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.
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.