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.
HT/Willie Soon
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
I much prefer to watch what China does rather than listen to what China says.
”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).
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.
“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.
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.
Not only can they make CO2 disappear they can also make people vanish
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.
WXcycles
Agreed.
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
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?
For the non believers in the claim, there is a special dormitory for you in northwest China for re-education and Party training.
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.
How do you say Pinocchio in Chinese.