Claim: China says it’s already met 2020 climate goals

From AP Via The New York Post

By Associated Press

November 27, 2019

BEIJING — China has realized its 2020 target for reducing carbon emissions ahead of schedule, the ecology and environment ministry reported Wednesday.

The ministry said China’s CO2 emissions per unit of GDP had fallen last year by 4 percent from a year earlier to stand at 45.8 percent less than in 2005.

Vice Minister Zhao Yingmin told reporters that completed the target of CO2 reduction for 2020 ahead of schedule, while 14.3 percent of the energy China consumes now comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

“These are hard-won results from the efforts of promoting a green and low carbon economy,” Zhao said.

While becoming more efficient, China saw its annual carbon emissions nearly triple between 2000 and 2018 as the economy grew at a rapid pace. It has been the world’s biggest emitter since 2005 when it passed the US.

Yet China is also the leading market for solar panels, wind turbines and electric vehicles and the biggest manufacturer of solar cells.

Full article here.

HT/Willie Soon

69 thoughts on “Claim: China says it’s already met 2020 climate goals

  1. China has realized its 2020 target for reducing carbon emissions ahead of schedule, the ecology and environment ministry reported Wednesday.

    Reducing emissions by increasing them, damned clever those Chinese.

      • That is then point. CO2 emissions are a metric for economic activity, particularly industrial activity. Falling levels of CO2 emissions are an ominous sign suggesting that country’s economy is weakening.

        China has achieved this goal, as a direct consequence of President’s Trump’s tariffs on China that has caused the Chinese economy to shrink.

        President Trump should get the praise for this, but given the left bias of the MSM, they will forget to mention President Trump’s role in this achievement.

      • Latitude,
        “What kind of $c@m let’s people increase something toxic/poisonous…because they didn’t make enough money (GDP)…or have more people (per capita)”

        It is a good thing that CO2 is neither toxic nor poisonous.

    • Xi makes the trains run on time … and meets all the Co2 reductions promised to Jerry Brown.

      He doesn’t have to care what “The People” think of it. Democracy is so messy, eh UN? Eh Xi?

  2. The ministry said China’s CO2 emissions per unit of GDP had fallen last year by 4 percent

    getting more efficient at emitting more CO2. Waydago Xi.

    Being more efficient is very sensible, of course this has nothing to do with “reducing” emissions since they are still climbing and nothing to do with climate. They do have a legitimate need to clean up their air but it’s not “dirty CO2” they are trying deal with.

    • Unfortunately the IPCC will accept this declaration as a verification of China’s adherence to the terms of the Paris Climate Accord.
      The rest of the worlds now needs to send them money to fulfill their commitment to the accord.

      You can’t make this stuff up!

      • China can regard itself as targeted by carbon-guilted global energy control. But all it is required to do is play along with the narrative – because the narrative is the technology of guilting populations into giving up their freedom of will to an Internment of Thinks.

  3. Their emissions were reduced ahead of whose schedule? Theirs? And exactly what was that schedule? Hard to figure from that bit of propaganda.

  4. China’s performance is very poor. When you look at CO2 emissions per dollar GDP, China rates 175 out of 178 nations. link Maybe they’re better than they used to be but they’re still much worse than average.

    • Trump, by continuing to allow gas to be extracted, and by putting a brake on Chinese exports and production, has almost certainly done far more to reduce world CO2 emissions than any increase in the use of wind or solar unreliables.

  5. So their claimed GDP is rising faster than their claimed CO2 emissions, that might just be true.

    The important point is that they are continuing to increase emissions of life giving CO2.

    • Reduced missions intensity (i.e. CO2-e per unit of GDP). As long as GDP grows faster than CO2-e emissions then the emissions intensity drops, even if CO2-e emissions are increasing.

      • So the richer or the more productive we get, the less “harmful” the CO₂ is.
        With that logic African states with tiny GDP should not dare to use any fossil fuel.

        Human contributed CO₂ is harmful to the planet, therefore every country can contribute to save the Earth by increasing their GDP – makes sense. /SARC

        Okay after my previous post, I realized China used CO₂ vs GDP, but thought that, that would be con-propaganda and under the ethic level of China and might have been some translation error.

      • fabricating the numbers is the easy part, any fool can do that. The hard part is presenting those fabrications in such a way as to fool the most people possible into believing those fabricated numbers actually mean anything. Making that hard part easier is a compliant media that will swallow the fabrications whole and then regurgitate it to the masses.

  6. Since they have already met their 2020 goals, they will be given a special assignment – for extra credit, of course. Teacher’s pet.

  7. China is showing the UN how this kind of business is done.
    And their claims are as real as anything the UN IPCC has thrown out there.
    China:”We have met our commitments”
    Cannot disagree as they never made any CO2 commitments,except to keep on upping their emissions until 2030.

    • John R – didn’t Chin, as a (self-declared Developing Country) make a commitment under the Paris Agreement (apparently endorsed by the IPCC or whatever) to keep reducing its ’emissions intensity’ until 2030? No mention of total emissions (as was expected of the developed countries), etc. This how we are getting screwed – we look at the rules of the game and abide by them at any cost, they look at the rules and figure out how to squeeze through the gaps at no cost. More fool us.

    • Exactly. Garbage in, garbage out. While we destroy our economies to meet this total non-threat, the Chinese, Indians and Vietnamese plow on a full speed and fob off the eco-loons with false data. Good for them!

  8. Fact is, that when the Paris farce was spewed forth, China already had some 20% non-fossil-fuel energy supply.

    Its called HYDRO !!


      Anyone up for a river cruise to see the largest renewable energy plant on the planet? Not only that but it does 24x7x365!!!

      Now that’s my kind of engineering! I’ve always been impressed with dams.

      By the way what would China rate for “renewables” if they used Commie-fornia’s definition that excludes hydro? Hmmmm?

  9. Lol china is brilliant, they do what ever they want and laugh when people question them about all of the things they shouldn’t do… I’ve yet to read a single comment made by xr or vile greta about china/india/russia, or maybe she hasn’t said anything because china has met its goals Loll

  10. When your target is to continue to increase emissions for decades to come it is not hard to meet your targets.

    • It is worse.

      A one party state can fudge the goals and fudge the measurements and cheat

      … in creative ways as everyone is on board with the concept that the object is China wins and cheating is winning with the least effort/no effort…

      And if they get caught, claim it is an American plot.

      • As in ‘Nineteen Eighty-four’, the output of boots is given as 62 million but Winston working in the Ministry of Plenty marks down the figure to 57 million “… to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been over-fulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared …”.

      • this is about at truthful or close to reality as their finance and other figures are..
        its whatever they want it to be,
        not what it is
        they are masters of creative accounting n stats

        • Yeah, Hollywood, infamous for it’s creative accounting, is an amatuer compared to China when it comes to creative accounting and stats.

  11. “The ministry said China’s CO2 emissions per unit of GDP had fallen last year by 4 percent from a year earlier to stand at 45.8 percent less than in 2005.”

    Standard practice for politicians, lobbyists, Alinskyites and marketing PR people.
    When there is no chance to move forward, declare success and move on.

  12. Good for China. They’ve just learned to play the game whose rules they didn’t write. If the UN can make meaningless goals then China and the rest of the world’s nations can make up meaningless proclamations for meeting those goals.

    I actually love this, it’s the perfect answer to the UN’s madness.

  13. ”CO2 emissions per unit of GDP had fallen last year by 4 percent”
    That sounds like a reasonable made up number, let’s go with that.

    • CHICOM ‘GDP’ is a product of continuous stimulation injection and debt growth, and not a linear relationship with production. It’s just creative accounting, if they were serious they would be comparing CO2 emissions to energy consumption. But being a completely unaccountable totalitarian autocracy they’d just the fiddle the figures any which way they pleased (see BOM).

  14. More propaganda. The people will figure this out if the internet doesn’t get gobbled up in the false and misleading narrative. If. I sometimes wonder if there’s a chance the truth will be realized. The truth in this case is when, not if, and if we’ll survive the consequences.

  15. “These are hard-won results from the efforts of promoting a green and low carbon economy,” Zhao said.

    “Promoting” a ‘green economy’ could not be more different from the anti-environmental brown-economy that China actually has, and intends to expand.

  16. I can relate to the Chinese statement, they are being very green by releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere every year. The correlation between green plant growth rates and increasing CO2 is well documented and well deployed by most greenhouse plant growers.
    Go, Go, China, keep pumping that life giving essential into the atmosphere and enjoy the economic benefits it brings to China via increasing wealth and longevity.
    Reducing pollution in cities is also a good policy decision, still some way to go on that one but nuclear energy and gas fired power plants should achieve that very quickly.
    Energy is wealth, more is better than less.
    As a famous sage once commented, I have been miserable and poor, I have been miserable and rich. Given the choice, I will take miserable and rich every time.

  17. Don’t blame China for this. They’re not the bad guys here. All they’re doing is what the western world did since the industrial revolution began, lift it’s population from abject poverty.

    The ones to blame are the IPCC and the UN in general for their screwed up policies and objectives. And of course their desire for a one world government.

    • How does a “one-world govt” even help anything? It won’t end war, revolt and civil war against bad govt is a thing, and we know govt is absolutely rubbish at everything it attempts to do. And that the very worst form of government is a huge bureaucratic central-govt, that operates remote from the area “governed”. It would be a complete disaster for humanity.

  18. All economies become less energy intensive as they mature, because they tend to grow into services/consumer goods, which use much less energy

    China knew this, which is why they set themselves such an easy target.

    Meanwhile since 2005 China’s CO2 emissions have gone up from 6096 to 9419 Mt

  19. Versions of this fairy tale have been circulating for a long time now. If somebody writes (in, say, the Guardian, or the Financial Times, or [ongoing tragedy] the Economist) that China’s carbon emissions are going down, it is easy enough for the casual reader to infer that that China’s carbon emissions are indeed going down [leaving aside for the moment the scientific illiteracy of using ‘carbon’ in this way]. The only thing that statements like this have ever meant, however, is that China’s carbon emissions are going down per unit of output. You have to know a little bit about economics, and technology, and national statistics, to work that out. Why should the honest reader have to make these calculations, before assessing journalism for truth or honesty?

  20. For the non believers in the claim, there is a special dormitory for you in northwest China for re-education and Party training.

  21. When China makes a claim that doesn’t seem to make sense, all you have to do is visit WUWT and read the comments on the subject to get the proper perspective.

    WUWT shines “the Light of Truth” on all kinds of confusing stuff.

    Not everyone is an expert in every subject, but at WUWT every subject has an expert commentator (sometimes, many experts). They make complicated, confusing things simple.

Comments are closed.