By Paul Homewood
http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2013-11/21/content_17120968.htm
“and make sure that the commitment of reducing CO2 emission per unit of GDP by 40-45% by 2020 from 2005 level is fulfilled”
We often hear claims that China are moving much faster than the West in cutting emissions. For instance , John Gummer commented on the BBC’s Today programme a couple of weeks ago that “If you look at what China’s doing…China’s actually moving a lot faster than we are now, and it’s actually moving towards a peak in its emission in the mid, maybe even in the early, 2020s.”
And today, Geoffrey Lean in the Telegraph tells us that “China is setting an example to the world on climate change”.
But what is the reality? Is China really going to start cutting emissions?
In his speech to the Climate Change Conference, Xie Zhenhua, the head of their delegation in Warsaw reaffirmed China’s commitment to reducing emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45% by 2020, from 2005 levels.
A cut of 40-45% certainly seems a good start, but is it all it appears? The key, of course, is that the cuts won’t be in actual emissions, only in relation to GDP. And as we all know China’s GDP has been going up in leaps and bounds in the last few years, as the graph below shows.
http://www.china-mike.com/facts-about-china/economy-investment-business-statistics/
Wikipedia gives the comparative GDP numbers for 2005 and 2012, all at current prices, for China
| US Dollars Trillion | Renminbi Trillion | |
| 2005 | 2.257 | 18.493 |
| 2012 | 8.220 | 51.894 |
| % Increase | 364 | 281 |
The percentage increase is greater in dollars because the dollar has depreciated, so let’s work on the lower renminbi figures. Assuming an annual GDP increase of 8% between now and 2020, we would be looking at a GDP figure in 2020 of 96 trillion renminbi, again at today’s prices. This would be five times greater than 2005.
Now let’s look at CO2 emissions.
| Million Tonnes Carbon Equivalent | |
| 2005 | 1579 |
| 2012 | 2625 |
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
Now we can crank some numbers out.
Assuming China maintains CO2 emissions per unit of GDP at 2005 levels, their emissions in 2020 would be:
(96 / 18 ) x 1579 = 8421 million tonnes.
Now, reduce this figure by 40%, and we get:
8421 x 0.6 = 5052 million tonnes.
So, far from cutting emissions, China’s “commitment” boils down to nearly doubling their emissions by 2020.
It does not seem such a good deal after all, does it?
The Chinese, of course, have been totally transparent about all of this. But don’t believe the likes of John Gummer when they try and keep these facts from you.
FOOTNOTE
Just to put the China numbers into perspective, their current emissions are 27% of the global figure, so a doubling would add another quarter.
Such an increase would be one and a half times the combined emissions of the whole of the EU, Russia and the rest of Europe and Eurasia.
All of this rather begs the question – if CO2 is really such a problem, why are not the UN, Greenpeace, UNFCC, Western politicians, activist scientists and all the other hangers on jumping up and down and demanding that China starts making real cuts now?
UPDATE
If you run the above calculations through with the 2012 figures, you find that China has already achieved its target of a 40% reduction
Assuming China maintains the same emissions per unit of GDP between 2005 and 2012, emissions in 2012 would be:
(51894/18496) x 1579 = 4430
Actual emissions were 2625, which represents a cut of 41% from 4430
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that China can confidently promise cuts of 40 to 45%. They have already achieved them.
The implication, therefore, is that emissions will, from now on, carry on increasing in line with GDP, which is on track for an 8% increase this year. If annual increases continue at this sort of level, a not unreasonable scenario, GDP would have nearly doubled over 2012 levels by 2020.
Update 2
Please note “thousand tonnes” should have read “million tonnes”. Now amended.
There are lies, damned lies and………………….
Another hockey stick? See the two graphs.
On the flip side, haven’t US CO2 emissions already actually been substantially cut. Driving miles are down and natural gas replaced a lot of coal power generation.. I thought we were the only country to actually achieve the Kyoto targets.
Glad to see the Chinese still have a great sense of humor. The joke is on all the rest of the world.
I think one reason they have been building so many coal fired power plants is to make it easy to cut emissions by switching to natural gas or nuclear. Set the baseline nice and high.
Readers may find this Wikipedia table useful …
List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions
I think it should be Millions of tons of CO2, as in 2020 emissions may be 8421 Million tons of CO2.
tons of CO2 per unit of GDP– is not even clear. Is it nominal GDP, GDP expressed in purchasing power parity or it is GDP based on some constant base year. The way the US has been printing money, if and when the economic recovery takes place the global inflation could just skyrocket so nominal GDP will just skyrocket as well. Tons of carbon dioxide is a physical quantity while the divider which the US$ or another monetary value is a fiction based on the agreement of central bankers. Even if the economy becomes more energy inefficient and coal continues as the main source of energy, the carbon dioxide emission per unit of GDP will still decrease. For example, at present one ton of carbon dioxide is released to produce goods that increase the GDP by a $100, if the manufacturing efficiency goes down by 10 per cent, then 1.1 tons of carbon dioxide will be generated to manufacture the same product. However, the additional value the same quantity of product to the GDP in nominal terms could be $120 so the carbon dioxide generation per GDP will be down but the quantity of carbon dioxide emitted has increased. At present China’s GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is much higher than the nominal GDP. As the Yuan and the Chinese economy matures plus the strong pressure from its trading partner for the Yuan to appreciate, the gap between nominal GDP and GDP (PPP) will decrease. China’s economic structure could also shift towards services that are more high paying such as banking and finance with very low energy needs. Without doing anything China could reduce its carbon emission per GDP radically ( might even be as high as 90). However, we should not blame China for making such an assertion. China is just playing by the rule of the game. Tons of carbon dioxide per GDP or tons equivalent of coal per GDP or barrels of oil equivalent per GDP is what is normally called energy intensity of the economy and almost used world wide. Developed countries seems to be using the same strategy. Heavy industries that very energy intensive goes to third world countries while high paying jobs that may create wealth with low energy requirements stays in the City or Wall Street.
Speed: “Readers may find this Wikipedia table useful …”
Not really. The other two choices to present aren’t as prone to nonsense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
What if China’s economy were really a Ponzi? How would we know? People are talking about it. I’ve suspected it for a long time. Burdens like carbon compliance and faith based banking are at odds with each other. Something else to think about as we watch BO take down the US economy.
http://www.profitconfidential.com/chinese-economy/is-china-a-ponzi-scheme/
Here’s the EIA co2 emissioin numbers for OECD and non OECD from 1990 to 2011.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2011&unit=MMTCD
OECD (developed) 1990 —11.6 bn T 2011 —13 bn T. An increase in just 1.4 bn T pa in 21 years . Non OECD ( developing China, India etc) 1990 —-10 bn T 2011 —-19.6 bn T. An increase of 9.6 bn T pa in 21 years.
All individual countries co2 emissions pa are available at the link.
“jumping up and down and demanding that China starts making real cuts now?”
The CDIAC site you cited also has per capita figures for 2010:
China 1.68 ton C/cap/yr, USA 4.71, Australia 4.57, Qatar 10.9.
CO2 needs a world effort. We can’t expect people to respond differently just because of the size of the political unit they happen to live in. China has a big population and will have a big GDP. The best we can do is to ensure that the GDP is achieved as efficiently as possible. We can’t expect Chinese to respond to Westerners pressuring them to cut in absolute terms when Westerners are using more than twice as much.
“But don’t believe the likes of John Gummer…”
In your quote Gummer expected Chinese emissions to peak about 2025. You attempted to refute that by saying that they would be emitting more in 2020 that now. That does not refute.
“Actual emissions were 2625, which represents a cut of 41% from 4430”
Well, then, they are indeed doing well.
It was the 10% cut in US Co2 emissions that stalled Global Warming.
Ah, but the latent question is: how does it feel to have been played?
Her are the EIA co2 emission forecast until 2040— see graph. The OECD emissions will essentially flatline for 30 years while non OECD emissions will continue to soar.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
They say that fully 94% of extra co2 emissions will come from China ,India etc and only 6% from the OECD until 2040.
The entire OECD could retire and live in caves and it wouldn’t make ZIP difference at all to climate and temp.
Neville – Have we learned anything yet about models and forecasts.
Out of curiosity, is China actually doing anything to really cut CO2 emissions, in addition to replacing old coal power plants with new, and building nuclear power plants?
John I don’t understand your point? China in 1990 2.2 bn T and China in 2011 8.7bn T pa or nearly a 400% INCREASE IN JUST 21 YEARS.
Using RMB is equally deceptive cos it has appreciated by a lot since 2005. Is there a comparison in material terms instead of using currency?
And why is using GDP a problem? Ideally every human is entitled to enjoying the same resource although in effect we have a long way to go to make that a reality if ever.
Are we promoting penality on countries with larger population by comparing total emmisions?
Are we capping development of developing countries so that they can never challenge the league of rich countries who could forever enjoy more resources?
In the wild we have altha male, in politics we have altha country, in scientific review we have altha peer. All grap a bigger bite through bullying.
Although I agree with the math that China is currently greatly increasing CO2 emissions/ due to opening up about 2~3 new coal-fired plants PER WEEK to keep up with energy demands from a growing economy. One wild-card element to this equation is China’s LFTR development.
I recently learned from a WUWT commenter that China will have a 2 Megawatt test LFTR go on line from around June of 2015, which means China is much further along with its LFTR development than originally thought.
At this pace, China could have 50~100 Megawatt LFTRs designed by 2025 and then it’s just a matter of refining the design, leading to replacement of coal-fired plants with LFTRs at a quick pace from around 2030~35. Once LFTRs are built on a large scale, China’s CO2 emissions will drop precipitously thereafter.
Why is the West wasting so much money on solar/wind alternative energy, CO2 taxes, 3rd-world wealth redistribution of CO2 tax revenues, etc. when a “solution” to cutting CO2 already exists. Had all these wasted funds been used to develop LFTRs, the whole Global Warming hoax would be de facto moot anyway….
Even if the West FINALLY gets it head out of its nether region, and starts developing LFTRs, it’ll take 10 years of EPA regulations/mandates/hearings/compliance costs/bureaucratic red tape to get approval per LFTR building site…. How do Western governments expect to compete with China when their “approval” process takes 10 days…..
Oh, the irony…. China is moving (slowly) to free-market capitalism, while the West is moving towards Socialism/Communism….
Politicians are insane idiots.
China is an interesting case. There must be a huge interest in reducing pollution, by which I mean particulate matter, carcinogens, toxic materials etc.
I doubt that the Chinese give a hoot about CO2 but, of course, their politicians will make all of the right noises to appease the west since they’re rather tired of playing the western world’s punching bag. I think the “China reassures world” article is fine example of same.
China is always excused by Green alarmists: those poor communist underdogs. The US are the main target: those wicket ultra rich top dogs. Dawn facts and statistics. Viewing the world through green coloured glasses damages the world’s environment the most.
At the 2007 Pittsburgh Coal Conference, I remember a poster session on coal seam fires In China, coal seam fires emit more CO2 than all the cars in the US. A little searching indicated that 20-200 million tons of coal per year are lost to mine fires. The number is very vague as no one really knows how much coal is lost to mine fires. CO2 emissions from these sources are probably not counted in net emissions but represent maybe 12% of China’s GHG emissions.
If GHG emissions are truly a threat to mankind, why haven’t the NGO’s gone after this source of uncontrolled emissions? If CO2 was a real problem, this would be the low hanging fruit. But no one mentions this
Here’s a carbon reduction those in the ‘climate change’ community would die for:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/model-country-north-korea-achieves-80-reduction-in-co2-emissions/
US emissions are the lowest in absolute terms, in 18 years.
In per capita terms, US emissions are at 1964 levels.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/channel/carpe-diem/
This is Mark Perry’s site on US emissions.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/11/four-charts-showing-why-its-time-to-end-the-biofuel-mandate/
Funny how there is no mention that China’s emissions are now 2x that of the US. In fact, in about 30 years, China will exceed the US in cumulative emissions since 1800.
Mike– I sometimes travel to China on business and I can attest the air quality in major cities is terrible. They don’t utilize coal-plant scrubbers to remove REAL pollutants (who cares about CO2) so tremendous amounts of SO2, O3, NO2, soot, etc., are just blasted into the atmosphere resulting in severe health problems; it’s atrocious.
China’s magic bullet to solve its energy/pollution problems are LFTRs and I’m sure that they’ll be successful with that approach. It would be great if the Chinese would address the severe pollution problems they’re currently facing with their coal-fired plants, but as long as their LFTR program is moving forward successfully, they feel it makes more economic sense to spend money on solving the long-term problem with LFTRs rather than divert limited resources to solve the “short-term” (20~30 years) problem of coal-fired plant pollution.
The West made this same choice in the 1970’s and implemented strict air/water/soil pollution standards, which lead to a 90% reduction of many major pollutants between 1980 and 2012.
Chinese history (The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Square comes to mind) shows the Chinese Government is willing to sacrifice 50 million souls to achieve a long-term end (very Machiavellian) and their pollution policy is simply a manifestation of that underlying “ends justifies the means” mentality….
In the interim, China will simply promise the West anything and do pretty much as they please. The big difference this time is that the growing middle-class taxpayer base is starting to get restless about the pollution problem with some pollution riots/protests springing up around China.
At some point, social unrest from all the awful pollution may incur a negative economic effect, which may force China to implement stricter pollution standards and invest the necessary funds on coal-plant scrubbers, prior to LFTRs being rolled out.
As always, it’ll be a decision based on cost/benefit analysis and not a moral choice…
China’s coal fired electricity generation was an enormous 15% below that of Japan in 2003. So it is eager to improve its efficiency to become internationally competitive and reduce its rapidly growing coal imports. – And gain international “brownie” points for its very capitalistic “green” efforts.
Comparison of Efficiency Generation
The best lesson we can learn from China is to not be shackled as the slave to political correctness and fad science.
SAMURAI
Did you see this article on JoNova? http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/upgrade-coal-power-and-cut-15-of-emissions-will-the-greens-consider-coal/
The Chinese are trying 100 times as hard as me to get their carbon emissions down.
Nick Stokes says:
November 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm
“We can’t expect Chinese to respond to Westerners pressuring them to cut in absolute terms when Westerners are using more than twice as much.”
Of course we can’t and we don’t and we shouldn’t.
But it’s a neverending fun exposing our idiot journalists for the kind of kretins they are.
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013 –
Chinese emission of CO2 in 2012 were 9,208 million metric tonnes
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013.html
easy to download the Excel data and graph it yourself.
Policycritic– Thank you very much for the JoNova link.
I was familiar with advances in high-pressure steam generators, but I had no idea China was so far ahead in this technology.
Not to sound like a broken record, but LFTRs use gas turbines instead of steam turbines, and can achieve temperatures of 1,200C at SINGLE atmospheric pressures. That’s a huge advantage in terms of safety/water conservation.
Moreover, the “waste” heat after LFTRs drive the gas turbines through a heat exchanger is still around 600~700C, which can be used to synthesize ethanol or jet fuel from CO2 and water…. So LFTRs can store energy during off-peak hours by producing ethanol as an additional revenue stream or it can be used to desalinate sea water; addressing another of man’s needs…
Not that it matters, but the production of ethanol from LFTRs will actually decrease atmospheric CO2 levels in the future….
I don’t believe government numbers at all, especially from China. I was in the US navy and we made up numbers all the time to get our quota of goods, etc. for the next go around.
I guess this one is aimed at Nick Stokes and any of the other leftist green equality junkies.
What I am curious about is why it develops into an emission per capita formula in your minds. No consideration of terrain, position and climate of the country just a per population stupidity equation.
Countries like Japan are severely disadvantaged by these sorts of equation because they have precious little land per population for all this green power that they are supposed to be charging headlong towards.
Looking at the world population density per country it is easy to see which countries will struggle and why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density
Wiki even suggest perhaps better ways of doing this the most apt one is probably
Ecological optimum: The density of population which can be supported by the natural resources.
So I guess that’s the next argument of all the leftist greenies we need to balance out the world’s population to the ecological optimum it’s obvious in their political agenda.
If CO2 per unit of GDP is to0 be the measure – then the US probably looks pretty good as do most developed countries.
ref: “In his speech to the Climate Change Conference, Xie Zhenhua, the head of their delegation in Warsaw reaffirmed…”
Does Xie even believe in AGW? (in 2010 he said)
China has ‘open mind’ about cause of climate change – Telegraph
“China’s most senior climate change official surprised a summit in India when he questioned whether global warming is caused by carbon gas emissions and said Beijing is keeping an “open mind”.
“There are disputes in the scientific community. We have to have an open attitude to the scientific research. There’s an alternative view that climate change is caused by cyclical trends in nature itself. We have to keep an open attitude,” he said. – Telegraph, 23th January 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7067505/China-has-open-mind-about-cause-of-climate-change.html
Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes – Guardian Jan 2010
“China’s most senior negotiator on climate change says more research needed to establish whether warming is man-made”
China’s most senior negotiator on climate change said today he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles.
Xie Zhenhua said there was no doubt that warming was taking place, but more and better scientific research was needed to establish the causes”
– Guardian Jan 2010
I am a pragmatist like most physicists/engineers so the question to you is why pick GDP? See the question I am probing is how people judge “fair”?
For my part I am a pragmatist and I don’t think their will be a political solution to climate change (and yes I believe it exists but probably at the lower end of projections). I think more money should being spent on climate engineering because I think it is inevitable that is the only real solution because there will always be countries who view that they are unfairly targeted by emission control schemes. I don’t see anyway you are going to get an agreement up which the whole world would agree with on a problem with hundreds of years timespan.
There is also a problem of personal view, locally we had a push to change planning laws to not allow buildings near coastal areas. Many individuals push back against this because the problem occurs at greater than 100 year timeframes and someone might actually not care about 100 years from now they will be long dead and simply want to have an ocean view now. It comes down to that problem who can guarantee anything on 100 year timeframe. Ask people who once had quiet rural holdings now only to be surrounded by suburbia or have major airports flight paths directly over them or large power lines traversing their once pristine country views what can happen in 100 years.
It’s a sad day when the leaders of the Peoples Republic of China, have more credibility than the members of the Mother of Parliaments!
Gummer is one of the worst examples of dishonesty and “troughing” in the UK.
If China is going to spend any money on pollution mitigation, it will be on coal plant scrubbers, whose emissions are costing China itself in the near term, and causing it to lose face internationally. Money for CO2 mitigation will have to wait in line until that’s done.
Nick Stokes says:
November 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Well at least you admit that global warming and CO2 reductions isn’t a pressing matter and can be held off for at least a good 20-50 years.
Or as Confucius said…
“Every truth has four corners: as a teacher I give you one corner, and it is for you to find the other three.”
Skim milk masquerades as cream …. ♪♫♪
When I recently went to southern China on business, I was amazed to see so many road signs in English and Chinese. One of the most common signs was “Foggy Area”, which actually meant beware of smog.
The Chinese have started cleaning up pollution and obviously still have a long way to go, but not once did I hear any concerns about climate change, but only of ensuring there was enough energy available.
Somehow China has managed to portray itself as the ‘good guy’ in cutting CO2 emissions, while simultaneously managing to demonise the western democracies for being selfish and not doing enough to help the kleptocracies of the Third World.
Ecoloons and the gullible buy the Chinese argument hook, line and sinker, but then again they also buy the arguments that CO2 is an evil gas and Thermageddon is imminent.
LdB says:
November 24, 2013 at 10:27 pm
“Ecological optimum: The density of population which can be supported by the natural resources.”
That won’t please the liberals in NYC and LA. (Or Hamburg or Berlin for that matter)
Shock News atmospheric CO2 nearly 420 ppm 23-11-2013 16.00
http://www.sonnblick.net/portal/content/view/214/328/lang,de/
http://www.dmg-ev.de/gesellschaft/publikationen/dmg-mitteilungen_archiv/2000_4/Bilder/Sonnblick1200.jpg
I suppose the instrument platform has to be the black and dark red building.
http://www.dmg-ev.de/gesellschaft/publikationen/dmg-mitteilungen_archiv/2000_4/Bilder/Sonnblick1200.jpg
I agree with other commenters that Gummer is one of the most discredited politicians in the UK along with that other great trougher Tim Yeo. their interests in renewables leaves them hopelessly conflicted. They will be responsible for the loss of huge numbers of votes to UKIP who are the only party fighting this corruption.
I see truougher Yeo now has his offspring (don’t know whether it’s his official or illegitimate daughter) employed in the renewable propaganda now also.
temp says: November 25, 2013 at 12:13 am
“Nick Stokes says: November 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Well at least you admit that global warming and CO2 reductions isn’t a pressing matter and can be held off for at least a good 20-50 years.”
No, I think something needs to be done as soon as possible. That’s why a proposed scheme needs to be equitable, else it just won’t happen.
Imagine that the US did agree to limit emissions. So they look through the list of states by emission to see where their biggest problem is. It’s Texas! So they jump up and down and demand that Texas reduces its emissions. Perhaps down to Vermont levels. Problem solved.
Think that’s gonna work?
The world’s worst polluters and all hey continually do is lie about it. Anyone who has ever set foot in China would be well aware of the level of environmental abuse the citizens and the country is exposed to for the sake of communism. Just like Russia, where rooted hulls of nuclear submarines were left to rot in the water.
A lie about China’s so called “environmentalism” is vacant and absent as communists just do not give a damn anything they have to spend money on.
Chris Y
I think it should be Millions of tons of CO2, as in 2020 emissions may be 8421 Million tons of CO2.
Yes you’re right!! Well spotted.
I’ve now updated.
STRAWMAN ALERT!, STRAWMAN ALERT!
This whole thread is a complete waste of argument. There is no scientific evidence that CO2 has anything but a very small effect on the world’s temperature, let alone the contribution made by the man-made portion of CO2 emissions.
Why are we arguing over this or that percentage/GDP etc. when it is not a problem. The CO2 level is continuing up (lots of benefits for plant life/crop yields) and the temperature of the planet ( if such a thing can be truly measured) is stable at present – WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Other than the enormous waste of human resources and human suffering spending so much money has on such a non-problem.
The real problem is troughing and enviro-mentalists, not sure if this is in order of importance.
SteveT
Wazsah
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013 – Chinese emission of CO2 in 2012 were 9,208 million metric tonnes
CDIAC measure in “Carbon equivalent tonnes”, rather than CO2 tonnes. The conversion factor is 3.667, so 9208 CO2 = 2511 Carbon.
Both BP and CDIAC are provisional at this stage for 2012.
“Paul Homewood says:
November 25, 2013 at 4:08 am
Wazsah
According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013 – Chinese emission of CO2 in 2012 were 9,208 million metric tonnes
CDIAC measure in “Carbon equivalent tonnes”, rather than CO2 tonnes. The conversion factor is 3.667, so 9208 CO2 = 2511 Carbon.”
This is a “measure” that has been bugging me for a while. CO2e. In Australia it’s calculated at 3.76 times the effect of one tonne of “carbon” (CO2 – or ANY “pollutant” considered a GHG) has on climate, which (Thanks to “The Pompus Git” in a recent thread), may to relate to the nitrogen component in combustion. So even here, the figures don’t match up.
Nick Stokes
I assume you are fairly relaxed about the prospect of China adding a quarter to annual global emissions by 2020?
Nick Stokes says:
November 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm
CO2 needs a world effort.
Actually, no, it doesn’t. CO2 isn’t a problem except in the fevered brains of True Believers like you. In fact, it is entirely beneficial.
As pointed out by eo, November 24, 2013 at 5:45 pm, but worth stating again. GDP is a financial measure, not a measure of the amount of product so it is not a valid benchmark for emissions. Assume I make 1 million widgets at $1 each and emit x ton of CO2 in one year. Ten years later I make the same 1 million widgets selling for $1.22 (assuming conservative 2% inflation) and still emit x ton of CO2. I have not changed a thing in the manufacturing process but according to my contribution to GDP I have cut my CO2 emissions by 18%.
This is a very misleading article in that it assumes that emissions have not been cut, simply because China’s emissions continue to grow. Actually, China’s emissions are mostly an import that accompanies the world’s demand that China do most of the world’s manufacturing, since the “industrialized” nations are hamstrung by the union labor rates from doing it themselves. China’s emisssions are mostly for the world’s benefit – if the world wants to reduce Chinese emissions, then it should quit sending them orders for manufactured goods. As for what the Chinese are doing to reduce emissions, one only has to look at their hydroelectric projects and especially their nuclear program. They are building 30 of the 70 nuclear plants currenty under construction
worldwide. And they are building all types – Areva, VVER, Westinghouse, GE-Hitachi and their own. In the planning stage are another 64,000 MW, and another 122,000 MW in the proposed state, which amounts to a third of all reliable, emission free plant capacity in the world being constructed. With this total of 220,000 MW, they will have almost three times more emission free power than the U.S. They are also one of the very countries that is currently testing fast reactors
and investigating Thorium reactors. As in practically everything else, the Chinese are way
ahead of the “advanced” Western nations, whose energy policies are held hostage by the solar and wind pressure goups.
Col Mosby
I am certainly not asking China to cut emissions. I just believe it hypocritical for our politicians to expect us to cut ours, while keeping quiet about how China’s are increasing in leaps and bounds,
This just proves that the Chinese are aware of the fact that cheap coal energy is the best way to grow your GDP rapidly. Cheap energy can can grow your GDP at a faster rate than your increase in energy usage.
The Chinese can play the game of sleight of hand with the best of the climate science diplomats (aka limousine libs….but with jets).
dp says:
November 24, 2013 at 5:55 pm
What if China’s economy were really a Ponzi?
What, indeed. Buy a cheap potato peeler, and buy another, and another. And another.
Equitable or not Nick do you really think the US houses are going to pass a bill that allows that to happen … you are more than optimistic. You know what happened to the Koyoto protocol that Clinton administration agreed too?
Obama has sort of mapped out a plan to try an sidestep needing ratification and in the end the debt ceiling and budget deficit will be used to bring it down if he tries it just like the health bill.
Currently you couldn’t get a bill up to tax those that earn more as a sort of social justice measure and you really think you could get a bill up that basically agreed to transferring billions of dollars in compensation for past emissions as a social justice measure … LOL good luck.
Realistically all the US will be able to do in 2015 is give sort of half support of concept there is certainly not going to be large sums of monies flowing to an NGO to dish out in compensation and anyone who thinks there will be is dreaming because congress and the senate will block that even if a president agreed to it.
Equitable is all in the eyes of the beholder and that depends on ones point of view.
Col Mosby
China’s emissions have nearly doubled in eight years, and are on course to double again in the next eight.
Is that misleading?
Yes, they are building loads of new nuclear (and loads more coal and gas), not to cut CO2, but because they know they need as much reliable and plentiful energy they can get their hands on if they are to continue growing their economy.
Thanks Paul. This is a very good article, another wake-up call.
Nick Stokes (and Paul Homewood):
US total emissions of carbon have increased from just under 200 million tonnes of carbon in 1900, to just about a peak of 1.6 billion tonnes in 2005. (multiply by 3.667 to get CO2 tonnes)
At the same time, emissions per capita have gone from 4.39 tonne per person in 1950, to a peak of 5.44 in 2000, to 4.71 current.
Tonnes of carbon per billion dollars of GDP has gone from 331 in 1900, to a peak of just under 500 in the twenties, to the current 102 (2009).
If one is thinking that China is good job of cutting emissions per unit of GDP, then Nick should also be congratulating the US for cutting its emissions 5 fold, and has been cutting GDP emissions for nearly 90 years.
Of course this hides the fact that the US has increased total emissions nearly 9 fold too.
As Paul states, China’s emissions will only go up, and by a substantial amount, based on the US experience.
http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/datasets/us-gdp-1900-2008/versions/1.txt
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/CO2_Emission/timeseries/national
Nick Stokes says:
November 25, 2013 at 2:28 am
First if you really believe CO2 was a true pressing threat not only would you be very alarmed by chinas CO2 increases and planned increases, you would be solely focusing reduction on the developing world.
The reason for this is the developing world adds very little scientific and technology development per ton of CO2 emitted. If CO2 is truly doomsday then its far better to ration it into high tech countries that can quickly invent technology to counter the problem.
You on the other hand have zero problem with CO2 increasing… and increasing massively in both the short and long term as long as those increases come from non-high technology countries.
This can only mean the following.
CO2 is not an issue other then to be used as a wedge to force socialist views on people.
CO2 is not a danger to anyone or anything, as the fact you openly endorse increases in CO2.
Les Johnson says: November 25, 2013 at 10:48 am
“If one is thinking that China is good job of cutting emissions per unit of GDP, then Nick should also be congratulating the US…”
I do indeed. Lowering carbon emissions per unit GDP is how we will make progress. Though I note that this achievement coincided with a massive move of manufacturing from US to China. Still, it’s a gain.
China’s GDP is about 1/2 US, and as the OP notes, growing rapidly. I hope and expect that it will continue to grow, reaching per capita levels comparable to US. Then in gross terms their GDP will be up to four times greater.
We’re dealing with big numbers here. There will be a lot of emissions. That is what does make it urgent. We are not bystanders. We will be affected, and so will the Chinese. Ultimately what will matter is their ability to improve efficiency, and as the OP notes, on that they are improving rapidly. But a world agreement on burden sharing is very important.
Nick
We are obviously into politics here and knows what will happen.
But do you really believe China would start cutting total emissions now just because the West signed some agreement?
I hope what I have set out here shows everybody the real position re China
BTW you talk about efficiency, but the main reason for the lower energy intensity seems to be the rebalancing away from heavy industry.
Nick: You are missing the point. American efficiency has increased tremendously, over the last 90 years.
Why not cheer that? The US gains in emissions per GDP is greater than the Chinese to date.
Les Johnson says:
November 25, 2013 at 12:52 pm
Because it doesn’t fit the objective. This is much like how socialists release healthcare system stats. They grade based on 60% of the grade coming from how socialist the healthcare system is and 40% on everything else. First place people would look to see how the system worked was the rating and reasoning when comparing north and south korea. North korea of course has a very very socialist system so due to that it would often rate almost as high as south korea.
As Nick clearly stated… its not about total CO2 its all about being “equitable”. This is because total CO2 for the country and planet is meaningless. Everyone knows that CO2 is harmless. However for socialists the fact that this can be used to make thing “equitable” no matter the lying, the murder, the oppression… it is perfectly fine in there book. After all much like healthcare the only result and factor that matters is that its “equitable”.
Here is the real problem, which others have alluded to. When China gets to 4 tonnes of carbon per capita, they will emit more in 20 years than the US has in over 100 years.
The US congress has already voted to not join any treaty that causes economic harm to the US, yet allows developing nations to not share the pain. The vote was 96-0, BTW.
Australia has canned the carbon tax. It won’t meet its Kyoto targets, which is 108% of 1990 levels. the 1990-2009 period saw over 50% above the target. Looks good on ya, mate.
But its unlikely to sign on to any other treaty. Japan has just announced that it will be unable to meet its targets, and will now go 3% over 1990 levels by 2020. Russia, Japan, and New Zealand will not sign on to a second phase.
The developing world now constitutes a majority of emissions, yet have no target.
I see a chance of a global agreement, that is asymptotic to zero.
“Les Johnson says:
November 25, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Australia has canned the carbon tax.”
No, that is incorrect. The price on carbon (Carbon tax) is still in place and rose to AU$24.15/tonne CO2 in July this year, of which 10% of the revenue raised is given to the UN. Abbott is still going ahead with repealing the tax but that won’t likely happen until a new Senate is in place in 2014. I’ll believe it when it happens.
Good to see you guys suddenly concerned about greenhouse emissions.
It’s a bit of a turnaround, but better late than never.
I really enjoy greenhouse emissions, I mean where would I get strawberries in winter?
Les Johnson says
on November 25,2013 12:49
“Australia has canned the carbon tax. It won’t meet its Kyoto targets, which is 108% of 1990 levels. the 1990-2009 period saw over 50% above the target. Looks good on ya, mate.”
If you read the National Inventory Report of April 15, 2013, Australia is well on the way meeting its Kyoto Protocol commitment. ( the latest report is the inventory for 2011, before the carbon tax was imposed in Australia) The total greenhouse gases emission has gone down by 3.8 per cent compared to the 1990 base year even if the emissions from industry, transport, and energy have gone up drastically. The reduction is due to the LULUCF.( actually you should read the footnote in the previous report that the significant reduction from LULUCF was due to changes in the accounting methodology as agreed by the parties of the Kyoto Protocol). There was really no need for any carbon tax in Australia. Australia has even surplus carbon credit that it could sell to other developed countries, something like 11.8 per cent of its 1990 emission.
Seth
I am not concerned about China’s emissions. I think they have every right to grow their economy.
I am surprised though that those who are “concerned” seem so relaxed about the prospect of China doubling CO2 in the next eight years!
If you adjust the nominal GDP numbers used in these calculations for inflation and put them in real renminbi—a step you really have to do—then the results are a bit different. Using the numbers Mr. Homewood’s provides for 2005 as starting points and the real GDP growth rates based on PPP provided in the Wikipedia table he references, it turns out that the emissions intensity of the Chinese economy in 2012 was about 17% lower than it was in 2005, not 41% lower. Assuming (as Mr. Homewood does) an 8% real GDP growth rate from 2012 to 2020 and a 40% improvement in emissions intensity from 2005 to 2020, Chinese emissions would be expected to increase 122% from 2005 (or 34% from 2012), hardly a model of restraint.
A larger point is that the Chinese pledge is not all much different from its recent historical experience. The International Energy Agency has energy-related CO2 emissions and GDP estimates going back to 1971. If you calculate the change in emissions intensity for China from 1990 to 2005, the 15 year period immediately previous to its 2005 to 2020 pledge period, you find that it fell 36% to 45%, depending on whether you use PPP or MER. In other words, the Chinese pledge amounts to business as usual.
Chinese declared war on the BBQ:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/24083312/beijing-destroys-barbecue-grills-to-cut-pollution#axzz2ltgdGthQ
“It was the 10% cut in US Co2 emissions that stalled Global Warming.” So true 🙂
It’s incredible that two almost irrelevant numbers can be put into a ratio and result is important enough to set goals for energy and economic policy. Does anybody wonder how China will be able to suck through a pipe, mine, or purchase enough carbon to double their carbon emissions by 2020?