 at 10:20 pm
    Marc says:
    January 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm
    China’s per capita CO2 emissions are well below the U.S. and a little below the E.U.’s

    http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm?id=1410&dt_code=NWS&obj_id=15150&ori=RSS

    REPLY: Per capita isn’t the issue, gross volume is. – Anthony.
    ===
    Well Anthony, Per Capita is the only issue… that concerns the eco-egalitarians when it comes to finding a scheme for individual wealth redistribution and guilt spewing justification of their totalitarism. Per Capita is a political tool, and a dangerous one.”
    =============================

    Both gross volume and per capita matter. Any program to reduce gross emissions will need to take per capita, historical and per GDP measures into account. But I am very glad to see Anthony acknowledge the importance of CO2 emissions! ;-)

  29. harrywr2 says:

    I’m never fond of press releases regurgitating old data. The US EIA is talking about 2011 data.

    In 2012 the amount of coal China used for electricity production was less then 1% different then 2011. I.E. Almost flat.

    China led the world in Wind and Hydro production in 2012 not necessarily because they are ‘good environmental stewards’ but because wind,hydro and nulcear are al cheaper then burning coal in China..

    How much coal they consumed for steel and cement production is another story however.

  30. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    One could be cynical regarding China’s actions regarding coal, but that probably doesn’t matter to them. While they probably snicker at notions like the President’s about making coal use in the US too expensive (bankrupting all who try to use it), China is simply interested in providing power for its people. China is hellbent on producing more power. Consider the Three Gorges Dam and what was sacrificed to build it. China simply realizes that to be prosperous and to provide good lives for its citizens, it must provide more power, especially electricity.

  31. rogerknights says:

    MorningGuy says:
    January 29, 2013 at 11:45 pm

    All the people here bitchen about cheap coal – just imagine what it would be like to live in a place like this http://www.smh.com.au/environment/beijing-under-cloud-as-air-pollution-threat-sparks-emergency-response-20130114-2cppl.html

    China will have their comeuppance in huge health care costs when their population turns older

    CO2 emissions aren’t air pollution. China has failed to install scrubbers on its coal power plants, and to impose similar air-pollutant regulations on other emitters.

  32. arthur4563 says:

    As per usual, journalists don’t know squat about power generation. China is building a LOT of nuclear plants these days. They are aiming at having 600 by 2050 and well over 1500 by the end of the decade. In the past month they have installed major components on several of their many nuclear plants under construction. And they DON’T need any technological help from the West. They also have created huge hydro generation dams that are producing an awful lot of electricity. We are now producing electricity via nuclear plants that is cheaper than coal. The crossover point, when nuclear became cheaper than coal occurred I believe about 4 years ago. Production costs is between 3 and 4 cents per kWhr for nuclear and about 33% more for coal generated power, at least before the price of coal tumbled.
    Nuclear fuel costs practically nothing : between 5 and 10 percent of the production costs.
    There are Euro countries going for nuclear, like Bulgaria, and apparently England and others.
    But Germany is shutting down its nuclear plants in favor of coal. I guess 60 years of accident free operation makes those nuclear plants too dangerous for the brainless German public. Yes, they are still as dumb as they were when they cheered Hitler.

  33. Chuck Nolan says:

    MorningGuy says:
    January 29, 2013 at 11:45 pm
    All the people here bitchen about cheap coal – just imagine what it would be like to live in a place like this http://www.smh.com.au/environment/beijing-under-cloud-as-air-pollution-threat-sparks-emergency-response-20130114-2cppl.html

    China will have their comeuppance in huge health care costs when their population turns older
    ——————–
    [snip . . equating Republicans with Chinese Communist Party seems like trolling . . mod]

  34. fhhaynie says:

    Things will change when western politicians finally realize that they will never be able to control the world’s economy by creating international laws to control the use of fossil fuels. Saving the planet from some possible future CAGW is a loosing cause. On the other hand, we in the U.S. should not be burning “dirty” eastern coal with all it’s real pollutants. We should be converting it to “clean” natural gas before burning it.

  35. David L says:

    Good for China! And we help their competitive edge by stifling ourselves. Nice!

  36. dvunkannon says:

    Carbon is cheap in Europe, how does that equate to ‘draconian’ regulations? As the Reuters article says, the problem is industrial production. Are you blaming the economic stagnation in Europe on GW regs??

    I’ve been to Beijing and Shanghai. Terrible air quality. Western anti-pollution legislation is far from draconian.

  37. oeman50 says:

    One other thing, China does a great job “talking the talk” with its support of wind farms (in areas with no or limited electric transmission), biomass (where there is lots of wood), and solar (to sell panels to European and US countries that have renewable laws). They support carbon capture technology, as well. Meanwhile they burn half the coal and keep it coming. Nice.

  38. john robertson says:

    So are our leaders just extremely gullible or paid saboteurs ?

  39. Gail Combs says:

    MarkG says:
    January 29, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    I’ve often wondered which Western politicians are taking bribes from the Chinese to push policies that destroy their own economies. I’m sure when the final history of the ‘Global Warming’ scare is written a few decades from now there’ll be some interesting stories to tell.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Bill Clinton

    He is the guy who got China into the World Trade Organization.
    A time table is in How China Conquered America. The Real Bill Clinton Scandal.

    Let’s start with his campaign Contributions:

    Justice Department Investigation

    • Overview: In late 1996, a Justice Department task force started investigating allegations of campaign fund-raising abuses by the Clinton reelection campaign. Critics accused Attorney General Janet Reno of botching the investigation and demanded that she appoint an independent counsel…..

    Huang to Offer Guilty Plea
    May 26, 1999
    The Justice Department announced that John Huang has agreed to plead guilty to a single felony charge as part of an agreement that legal sources said promises that he will not be prosecuted in connection with his fund-raising for President Clinton.

    Tried to Plead Guilty
    May 22, 1999
    Controversial fund-raiser Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie entered into a plea agreement with the Justice Department, winning leniency in exchange for telling all in an investigation of improper campaign contributions originating in China.

    Not Chinese Agent, Chung Says
    May 12, 1999
    Former Democratic fund-raiser Johnny Chung told a congressional committee that he received $300,000 from a Chinese general interested in influencing the 1996 presidential election. But he insisted that he “never acted as an agent for the Chinese government.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/background.htm

    Manufacturing & Technology News: China’s Entry Into The WTO 10 Years Later Is Not What President Clinton Promised: …Most all of the predictions from those pushing the deal at the time have proven to be wrong, according to an analysis done by Robert Lighthizer, former deputy United States Trade Representative…

    The Economist: Chinese politics and the WTO, No change, Hopes of sparking political change have come to nothing so far
    The Clinton Presidency: A Foreign Policy for the Global Age
    As the first president who has understood the connections of the global economy and its connection to our prosperity, President Clinton has led the United States toward its greatest expansion in world trade in history…. Completed the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations and created the WTO to reduce tariffs, settle trade disputes and enforce rules… Completed the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations and created the WTO to reduce tariffs, settle trade disputes and enforce rules.

    Clinton was also the guy who signed five banking laws that got rid of the depression era laws put in place to prevent another depression. These are the laws that repealed the McFadden Act of 1927, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and lead to the Formation of Mega Banks. (Too Big To FAIL so had to be bailed out with TAX $$$) He is also responsible for the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that was responsible for marginal mortgage loans doomed to fail and the unregulated CDSs used by AIG to insure the banks against foreclosure.

  40. Marc said (January 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm )

    “…China’s per capita CO2 emissions are well below the U.S. and a little below the E.U.’s…”

    And they’ve got about 4.25 times the “per capita” that the US does. So when you see China at 7.2 tonnes per capita (and a population of about 1,336,718,015 people) compared to the U.S. at 17.3 tonnes per capita (and a population of about 313,232,044 people), you see just what the real story is: China’s total of 9,624,369,708 tonnes of CO2 far outpace the US value of 242,593,921 tonnes of CO2 – by a factor of about 39.6:1.

  41. Marc says:

    Henry,

    So you have discovered that China has more people than we do. That’s really something Henry.

Comments are closed.