China has a real interest in getting a number set, because the longer it waits, the weaker its position will be, and the more efforts it will need to do to move from its unsustainable trends. Better to start the effort when their allocations is still more than they need right now than when they need to cut from their then current level.
In terms of current emissions, it is already above the world average (and growing fast), , and getting close to have its "fair" share of the total stock of emissions In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Projecting out to 2030, China's share the world stock of CO2 emissions will only be 16% versus 25% for the U.S. and 18% for OECD Europe -- again, despite China's far larger population.
The last graph, "Relative contributions of nine regions to cumulative global emissions (1751-2004)", just confirms the same thing: While the USA and EU countries have contributed about 53% of cumulative emissions in that period, China has contributed only about 8%, as of 2004 -- again, despite having a much larger population over that period.
The Chinese reponse is predictable: "Unless the Western world directly compensates the rest of us for burning through its quotas of oil consumption and carbon emissions and then some, then boy whatever scheme gets set up for divvying up the rest of the world's oil and carbon emissions fairly, we are owed a whole bunch of fat quotas to make up for the West's past gluttonous self-indulgence." Cynicism is intellectual treason.
I don't recall right now where I read it, but there was a report issued recently from a summit or working group or somesuch composed of China, India (I think) and a bunch of third-world countries. I'm a bit vague on the details, either because my source was or because my memory is slipping, but the long and short of it was that the countries in question were perfectly willing to reduce emissions, but only if and when The West(TM) - who caused the problem in the first place - implemented substantial emissions cuts.
To me that looks like they are using this discourse to buy more time for bizniz as usual and to make excuses for not doing anything much. As you point out that's probably stupid, but that won't necessarily prevent them from doing it.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
Two often claimed reasons, at least in China, for continuing growth (and thus, as a regrettable but inevitable consequence, continued oil consumption and carbon emissions) are:
If they disagree with these two points, then they should do their best sensitively and respectfully to persuade the Chinese why they are mistaken. Cynicism is intellectual treason.
The thing is, China is already making significant efforts to rein in pollution and encourage conservation. And we need to recognized and applaud that as a most basic prerequisite to persuading the Chinese that we are partners in this and not pushy meddlers:
Jonathan Lash: China's Climate Change Playbook is Worth Reading
... Contrary to popular belief, China is already implementing a comprehensive energy policy that addresses climate change. While China's climate-change challenge equals the U.S. in scale, China's emissions footprint is fundamentally different. In the U.S., one-third of energy use and CO2 emissions come from transportation. In China, transport accounts for just 10 percent of emissions, and industry is the biggest contributor by far. So, Chinese policy appropriately focuses most strongly on reducing emissions from industry. China is replacing old inefficient power plants with state-of-the-art new units. It closed down more than 1,000 inefficient cement plants and hundreds of power plants last year, as well as steel mills, smelters, and glass and paper manufacturers, resulting in more efficient, less polluting industries. Over the last three years, the Chinese government has introduced a series of regulations on energy conservation, resource use, and recycling. The stance of China's leaders is that energy conservation and efficiency come first -- well before the search for new fossil fuel sources. But are these policies translating into action? It looks like they are. The "Thousand Enterprises Program" -- which forces the country's biggest companies to make specific energy-reduction commitments -- is meeting its goals. By 2010, this program will reduce China's coal consumption by 100 million metric tons, approximately 5 percent of annual CO2 emissions for China or the U.S. We will all see the results of strenuous short-term measures, such as closing power plants, staggering working hours and limiting vehicles, during the Olympics. But China also has long-term policies in place for reducing coal dependence, increasing the use of renewable energy and reducing pollution.
... Contrary to popular belief, China is already implementing a comprehensive energy policy that addresses climate change.
While China's climate-change challenge equals the U.S. in scale, China's emissions footprint is fundamentally different. In the U.S., one-third of energy use and CO2 emissions come from transportation. In China, transport accounts for just 10 percent of emissions, and industry is the biggest contributor by far. So, Chinese policy appropriately focuses most strongly on reducing emissions from industry. China is replacing old inefficient power plants with state-of-the-art new units. It closed down more than 1,000 inefficient cement plants and hundreds of power plants last year, as well as steel mills, smelters, and glass and paper manufacturers, resulting in more efficient, less polluting industries.
Over the last three years, the Chinese government has introduced a series of regulations on energy conservation, resource use, and recycling. The stance of China's leaders is that energy conservation and efficiency come first -- well before the search for new fossil fuel sources.
But are these policies translating into action? It looks like they are. The "Thousand Enterprises Program" -- which forces the country's biggest companies to make specific energy-reduction commitments -- is meeting its goals. By 2010, this program will reduce China's coal consumption by 100 million metric tons, approximately 5 percent of annual CO2 emissions for China or the U.S.
We will all see the results of strenuous short-term measures, such as closing power plants, staggering working hours and limiting vehicles, during the Olympics. But China also has long-term policies in place for reducing coal dependence, increasing the use of renewable energy and reducing pollution.
That article also references this paper:
China's Booming Energy Efficiency Industry | World Resources Institute
China's energy efficiency industry is emerging as a high growth sector with the country projected to spend as much as Rmb2.1 trillion (USD300 billion) over the next five years on products and services that cut energy use. The key drivers of this development are the Chinese government's determination to curb the country's expanding energy appetite as well as higher production and energy costs. Firms that develop cost-effective energy-saving technologies, particularly for the most energy-intensive industries, are poised to capture the opportunities. If successful, these enterprises will not only become profitable, but will also help lead China to a more sustainable energy future.
So again, if we are going to talk to China about reducing their carbon emissions and energy consumption, let's at least start off on the right foot by acknowledging and saluting them for the good things they are already doing. Cynicism is intellectual treason.
"So you say that China must do something to address climate change for any strategy to be effective? Well, they are. So why, again, do you think that [insert name of your country] - which is so much richer than China - shouldn't be pulling our weight?"
but wouldn't that hurt the economies of those developed countries whose companies are doing business with/in China? sure. but how can you ask China to put the environment and resource conservation before the economy if you are not willing to do so yourself? Cynicism is intellectual treason.
Their "prosperity" is to a large extent created by their non accounting of such externalities, and it is not very real (and the same goes for ours, given that we still don't pay for that pollution ourselves). In other words, the bill will come due whether they like it or not.
If the carbon price is increased throughout the world, then China's real competitive advantage should not be endangered - unless that advantage is just their willin gness to poison their own citizens in the name of growth. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
We should include taxes on imported goods reflecting the quantity of pollution and carbon emissions embedded in such imports.
I was under the impression that China had enough coal to fuel double-digit growth for plenty long enough to lift the entire country to "developed world" status.
But this article, Richard Heinberg's MuseLetter: Coal in China, if I read it right, says that China may hit peak coal in about 20 years or sooner.
In its conclusion a familiar line of argument/persuasion to get the Chinese to rein in coal consumption/carbon emissions can be discerned: proactively self-induce the pain now in a controlled fashion in order to avoid the uncontrolled crash of running into peak coal:
Richard Heinberg's MuseLetter: Coal in China | Global Public Media
If and when China ceases to have enough new energy to support continued economic growth, there are likely to be unpleasant consequences for the nation's stability. If such consequences are to be averted, the country's leadership must find ways to rein in economic growth while reducing internal social and political tensions, meanwhile investing enormous sums in non-fossil energy sources. A serious attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would entail an identical prescription. It is a tall order by any standard, but serious contemplation of the alternative--which, in the worst instance, could amount to social, economic, and environmental collapse--should be bracing enough to motivate heroic efforts.
In other words, if the Chinese government imposes significant taxes on coal consumption, it will force the Chinese to make adjustments in a gradual steady manner: essentially the same strategy that we have been talking about for dealing with peak oil in the U.S., but which the U.S. did not implement. Cynicism is intellectual treason.
increasing pollution might aggravate the health and healthcare situation in Chinese society and ultimately put more of a burden on the aging and shrinking pool of laborers than decelerated economic growth in a relatively cleaner -- and healthier -- environment would.
this is pure speculation, but i wonder if quantitative analyses could be made that would make such a scenario plausible -- and frightening -- enough to worry Beijing bureaucrats. Cynicism is intellectual treason.
What is its thrust and application here?
The Chinese can do the numbers, and some most certainly have. I am simply proposing this as one possible way to convey the importance of getting the environment in shape over continued aggressive growth. Cynicism is intellectual treason.
her point is well taken (if i understand correctly) that in the long-run (around 150 years), current birthrates do not really matter as far as the resulting make-up of "working age" vs. "non-working age" segments of the population.
i will see if i can find some numbers on what the changing demographics of China's population are, in particular with respect to the balance of working age to non-working age people. Cynicism is intellectual treason.
As a pure layperson, it seems to me that such a significant drop in the ratio of the working to non-working population is likely to pose a big challenge to Chinese society in the next four decades. Cynicism is intellectual treason.
So I think the talk about the global demograpic crisis is overblown. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Depending on what you consider "constant", China may not be a typical society in this respect.
The number of non-productive citizens went from 50.8% in 1950 to 57.5% in 1970 to about 40% today.
This is probably due in large part to China's birth control policy, among other things China went through in the last 60 years (and more). Cynicism is intellectual treason.
Good point. The Africans probably have the highest per capita amount of unspent quotas. Depending on how that per capita quota amount is finally determined, China may very well find its population to be over their collective alloted quotas already (though not nearly as much as Western countries and, I assume, Japan). (But if the quota amount is set that low, I doubt the Chinese would feel much incentive to participate in this program. I suppose the optimal level would be such that China collectively has "spare quotas" to use, but developed nations are already over their quota limit.)
China has a direct interest in finding a global solution given that it is the first direct victim of all the pollution caused by the industries that need the carbon-burning. The country is going to be poisoned, full stop.
The Chinese would totally agree -- as long as they don't feel that they are being lectured to, in particular by Westerners who have abused the planet far more than they have, even projected out until 2030, if I read those graphs correctly.
And again, the longer it waits, the less of a case for a favorable treatment it will get.
From their point of view, there would be nothing favorable, or at least, preferential about it. It would simply be fair and just. Cynicism is intellectual treason.
A truly global solution would be to give each citizen on earth equal quotas of two things (to start with): oil and carbon emissions.
Aside from the details of how these quotas get calculated (what I focused on in my other response), the overall thrust of this idea would strike a positive chord in that it aims at fairness, at putting developed nations on the exact same playing field as developing countries. Furthermore, this strategy is patently solicitous and cooperative, rather than self-righteous and imperious. This spirit and approach to solving the energy and pollution crisis are critical for getting true buy-in from the Chinese (and I imagine other developing countries.) Cynicism is intellectual treason.
