China and CO2

dotchinaco2new-blog480[1]Guest essay by David Archibald

While in Beijing early this year US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that China and the US, the world’s largest emitters of such gases, had agreed to intensify information-sharing and policy discussions on their plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions after 2020. A few days later in Indonesia, he warned Indonesians that man-made climate change could threaten their entire way of life, deriding those who doubted the existence of “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction””. Last week President Obama didn’t wait for policy discussions with the Chinese to be completed and announced new EPA regulations that will gut the US economy. 

But what are the Chinese doing about carbon dioxide? As per a recent US naval officer’s observation on the Chinese that “Ninety per cent of their time is spent on thinking about new and interesting ways to sink our ships and shoot down our planes”, China is adopting new and interesting ways to burn more coal. China is currently burning four billion tonnes of coal per annum while the US burns one billion tonnes for power generation. The new thing they are doing is a massive investment in plants that produce synthetic natural gas from coal according to this article from Scientific American.

Being a post-modern publication, Scientific American doesn’t tell you how much coal those plants will consume. You have to calculate that from the carbon dioxide production figure which is considered to be much more important. And the result is 400 million tonnes per annum – about 40% of the coal that the US burns in power generation. All the pain and suffering the US might endure to reach the new EPA target reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 30% will be offset by this new Chinese way of burning coal.


 

David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon dioxide, Climate News. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to China and CO2

  1. Lewis P Buckingham says:

    What about ‘clean coal’.
    Anecdotally if you grind coal into a powder and burn the particles by forcing them through an orifice and igniting them, the efficiency is as good as LNG and it can be on demand power.
    The Chinese may well be burning more coal, but doing it more efficiently so producing cheaper again power.

  2. Joel O'Bryan says:

    Secretary Kerry is moron. He rather throw his military medals in the dumpster and trash the country that gave him that right than admit he was wrong about the coming Global cooling.

  3. johnmarshall says:

    The Chinese are not stupid. They know the GHG theory is wrong so pay lip service to any agreement, and burn coal as much as they want. Power is necessary, but 24/7 power is the important thing, that and knowing that Obama is wrong.

  4. Alex says:

    Money is God in China and you don’t make money without electricity.

  5. climategrog says:

    “All the pain and suffering the US might endure to reach the new EPA target reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 30% will be offset by this new Chinese way of burning coal.”

    At least there will still be a market for all that americal coal !

    Like the XL pipeline fiasco, all the wailing will only change where all the “dirty” colourless gas get released.

  6. pat says:

    the most important CAGW news this week yet, except for the Guardian (online only no doubt & with no comments – see below) NO MSM have carried it, yet all subscribe to Reuters!

    9 June: Reuters: David Stamway: Chinese official plays down emission cut expectations
    Any near-term regulation of China’s greenhouse gas emissions would likely allow for future emissions growth, a senior government official said on Monday, discounting any suggestion of imminent carbon cuts by the biggest-emitting nation.
    Sun Cuihua, deputy director of the climate change office at the National Development and Reform Commission, said it would be a simplification to suggest China would impose an absolute cap on greenhouse gas emissions from 2016.
    No decision had yet been taken on a cap and the timing of such a measure was under discussion, she said. Several options were being considered and China would choose policies in accordance with its conditions and stage of development.
    “Our understanding of the word ‘cap’ is different from developed countries,” Sun told a conference…
    Sun’s comments are likely to cool hopes in international climate negotiations that China could significantly change the base lines by announcing sooner-than-anticipated CO2 cuts…
    (Additional reportint by Kathy Chen; Writing by Stian Reklev; Editing by Ron Popeski)
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/09/china-climatechange-idUKL4N0OQ0WB20140609

    9 June: Guardian: Chinese official plays down emission cut expectations
    Comments likely to cool hopes in UN climate talks that China will announce sooner-than-anticipated CO2 cuts
    Sun CuihuaSun Cuihua, deputy director of the climate change office at the National Development and Reform Commission, said it would be a simplification to suggest China would impose an absolute cap on greenhouse gas emissions from 2016…
    “Our understanding of the word ‘cap’ is different from developed countries,” Sun told a conference…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/09/chinese-official-plays-down-emission-cut-expectations

  7. Garfy says:

    “money is god in china” and “in god we trust” – unfortunately it is the new world order – and we shall try to escape !!!

    http://www.mondialisation.ca/monsanto-achete-les-services-de-blackwater-la-plus-grande-armee-de-mercenaires-du-monde/5344737

  8. pat says:

    ***Bloomberg still ignoring the Sun Cuihua reuters’ report; still suggesting China is accelerating towards a “possible cap on carbon emissions”. the propaganda of the headline & opening paras is stunning. however, the second half of the article gives the finger to the Sierra Club:

    ****make note. Canada & Gulf of Mexico could be the winners.

    10 June: Bloomberg: David J. Lynch: China’s Clean-Fuel Focus Tests U.S. Coal-Export Lifeline
    Intense opposition on the U.S. West Coast, over climate change, rail congestion and damage to Native American fisheries, already is blocking new export terminals designed to ship coal across the Pacific Ocean. Now, China — which consumes almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined — is accelerating a planned switch to cleaner fuels, ***including a possible cap on carbon emissions and limits on new coal-fired plants…
    For U.S. coal producers, getting there is the problem…
    The latest setback came May 30 when Oregon state regulators put off until August a decision on the proposed Morrow Pacific terminal, the eighth in a series of delays that have frustrated investors and executives. Three days later, the Obama administration proposed regulations to cut carbon emissions, underscoring the imperative for coal producers to develop foreign markets.
    “We’re winning,” says Cesia Kearns of the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign…
    In January, China, the world’s biggest coal consumer, brought forward to this year a previously announced goal of reducing its dependence upon coal to less than 65 percent of its energy usage by 2017…

    ***The sheer size of the economy — now the world’s second largest — means that slower growth than this year’s 7.5 percent target won’t prevent electricity demand from increasing. As total power generation more than doubles by 2030, China will be adding capacity equal to the entire U.K. power grid each year with coal firing 58 percent of the system, according to a 2013 Bloomberg New Energy Finance study…
    ‘Staggering’ Consumption
    “Look at any projections of the amount of coal that China is going to use in the next 20, 30 years, it’s quite staggering,” said Colin Marshall, chief executive officer of Cloud Peak Energy Inc. (CLD), a Gillette, Wyoming-based company that operates three surface mines in the Powder River Basin.
    ****And even if the West Coast terminals don’t materialize, Asia-bound exports could continue via Canada or through the Gulf of Mexico to an expanded Panama Canal, though less profitably, industry executives say…
    The three terminals that are still alive — Morrow Pacific in Boardman, Oregon; Gateway Pacific in Cherry Point, Washington; and Millennium Bulk in Longview, Washington — could almost double U.S. exports…
    Though Europe absorbs about half of U.S. exports, Asia — with roughly one-quarter — has been a faster-growing market for U.S. producers.
    Since 2009, when China first became a net importer of coal, only the U.K.’s demand has increased faster…
    Under an urbanization drive announced in March, China plans to move 100 million more rural residents to cities by 2020. Five new national transport corridors will knit together the country with new rail and road links, supporting demand for coal-fueled steel and electricity production…
    China used 3.6 billion metric tons of coal in 2012 and is projected to need 4.8 billion in 2020, Liang Jiakun, vice head of the China National Coal Association, said last year…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/china-s-clean-fuel-focus-tests-u-s-coal-export-lifeline.html

    11 June: Bloomberg: IEA Cuts Gas Use Growth Forecast as Coal, Renewables Gain
    By Anna Shiryaevskaya
    Global natural gas demand will increase at a slower rate than previously expected through 2019 amid weaker economic growth and competition from coal and renewables, according to the International Energy Agency. …
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-10/iea-cuts-gas-use-growth-forecast-as-coal-renewables-gain.html

  9. pat says:

    i fear this will go into moderation, but…

    a tale to cheer the hear of CAGW sceptics:

    9 June: Breitbart: Christian Toto: Obama to Talk Climate Change on Showtime’s ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ Finale
    Now, the pay cable has recruited the Celebrity-in-Chief himself to personally push the panic button.
    President Barack Obama will be interviewed by liberal columnist Thomas L. Friedman on the miniseries’ final installment, set to air at 8 p.m. EST tonight.
    Obama and Friedman will explore how climate change, according to Showtime, “can be a stressor that can take a volatile political situation and push it over the edge.”…
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/06/09/obama-showtime-climate-change

    “Years of Living Dangerously” doesn’t even make the Top 100 for its Obama finale!

    10 June: TVbythenumbers: Sara Bibel: Monday 9 June Cable Ratings
    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/06/10/monday-cable-ratings-love-hip-hop-atlanta-wins-night-wwe-raw-major-crimes-hit-the-floor-longmire-more/272103/

    ***what viewers? LOL.

    9 June: Epoch Times: Zachary Stieber: Years of Living Dangerously Season 2? Will Showtime Series Be Renewed or Canceled?
    Years of Living Dangerously season 1 wraps up on Showtime on June 9 and ***viewers are wondering whether there will be a season 2…
    There’s been no word yet on a season 2, but it doesn’t seem likely that there will be one.
    The ratings have been so low that the show hasn’t been on the top 100 cable shows for its night for most of the season.
    Showbuzz called the ratings “dismal,” coming in at about 45,680 households for one of the episodes. At the same time, the free full episode 1, available on YouTube through Showtime, has gotten over 500,000 views.
    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/724937-years-of-living-dangerously-season-2-will-showtime-series-be-renewed-or-canceled/

  10. Garfy says:

    Bill Gates Sponsoring Boko Haram To Replace Indigenous …
    newsrescue.com/bill-gates-sponsoring-boko-haram-re…Traduire cette page
    3 mai 2014 – Bill Gates Sponsoring Boko Haram To Replace Indigenous Farmers With Monsanto, GMO’s —Global Prolife Alliance. bill gates agric

    what are they going to sponsor in China ??

  11. ozspeaksup says:

    Garfy, gate/msoft IBm etc have all taken a hit as Chinas got tired of their snooping..and they are shifting to home /asian made pcs and a Linux based system they developed
    also Chinas refused GMO shipments from the usa and now has ruled that NO GMO foods are to be purchased for govt/Mil use.

  12. Neville says:

    This EIA chart shows the co2 emission projections for the OECD and non OECD ( China, India etc ) from 2010 to 2040.
    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/table20.cfm The OECD will almost flat line for those 30 years while the Non OECD emissions will be nearly 10 times as high.
    Of course while China and India emissions have soared the USA has dropped emissions back to early 1990s levels over the last 5 years, due to more useage of gas.

  13. Some more numbers here.

    Coal consumption in 2012:

    China – 3838Mt
    USA – 821Mt

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/china-coal/

  14. Steve from Rockwood says:

    China still has a number of unplayed cards in its hands, two strong ones being the ability to upgrade existing dirty coal generating stations (to claim reductions in pollution) and then switching from coal to gas (major CO2 reductions without cutting energy use). By that time it will easily be the world’s largest economy, driving the global agenda and not simply ignoring it. I wonder what America’s economy will look like by then – 20 years or less.

  15. philjourdan says:

    What is that old saying? “Man plans, and God laughs”? Now it is Obama plans and the Chinese laugh.

  16. kramer says:

    Does anybody wonder why China’s emissions increased at a higher rate around 2002?

    Answer: PNTR.

    Near the end of 2000, Clinton, after he and the DNC were charged with taking illegal contributions from the communist Chinese government, granted them PNTR (along with the Republican congress).

    You can see the results on the following graph of manufacturing jobs:
    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=MANEMP

    This is why China is getting richer and we are getting poorer. Read “The Wealth of Nations” to get an idea of how manufacturing goods from natural resources creates wealth.

    [You need to explain to other readers what your abbreviation PNTR means if you want other readers to understand your argument, or to agree with your argument, or to repeat your argument. .mod]

  17. Don B says:

    Obama’s carbon dioxide reduction schemes will cause the US to follow the UK down the rat hole.

    “The UK government will today set out Second World War-style measures to keep the lights on and avert power cuts as a “last resort”. The price to Britons will be high.

    “Factories will be asked to “voluntarily” shut down to save energy at peak times for homes, while others will be paid to provide their own backup power should they have a spare generator or two lying around. And as part of the government’s wider energy market reforms, electricity producers will be able to name their price for bringing mothballed fossil-fuel-powered plants back on line.

    “The problem is that the energy plants were closed due to compliance with EU environmental regulations, but the UK has failed to build adequate replacements. This means the country can barely cope with peak winter demand. Successive governments have chosen to build expensive, unreliable renewables instead – which can’t meet the nation’s peak energy needs.”

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/10/uk_preps_ww2style_energy_rationing/

  18. arthur4563 says:

    These claims about Chinese energy efforts are totally inadequate. They don’t even mention China’s current massive nuclear plant construction program, the fact that China is also moving ahead of the U.S. in fast reactor deployment (waaaay ahead), the fact that China can now build a complete version (and an enhanced version as well) of the Westinghouse AP1000,, the most advanced Gen 3 nuclear technology the U.S. has. In the past several months, China has powered up and grid-connected three new nuclear plants, and has 37 currently under construction.They will be adding one new plant per month for the next 3 years and have already given pre-orders for 25 Westinghouse AP1000 plants in addition to the hundreds they will build themselves. The last figures I saw was a plan for 600 nuclear plants by mid century and 1600 by 2100. Any report on Chinese energy plans that fails to even mention their nuclear program is flat-out incompetent. China has little in the way of natural gas or high quality coal, which is the major reason for their pollution. China is rightly most concerned about real pollution, not CO2 emissions. They are also building facilities to receive LPG as imports. Trying to avoid the high price of LPG is a very good reason for attempting to gassify their poor quality coal resources. The fastest means of combatting their pollution would be a switch to natural gas as quickly as possible, but that’s not their overall, long term solution. Nuclear power will also provide a source of power that cannot be controlled by a foreign country, especially when operating fast reactors.

  19. Latitude says:

    burning more coal….produces more CO2…..which causes temperatures to rise linearly

    if this trend continues

    ….fail

  20. Leo Geiger says:

    The number that is relevant for emissions reduction policies and climate change is the total cumulative emissions, not annual emissions. Developed nations have a big emissions head start. In round numbers, the United States has still put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than China has up to now. Even with annual U.S. emissions reductions and annual Chinese growth, it will probably take until about 2030 for the Chinese to catch up.

    http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/countries-contributions-to-climate-change

    The position of developing nations is simple: developed nations have led the way with their emissions and put the majority of the excess greenhouse gas into the atmosphere up until now, so they can lead the way with reductions.

  21. beng says:

    China is playing Obama & Kerry like fools.

  22. Alex says:

    There is a fundamental difference between China and western thinking. China is not the west + or- something. The western journalists in China hang around in journalist bars in Beijing and pick up releases from the government thereby justifying their expense accounts. The reality of things , on the ground, are totally different. Strange as it might seem but China is a strong believer in human rights. The right to have a full belly, the right to have a job, the right to look after your family and feel secure in your home, the right to not be ripped off by the government or some corporation, the right to speak out without causing disharmony in the community.
    Under those rights the whole Wall st debacle would have never happened and if it did then the organs of those executives would be in other people now and their assets and those of their immediate family would have been stripped. I think more than 90% of US people would probably agree with the last part.
    In conclusion ‘You know nothing John Snow’

  23. richardscourtney says:

    Leo Geiger:

    At June 11, 2014 at 5:42 am you say

    The number that is relevant for emissions reduction policies and climate change is the total cumulative emissions, not annual emissions. Developed nations have a big emissions head start. In round numbers, the United States has still put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than China has up to now. Even with annual U.S. emissions reductions and annual Chinese growth, it will probably take until about 2030 for the Chinese to catch up.

    Our estimates differ.
    I suggest it will probably take until about 2025 for the Chinese to catch up and after that to out-do the GHG emissions of “developed nations”.

    Of course, none of this is “relevant for emissions reduction policies and climate change”.

    If the improbable assertions of AGW are correct then what matters for policies to constrain AGW is increase to total atmospheric CO2 and the contributions of individual nations to that increase.

    And if the policy objective is totalitarian control then the Chinese government already has it while constraint of GHG emissions is the policy tool other governments want to use to obtain it.

    Richard

  24. Sasha says:

    CHINA PLAYS THE AGW GAME

    China will most likely never cooperate with the transatlantic oligarchy’s misanthropic, genocidal, and fraudulent global warming agenda, which is designed solely to keep developing nations in a backwards and primitive state. This can be concisely summarized by the term “eco-imperialism.”

    China’s position on global warming:

    1. There is no global warming at the moment; we’ve been in a global cooling period for years.

    2. There is absolutely no empirical evidence showing that human activities have any discernible impact on the Earth’s climate.

    China and India have no intention of reducing carbon output as it will destroy their developing economies. Can you blame them?..the US has built the major economy in the world on the back of cheap electricity. India has also said “We will not limit our emissions. Period.”

    Copenhagen has made the world leaders realize the reality that the world doesn’t care about climate change. Man-made climate change is a fraud, and a joke-religion. The Earth will survive, mankind will adapt, dire consequences will not be realized.

    China’s goal in 2010 was to reduce energy consumption per unit of economic output by 20% compared with 2005, and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases per unit of economic output by 40 to 45% in 2020 compared with 2005. But even if China can make the promised improvements, the International Energy Agency now projects that China’s emissions of energy-related CO2 will grow more than the rest of the world’s combined increase by 2020. China, with one-fifth of the world’s population, is now on track to represent more than a quarter of humanity’s energy-related CO2 emissions.

    China uses twice as much energy per dollar of output as the United States and three times as much as the European Union. The assumption is that China can greatly improve efficiency because it must still be relying mainly on wasteful, aging boilers and outmoded power plants. But David Fridley, a longtime specialist in China’s energy at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said that the comparison to the United States and the European Union was misleading. Manufacturing makes up three times as much of the Chinese economy as it does the American economy, and it is energy-intensive. If the United States had much more manufacturing, Mr. Fridley said, it would also use considerably more energy per dollar of output.

    China has passed the United States in the average efficiency of its coal-fired power plants. Demand for electricity is so voracious that in just one year (2009) China built new coal-fired plants with a total capacity greater than all existing power plants in New York State.

    The central government has ordered cities to close inefficient factories like the vast Guangzhou Steel mill, where most of the 6,000 workers were laid off or pushed into early retirement. Between 2007 and 2010 China shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants that used technology of the sort still common in the United States. China has also surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other so-called “clean” energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas mileage for cars.

    China believes it should have the right to develop free from carbon reductions until their accumulated emissions are on par with industrialized countries. A Brookings Institute report: “Overcoming Obstacles to US-China Cooperation on Climate Change” articulated Beijing’s stance, which included the conviction that: “Countries should be held responsible not only for their current emissions but also for their cumulative historical emissions, given that greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere over many decades.” This plan is China’s most comprehensive effort to date to both highlight and quantify development inequalities as a justification for releasing China and other developing countries from emissions reduction expectations.

    China insists that it is still a poor country deserving of the rest of the world’s assistance; not the other way around. As China sheds its status as a developing country, it will increasingly be able to act as a patron and stakeholder. In times like these, and on subjects like CO2 reduction, China plays the “developing country” card, in hopes it will give them reprieve from costly and complicated climate commitments.

    A report “Journey to world top emitter,” published in Geophysical Research Letters, concludes that 50% of increases in Chinese CO2 emissions between 2002 to 2005 were due to export production, of which 60% came from goods exported to western countries. This study, and others like it, point to Western consumption-driven culpability.

    The scholarship-supported assignment of guilt is shaping China’s position on the terms of the next climate change treaty. During a trip to Washington, senior climate official, Li Gao, insisted that China’s export sector be exempt from carbon emissions reductions in the next treaty on climate change. Given the state of the global economy, and China’s latest posturing on financial and environmental commitments, China’s leverage in the international arena is clearly on the rise.

    The Chinese are very clever. They claim they’re doing all they can to lower their “bad emissions” and they chastise America for not doing the same. They must be very amused to watch the West injure their economies as their leaders ram their “clean, green” energy agenda down our throats. The Chinese must rub their hands together with glee to watch the great American empire destroy itself from within. Obama refers to this as a “redistribution” of wealth.

    But even if America and western Europe destroy their economies in an ignorant and vain attempt to somehow control the climate, China has no intent or ability to control their growth and its production of CO2.

    The Chinese have a seemingly insatiable appetite for the finer things in life, like heat the winter, air conditioning in the summer, adequate food, electricity to light their homes and power their tools and toys, and fuel for their automobiles and trucks. How can the climate hysterics keep all those Chinese “down on the farm” so-to-speak, and living in poverty? How dare they aspire to improve their lives? Don’t they know it is only rich, liberal Americans who deserve to live the “good life”? Just look to the Kerrys, Pelosis, Boxers, Reids, Gores and now the Obamas for examples of how to live the good life while telling everyone else they must sacrifice.

  25. Scott says:

    PM Harper of Canada stated it well the other day, Canada and Australia are more “frank” than other countries when it comes to cutting CO2. No country will intentionally destroy jobs and economy to meet CO2 outputs.
    Personally he is being a bit naive as we have seen Spain and Germany doing that(Australia was and trying to reverse), but he must walk a fine line as he is constantly vilified by the GW crowd…

  26. Alex says:

    At some point common sense is going to ‘kick-in’ in the west. Lets hope it kicks in before we become provinces of China or maybe India

  27. Steve P says:

    A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
    –Cicero

    Communist China certainly has come a long way commercially since it seemingly burst on the scene back in the early 90s selling us first silk shirts, and then IBM clones and PC clones, in rapid succession, and pretty soon, the Orientals were making and selling us just about everything else as well, as corporations here were “downsized” and jobs were “outsourced:” magic words to make the masses complacent and comfortable with the idea of their great country being dismantled and sold off – lock, stock, and barrel – to Red China.

    In the US, we’ve shut down our industries as precious Western technology was exported to Asia in return for cheap labor. China now has so much money it can afford to build huge but vacant cities – taking urban planning to a whole new level.

    Meanwhile, back in the USA, we’ll be fixing Detroit real soon now.

    But hey! Why worry about China – or even the United States of America – when you’ve got Dancing with the Stars, The Chew, and LeBron James to keep you entertained?

    Oh, almost forgot: We’ve also got curly light bulbs to stop the impending catastrophe of man-made global warming, so Red China can go ahead and burn all the coal it wants, the big cheese will grin that all away.

  28. Alex says:

    Actually, being a province of China or India doesn’t sound so bad. Lots of jobs and security.

  29. ferdberple says:

    “Our understanding of the word ‘cap’ is different from developed countries,” Sun told a conference
    ==========
    A surprisingly frank statement of China’s position. We can agree to X, so long as we define what X means. If we fail to meet X, this means the definition of X was wrong and we will change the definition.

    By building dirty, low-cost power plants the Chinese have been able to rapidly industrialize. This has given them the money to improve the efficiency of their power plants over time. As they use this money to make improvements they will be able to claim they are making reduction.

    Had they followed the path of high-cost clean power generation they would have not been able to rapidly industrialize, nor would they have been able to make future improvements. By maximizing CO2 production today, the Chinese have a much stronger negotiating position for the future.

    Clearly CO2 is not seen as a threat by China. If anything it is seen as an asset that can be exploited in future negotiations. Especially over the question of reparations.

  30. Alex says:

    Steve P says:
    June 11, 2014 at 7:02 am
    Red China? Are you fucking serious. They are more capitalist than we are these days. The biggest market worldwide for luxury goods is China. Remove your flairs and move into the 21st century

  31. Alex says:

    I really don’t want to sound like some sort of Chinophile. I am not. MSM is bs about climate catastrophe and it is bs about China. Its more than likely it is bs about everything else

  32. ferdberple says:

    Beijing’s stance, which included the conviction that: “Countries should be held responsible not only for their current emissions but also for their cumulative historical emissions, given that greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere over many decades.”
    =============
    By labeling CO2 as a harmful pollutant, the US has played itself into China’s hand. The Chinese position is quite clear. The US must pay the rest of the world for the years of accumulated CO2 emissions, where the US was by far the biggest polluter. Having agreed that CO2 is a harmful pollutant, the US now has no option.

  33. Euan Mearns says:

    A lot more on China and energy here:

    China – the coal monster

    China has significant oil production of 4.2 million barrels per day (mbpd) but consumption is running at 10.6 mbpd, hence the country has significant oil imports. Gas production is well below what may be expected from the oil production data and gas consumption runs at only 5% of the total. Nor does China have a mature nuclear industry with nuclear power accounting for only 1% of primary energy consumption. Recently expanded hydro accounts for 7%. We have been told that China is embracing the new renewables revolution which now accounts for an astonishing 1% of all energy consumed!

  34. ferdberple says:

    Just look to the Kerrys, Pelosis, Boxers, Reids, Gores and now the Obamas for examples of how to live the good life while telling everyone else they must sacrifice.
    =============
    they are worried that if we eat from the same table as them, they will get less. thus, for the sake of “all”, we should eat from a different table.

    to ensure we eat from a different table, they want to place a tax tables, so none of us will be able to afford to eat from a table, and must survive on whatever crumbs fall from theirs.

  35. Resourceguy says:

    The lines on the graph might as well be economic or wealth measures. Or alternatively, they could be proxies of realistic policy management. The U.S. economy is still on life support and the stated retraction by the Fed of the unemployment rate as a key targeting indicator for monetary policy is one clue. That and flat-lined interest rates are telling.

  36. Alex says:

    ferdberple says:
    June 11, 2014 at 7:20 am
    My point exactly. The chinese have the coin and say ‘heads I win and tails you lose’. The US can’t say anything after that. Anything they disprove just proves the opposite. Chinese win and US lose.

  37. Alex says:

    Euan Mearns says:
    June 11, 2014 at 7:23 am
    Nobody in China gives a shit. Its just business as usual and nobody gives a shit. Motor vehicle registration fees have been eliminated totally. Its part of your fuel fee at the the pump. The more you use the roads then the more you pay. I can’t see anything farer than that

  38. Jim G says:

    The really funny part is that all those burned out hippies living on the left coast that won’t build power plants or even allow coal to be shipped through their states to the docks are, due to prevailing winds, receiving a good portion of the smoke from the Chinese power plants without the benefit of the electricity.

  39. urederra says:

    Did anyone notice that global temperatures behave just opposite to chinese CO2 emissions?

    Until 2002 global temperatures were raising while chinese CO2 emissions were growing just a little but then from 2002 til now chinese CO2 emissions sky rocketed but global temperatures didn’t raise a bit.

  40. Katou says:

    Johny skull bones Kerry eh ? “We all remember Secretary of State John Kerry lying through this teeth last summer, when he swore that US intelligence reports proving that Syria used chemical weapons in Ghouta were “as clear as they are compelling.” However, the US administration never provided any proof of Syria government responsibility and now we know why: there was none.”

    another one of Johny’s moments “Here is John Kerry on April 8, swearing that the Russians were behind the unrest in eastern Ukraine:

    “No one should be fooled — and believe me, no one is fooled — by what could potentially be a contrived pretext for military intervention just as we saw in Crimea. It is clear that Russian special forces and agents have been the catalysts behind the chaos of the last 24 hours.”

    Here is John Kerry two months later meeting with newly-elected Petro Poroshenko in Ukraine:

    Secretary of State John Kerry also spent time talking with Mr. Poroshenko, privately urging him to provide evidence of Russian involvement with separatists with which to confront Russian officials.

    John Kerry is a liar.” By Daniel McAdams http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38755.htm

  41. Jim G says:

    Alex says:
    June 11, 2014 at 7:09 am
    “Steve P says:
    June 11, 2014 at 7:02 am
    Red China? Are you [trimmed] serious. They are more capitalist than we are these days. The biggest market worldwide for luxury goods is China. Remove your flairs and move into the 21st century”

    Actually, more like fascists, while we are more like crony capitalists heading for fascism. I pick Russia’s mob run economy/social system as more pure uncontrolled capitalism. Marketing in a capitalistic society is aimed at creating a monopoly for the company in question through market segmentation, distribution, innovation, etc. In Russia, as well as in US and Mexican drug businesses, these can be replaced to a great extent by shooting one’s competition.

  42. Alex says:

    As an old time hippie:
    We thought about free love and not following the rules of the ‘establishment’ -anarchism.
    The current crop of hippies are worse than the establishment. I don’t give a shit about the clothes they wear. The current crop of ‘hippies’ are activists. A real hippie doesn’t give a shit

  43. Pamela Gray says:

    Republicans should have paid money for commercial time on the Living Dangerously sitcom. And here is what they should have done: Have a young person read the short story about Chicken Little. That’s it. Just the story. And then include the Paid for by The Republican Party tag. Perfect.

  44. Pamela Gray says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO04VXBIS0M

    [remember to always add a description of what a video link is about for future readers. .mod]

  45. Pamela Gray says:

    The good version, so many parallels

  46. Alex says:

    Jim G
    Don’t make the mistake that Russia and China are the same. The two are as different as chalk and cheese. They may both have been communist states at some time but believe me that they were totally different. They were at loggerheads with each other more than they were with the west
    China is progressive and Russia is regressive.

  47. Steve P says:

    Jim G says:
    June 11, 2014 at 8:16 am

    Red China? Are you [trimmed] serious. They are more capitalist than we are these days. The biggest market worldwide for luxury goods is China. Remove your flairs and move into the 21st century”

    Nice arm waving. Communists like luxury goods – who knew, and why wouldn’t they with all our money? And of course they look like capitalists, with much of our industry having gone down the rat hole all the way to China- but…

    The PRC is a single-party state governed by the Communist Party, with its seat of government in the capital city of Beijing.
    –Wiki

    In the early 90s, upon the dissolution of the USSR, China joined with its former communist antagonist and issued a joint statement to the effect that (paraphrasing) No longer did there exist rigid models or prototypes for the realization of socialist ideals.

    In other words, to make it crystal clear, the tiger was announcing that it was about to change its stripes. And it worked.

    As per a recent US naval officer’s observation on the Chinese that “Ninety per cent of their time is spent on thinking about new and interesting ways to sink our ships and shoot down our planes”

    But still a tiger…

  48. Steve P says:

    Misattribution alert:

    ‘Twas not Jim G but
    Alex who said:
    June 11, 2014 at 7:09 am

    Red China? Are you [...] serious. They are more capitalist than we are these days. The biggest market worldwide for luxury goods is China. Remove your flairs and move into the 21st century

    What are flairs?

  49. Steve P says:

    Alex says:
    June 11, 2014 at 8:22 am

    As an old time hippie:
    We thought about free love and not following the rules of the ‘establishment’ -anarchism.
    The current crop of hippies are worse than the establishment. I don’t give a shit about the clothes they wear. The current crop of ‘hippies’ are activists. A real hippie doesn’t give a shit

    Promotion of the Hippies was the successful establishment trick to undermine and discredit the nascent anti-war movement. And it worked.

  50. rogerknights says:

    Leo Geiger says:
    June 11, 2014 at 5:42 am
    The number that is relevant for emissions reduction policies and climate change is the total cumulative emissions, not annual emissions. Developed nations have a big emissions head start. In round numbers, the United States has still put 1.5 to 2 times more greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than China has up to now. Even with annual U.S. emissions reductions and annual Chinese growth, it will probably take until about 2030 for the Chinese to catch up.

    http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/countries-contributions-to-climate-change

    The position of developing nations is simple: developed nations have led the way with their emissions and put the majority of the excess greenhouse gas into the atmosphere up until now, so they can lead the way with reductions.

    But that depends on the residence time of emitted CO2. If much or most of the CO2 that developed nations have emitted no longer resides in the atmosphere, that portion can be deducted from the West’s “debt.” (The estimates of the residence-time figure vary widely and wildly.)

    In addition, granting AGW theory for the sake of argument, the amount of warming the from the CO2 the West has and is emitting is beneficial. It’s only the the additional CO2 from developing countries, and its accelerating pace, that poses a threat.

  51. TedM says:

    Richard Courtney says: “And if the policy objective is totalitarian control then the Chinese government already has it while constraint of GHG emissions is the policy tool other governments want to use to obtain it.”

    Very perceptive Richard. Love your comments.

  52. Leo Geiger says:
    June 11, 2014 at 5:42 am
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Ok, lets do cumulative math with no circulation, absorption, cycling.

    The Yangtze has an annual flow of around 1 trillion cubic metres per year. The Mississippi, if I have converted the US units correctly, has an annual flow of about 500 billion cubic metres per year. So, over the last 20 years, the Yangtze had contributed 10 trillion more cubic metres to sea level rise than the Mississippi. Maybe China should fund levees around New Orleans.

    Just kidding, but cumulative totals are meaningless in many circumstances. We have been around that dance for quite some time. Yeah, I know, plants only use carbon from other plants or exhaled gases from plants but not from burned fuels. Odd, that, before humans industrialized, I thought there was a lot of burned fuels about along with out gassing from oceans, volcanoes and ground sources. But then, I am old and foolish.

    Off to weld a repair on the bucket of my tractor. Have a great day.

  53. David Archibald says:

    arthur4563 says:
    June 11, 2014 at 5:14 am
    Getting an Obama apologist to froth at the mouth means that this article is on the money. Very heartening.

  54. richard verney says:

    When AR5 was launched, I made the point about China.

    China said long ago that it would take no steps before 2020. I suggested that AR5 will be scrutinesed not when it is released in 2013, but really only in 2020 when China decides whether it wants to address CO2 emissions.

    If global temps have not warmed since now and 2020, one can expect to see many more papers on low climate sensitivity. As each year passes without a temp increase, climate sensitivity will be seen to be corresponding less. It is possible that AR5 will seen as a joke by 2020.

  55. richard verney says:

    Steve P says:
    June 11, 2014 at 9:55 am
    /////////////////////
    And are western governments much better. In the UK we are probably the most surveilled citizens on the planet. Far more so than was East German citizens with the Stassi.

    Democracy in the west is a hollow illusion. very few people actually support the majority of the policies being foistered upon them by their elected governments Often the citizen has no choice on important issues, because all parties (or at any rate those with even the slightest prospect of victory at the poles) have nearly identical policies. .

    All governments of every hue are warmongers, and that is why there was only one year last century when there was not a significant war being fought somewhere within the globe. .

  56. RACookPE1978 says:

    To continue the above thoughts …

    China will address CO2 limits ON China as soon as it is financially advantageous TO China (in the long term) to address CO2 emission limits IN China.

    China will WILLINGLY address CO2 limits ON the US and Europe whenever, where ever, and every time it is financially advantageous TO China to address CO2 emission limits ON their US and European competitors in the short term, in the long term, and before the mid-term …

  57. Steve P says:

    kramer says:
    June 11, 2014 at 5:06 am

    Near the end of 2000, Clinton, after he and the DNC were charged with taking illegal contributions from the communist Chinese government, granted them PNTR (along with the Republican congress).

    Mod added
    June 11, 2014 at 5:06 am

    [You need to explain to other readers what your abbreviation PNTR means...]

    The status of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) is a legal designation in the United States for free trade with a foreign nation. In the U.S. the name was changed from most favored nation (MFN) to PNTR in 1998.
    –Wikipedia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_normal_trade_relations

    Sasha says:
    June 11, 2014 at 6:55 am

    A report “Journey to world top emitter,” published in Geophysical Research Letters, concludes that 50% of increases in Chinese CO2 emissions between 2002 to 2005 were due to export production, of which 60% came from goods exported to western countries. This study, and others like it, point to Western consumption-driven culpability.

    Nice comments!

Comments are closed.