Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study suggests China’s shift from heavy industry to a high tech service economy will cause CO2 emissions to peak well before the 2030 goal – though the study authors admit they haven’t considered smaller cities.
China is on track to meet its climate change goals nine years early
ENVIRONMENT 26 July 2019
By Adam Vaughan
…Now an analysis has found that China’s emissions could peak at 13 to 16 gigatonnes of CO2 between 2021 and 2025, making what the researchers call a “a great contribution” to meeting the Paris deal’s goal of limiting temperature rises to 2°C. The official target is a peak by “around 2030.”
…
However, Haikun and colleagues admit they didn’t analyse many small cities, which have the potential to develop more, so the real emissions may end up higher. The US-based thinktank World Resources Institute also says that while more countries are peaking emissions – 57 are due by 2030, up from 19 in 1990 – it will still not be enough to make global emissions peak in the next few years.
…
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2211366-china-is-on-track-to-meet-its-climate-change-goals-nine-years-early/
The abstract of the study;
China’s CO2 peak before 2030 implied from characteristics and growth of cities
Haikun Wang, Xi Lu, Yu Deng, Yaoguang Sun, Chris P. Nielsen, Yifan Liu, Ge Zhu, Maoliang Bu, Jun Bi & Michael B. McElroyChina pledges to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 or sooner under the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2 °C or less by the end of the century. By examining CO2 emissions from 50 Chinese cities over the period 2000–2016, we found a close relationship between per capita emissions and per capita gross domestic product (GDP) for individual cities, following the environmental Kuznets curve, despite diverse trajectories for CO2 emissions across the cities. Results show that carbon emissions peak for most cities at a per capita GDP (in 2011 purchasing power parity) of around US$21,000 (80% confidence interval: US$19,000 to 22,000). Applying a Monte Carlo approach to simulate the peak of per capita emissions using a Kuznets function based on China’s historical emissions, we project that emissions for China should peak at 13–16 GtCO2 yr−1 between 2021 and 2025, approximately 5–10 yr ahead of the current Paris target of 2030. We show that the challenges faced by individual types of Chinese cities in realizing low-carbon development differ significantly depending on economic structure, urban form and geographical location.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0339-6
I’m always a little dubious about analysis of China conducted by Chinese academics, particularly where a negative finding might cause embarrassment for the Chinese government.
The South China Post recently revealed massive fraud in reported economic growth in the city of Guanghan.
This isn’t the first time; fake reports of economic growth may even have been responsible for the myth of decoupling, a period several years ago when Chinese growth appeared to be surging despite a slump in the growth of reported Chinese CO2 emissions.
Then Chinese CO2 emissions suddenly surged; I still don’t know whether this was because actual economic growth started to catch up with reported growth, or maybe China decided to confess CO2 emissions they had previously been concealing.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a completely ridiculous claim. China is planning to build over 200 new airports by 2035…
https://gbtimes.com/china-aims-to-develop-over-200-new-airports-by-2035
The Paris Climate Accord pretends that China has ‘Climate Goals’…. and China pretends to meet them. Thus, the requirements of the fraudulent ‘treaty’ are fraudulently met, to fraudulently validate the massively fraudulent Climate Change industry. And the climate change alarmists call it ‘Settled Science’…..
The rise of Chinese emissions I have argued for several years was Black Swan that no one in 1999-2000 foresaw (at the IPCC Third AR). Yes they knew China would grow. But no one expected what happened after China was allowed into the WTO in 2002. Everyone had expected the old Communist model of heavy bureaucratic intervention and anti-capitalist policy would keep China’s growth in check.
By the 4th AR in 2007, the were beginning to get an inkling of China’s emission growth, but the fracking revolution (the second Black Swan) hadn’t yet arrived, so everyone in 2007 was still expecting $200/bbl oil would curtail economic growth, and thus emissions growth, in the Developing countries in the 2010’s.
By the time of the 2013-2014 5th AR, the IPCC COP crowd was still in utter disbelief that this happened (China surpassed the US in emsiions and was grwoing expontentially unchecked) and knew their was no putting the China emissions genie back in the bottle. Obama’s toothless emissions agreement with China was supposed to be the white wash to hide that ugly fact.
So now they’ve just turned to full-on lying about China’s emissions and future growth, covered over with lies, half-truths, and tons of magical thinking.
It’s now all very Orwellian what is happening.
The 2030 Paris related goal/promise of China was to reach Peak CO2 production. Not necessarily start curtailing production just Peak. Peaks, like the warming hiatus, can have LONG EXTENDED PLATEAUS prior to turning a corner. The report is just BS-ing that they may be PeKing early.
Perhaps the Accord is worried that the global temperature is actually cooling and they want to be able to point to China’s emissions and say, ‘See we told you if emissions were lowered, the climate would cool.”
They are facing no such “challenges” since they are not attempting “low-carbon development”, that is a Western fantasy.
What they are doing is trying to increase production efficiency, reduce REAL air-borne pollution at well as maintaining growth. That may have some incidental effects in reducing “carbon” intensity but that is not the “challenge” they face, nor the desired objective.
They conceded NOTHING to Paris agreement, they said they intended to carry on developing as they had originally planned to do and that this “may” result in CO2 peaking around 2030. And if it doesn’t , well shoot, we only said we would try in a non binding way.
Suggesting China will peak in just 2y times is so farcical the paper should have been thrown out for that result alone.
Bookmark this one for a review in 2y so we can come back and laugh at it.
Greg: Mostly you’re right, but I believe that China is running out of easily accessible coal. That, plus their reasonable desire to reduce urban air pollution, may in fact cause them to switch somewhat to other energy sources — all of which generate less CO2 per watt than coal — sooner than they thought a decade ago. They are still going to release an awful lot of CO2 in the coming decades. And probably they will burn every kilogram of coal they can get to sometime in the next century or three
China now has 12 large nuclear power plants under construction, 43 more planned, and 179 proposed. I expect that as coal prices get higher, the nukes will take up the slack.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-figures/world-nuclear-power-reactors-and-uranium-requireme.aspx
” they may be PeKing early.” – LOL
And ducking the real issue.
Well, the also say they’ve shut down the concentration camps they are forcing Muslims into.
So, yeah, I can TOTALLY believe this report as well.
They will use biofuels for zero carbon growth so this will not be an issue.
Do I need to mention the “S” word?
Not to mention this is a problem:
China’s power industry calls for hundreds of new coal power plants by 2030
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/
… China is also about to open a huge new railway to transport coal, 200 million tons a year:
https://twitter.com/PDChina/status/1153764219176857603
Thanks. Great link.
Chinese statistics are in the same class of reliability as Nigerian emails on social media.
Lolololol. So true. Australia just signed a 25 year contract to supply turkey and Cameroon with gas.. so much for cutting co2
yeah while WE pay megabucks for it for home and vehicle use and are told supplies are running out..
I liked this story for the laugh it gave me reading the header.
Which makes them slightly more believable than ABNBCBS MS CNN.
This is the fox looking out for the chickens internal study of what is happening to their ‘carbon’ emissions by 2030. In no way, shape or form can we ever expect to believe anything China says under the dictator Xi. A lot of the time, you could just take the opposite of what they say, and that would be close to the truth. Remember all the lies they told Obama about stealing western tech, or their construction of 7 manmade islands in the South China Sea not being for military purposes? Thank goodness we have President Trump to stand up to that and call BS on their trade practises, which should also be expanded to call theft of the South China Sea from their neighbour’s EEZ. China is a bully around the world and must be checked.
China is running rings round us – and sitting there in Peking laughing because it looks as if their plan is succeeding. Their plan is to make us believe that they are sticking to the Paris agreement – so as persuade governments here to ruin the economy of the West. In a few years time China will rule the world in industrial output – because we are deliberately sabotaging ours by making our energy too expensive. I admire the Chinese for their prowess and intelligence.
Yep. And sock puppets like Roger Hallam and Greta Thurnberg are helping them daily. Maurice Strong’s vision coming to fruition.
well maurice moved to china so the greensocialist agenda he pushed was useful for them in longrange plans that they seem to do so well, as well as westernised PR and agitprop help hed give too I bet.
the belt n road things going to have “unexpected” outcomes
Exactly we do business in China and they’re all astonished at how gullible the West is, particularly the USA. They are laughing and smiling every day!
Andy said “In a few years time China will rule the world in industrial output . . .”
I think that time has already come – I bought 4 unrelated items at Home Depot yesterday – all 4 Made in China. Try to buy fishing gear at Bass Pro Shop (or name your favorite retailer) and you will likely buy Chinese.
The Dems say to double the minimum wage to counter that and add student debt waiver and guaranteed incomes while using GND to redistribute wealth. Yes, it’s pretty much hopeless now. Retreat! or hurry up with the exoplanet search.
The US has a $ 400 billion dollar/yr trade deficit with China, kind of makes sense that more and more items are made in China.
The problem is the Obama administration convinced us the losing our industrial base was ‘Free Trade’
The Chinese are now building high tech airplanes, high speed trains, computers, cell phones, and so.
Mostly based on US & Russian designs.
Obviously they realize that there is no point in re-inventing the wheel.
Stick to tried and proven design, and if possible improve on it. Makes a lot of sense, and one thing we know about the Chinese is they are not stupid.
They get away with what they can, but President Trump is on to them. No doubt they will seek to interfere in the 2020 elections to get a democrat elected, and the democrats will cover this up.
“Mostly based on US & Russian designs.”
The Japanese say the Chinese stole their high-speed train designs.
Why not? The former BBC car show Top Gear demonstrated clearly they copy anything & everything, including BMWs & Mercedes etc, just simply copied in the full knowledge that suing them would be a huge waste of money!
WA said “. . . the Obama administration convinced us the losing our industrial base was ‘Free Trade’”.
This was probably not limited to the Obama administration. Remember, there is no ‘Free’ lunch – unless of course it’s promised by a bureaucrat – and especially a socialist bureaucrat. /double s
“China is running rings round us – and sitting there in Peking laughing because it looks as if their plan is succeeding.”
Authoritarian rule has that advantage over divided Democracies. Authoritarians can focus a nation’s energy on specific things without much internal opposition, which makes them more efficient than nations that wrangle for years over which direction to take.
Intelligent authoritarians can make a lot of progress towards the goals they set for themselves. Good for them, but not so good for their enemies. In this case, us.
I imagine the Chinese would just love it if Donald Trump lost the next election. The North Koreans and the Mad Mullahs of Iran, too. It would make their authoritarian lives so much easier. Unfortunately, they have a lot of useful idiots here in the U.S. who are trying their best to help these dictators out. But, Trump is still winning and I think he will overcome all these obstacles, too.
After Trump wins reelection, the Chinese and the North Koreans will make a deal. I don’t know about the Mad Mullahs, though, they are seriously deluded and are religious fanatics so it is hard to predict their behavior. I would lean towards them doing something irrational which will require a military response from the United States.
The United States military posture used to be focused around being able to fight two regional wars simultaneously, just because of occasions like we have now where we could be at war with both North Korea and the Mad Mullahs of Iran at the same time. Let’s hope Trump’s rebuilding of the U.S. military puts us back in a position to be able to successfully prosecute two regional wars simultaneously, because that may be required.
Former President George W. Bush coined the phrase “Axis of Evil” to describe Iraq, under Saddam, and Iran, under the Mad Mullahs, and North Korea. One down, two to go.
More Chinese magic unicorn poop!
OT
Who let the crazies out of the asylum?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/07/28/the-next-step-in-fighting-climate-change/#79ac55ba5653
‘Climate change is the crisis of our time. As the human race sleepwalks its way towards a planetary calamity, there is a growing recognition of the need for a “moonshot” aimed at addressing the greatest existential challenge we have ever faced. The immediate problem is that a solid technical basis for such a moonshot does not yet exist. There is no audacious U.S. national plan in place to deal with climate change, quite apart from what other countries must do.’
Oh yes there is, and it’s been advocated by environmental activists for decades and has long since entered mainstream thought: dismantle industrial society, causing the annihilation of billions if lives, and return to the Paleolithic. Extinction Rebellion is the thin edge of the wedge of making the idea acceptable to all “woke, progressive” people.
If the world still needs the heavy industry products that China currently produces, then won’t some other country make the heavy industry products and assumably still produce the co2 (that the world also needs).
Yes, and it is already happening.
Companies are moving production out of China to Vietnam, Thailand, and Bangladesh in search of cheaper labor and less stringent regulations (including less stringent environmental regulations). Even if this study is on the up and up, it just means that production will be relocated out of China over the next 30 years, the same way it was relocated out of the United States and the EU over the past 30 years. It will have a huge impact on national CO2 emissions, and absolutely no impact on global CO2 emissions. It’s a shell game.
say what?
…so it was baked in that China could increase their emissions…and can emit 3 times more CO2 than we do….from the beginning
and they get a trophy for not emitting 20 times more
Their commitment was to do nothing.
They now promise to do nothing earlier.
There is a definition to solve every problem.
That doesn’t mean that China will change how it chooses to generate it’s electricity, and they will presumably just shift the heavy industrial production to poorer nations in Africa or elsewhere.
Some friends were communicating on a messaging app. They got a message from the censor telling them to be more socially acceptable. I have no idea whether the censor was human or a bot but we’d be shocked if it happened in America.
People report to me that air quality is getting worse where it wasn’t previously a problem. link This could be a case of solving Beijing’s problem by moving it elsewhere.
“A new study suggests China’s shift from heavy industry to a high tech service economy will cause CO2 emissions to peak well before the 2030 goal – though the study authors admit they haven’t considered smaller cities.”
There is no real logic here. If China closes its heavy industry some other country will open theirs and increase their emissions. There will be no net reduction in energy use. The would cannot run the world on mouse clicks.
Well, I certainly do remember how the Soviets were always one step ahead of us on environmentalism, according to them. That whole Chernobyl thing was just a Western disinformation attack, really.
Phew, was getting a little worried there.
Happy days…..
Ps. Is the suggestion therefore that the advanced industrialised nations should now commit economic Hara-Kirin post-haste? To mitigate our moral turpitude you understand….
Another thing: “though the study authors admit they haven’t considered smaller cities.”. Would that be cities of 10 million or fewer?
Another another thing, what about India?
I’m only askin…………
Number 50 in the Wiki list has a population of 1.5 million so there are a lot of substantial “smaller” cities.
Typo. “Hara-Kiri”. Bloody predictive onions.
C02: the breath of life
Emissions: substances discharged into the air (as by a smokestack or an automobile engine)
‘C02 emissions’: the inference that carbon dioxide is a pollutant
False narrative: to characterize a false story as real with repetitive phrases
Unwitting: not intended : INADVERTENT
Accomplice: one associated with another especially in wrongdoing
The authors have also not admitted to the reader that a wholesale policy shift in China would be needed in shutting down state-run industries that have been at the heart of global commodity flows and steel industry overcapacity that dwarfs other nations. All the nudging on policy shift has done nothing and steel output has gone up as has local government debt accumulation in support of local industry and projects. In other words China policy is running exactly opposite to what the authors and a lot of other central banks and trade negotiators are “wishing” for. At be honest with the situation though.
Also be honest with readers on what a “small” city is in China.
How is reaching peak emissions early a good thing? Are they saying total peak emissions will be lower than if they continued to 2030? What makes anyone think after they reach peak emissions that they will magically go down? Doesn’t this mean they can run at peak for an additional 15 years?
I can’t understand how they interpret their commitment. They promised to do nothing to reduce emissions till 2030 . They managed to do nothing ever since they signed the Paris agreement. They are the only country in the world that has met its commitment.
This really is a Clayton’s commitment. If I was running the Australian government, I wouldn’t pull out of Paris, I would say instead that I think Australia should make the same sacrifice as China and agree to not do anything till 2030 then think about. If it’s good enough for the worlds largest emitter it’s good enough for a relatively tiny Australia.
If Balderdash 101 were a university course, that abstract could be the first lesson.
“Katy Perry, more stars attend Google summit on climate change in private jets, mega yachts”
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/google-summit-celebrities-climate-change
LOL……….
The monster truck wars of the Climate Change Crusades
“China will Meet Paris Climate Goals Nine Years Early”
>>
“… for as long as the economic downturn persists.”
Fixed
And the 300-500 new coal power stations are just imagination and the chinese government release showing the coal emissions growing even at 2030.
Griff would say this is all misinformation well he better take that up with greenpeace because that outlook is from there own report
https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/03/28/china-new-coal-plants-2030-climate/
The situation in China changes rapidly, every few months…
this report is about companies asking to build more power stations… it does not mean the govt will permit them. Recently new applications have been stopped by the govt… but then of course regional authorities have been getting round the central govt prohibitions …
If you look at it the other way, certainly there are an awful lot of new renewable energy sources.
Is China continuing at the old rate of construction? almost certainly not. But frankly it is a bit like the old pseudo science of Kremlinology deciphering it all!
You are again correct Griff…
The PseudoScience of Climate Scientology is very similar to that of Kremlinology
“it does not mean the govt will permit them.”
If you can’t trust the governments of the world then who can you trust?
So the situation changes every few months … so lets get to the bottom line …. do you trust them to deliver on there promise?
Personally I don’t think they do change every few months, they have been consistent in that they will achieve the country growth target and to hell with everything else. I think you and most of the green groups are naive and stupid if you think China is a friend on climate issues. It isn’t like you are going to be able to go there and protest like you do in a Western Democracy and you can’t get published in the media because of censorship. At about that point we will get a good laugh laugh at how stupid you have all been.
“griff July 31, 2019 at 9:22 am
The situation in China changes rapidly, every few months…”
You mean like saying they are shutting down plans to build coal fired power stations one month and then the next saying they are planning to build more coal fired power plants. Yeah, I hear ya!
China must be getting even more desperate .
Karma !….;)
China has no intention whatever to meet any IPCC targets on emissions — unless it is accidental to their needs and plans to turn china into a world-class modern nation. They still have millions of peasants (in the Medieval sense) and intend to bring them up to modern western standards of living. That effort, along with the effort to remain The Factory for the World, will require orders of magnitude more cheap electricity — which they will produce however they can — they will burn a lot of coal.
“China has no intention whatever to meet any IPCC targets on emissions — unless it is accidental to their needs”
I think that sums up the Chinese position nicely. 🙂