Beijing Dispatch: China's carbon harbingers

Plans for reducing emissions in China

Posted by Christina Larson (Guest Contributor) at 2:00 PM on 10 Nov 2007

Read more about: China | climate | climate change mitigation | greenhouse-gas emissions | politics

David linked to the Reuters report about China's refusal to accept binding emissions caps in any international agreement. On the topic of China and climate change, last week I got some face time with the head of the World Bank's energy unit in Beijing, Dr. Zhao. Too much for one blog post, but here are some highlights:

According to his research, the World Bank's go-to guy on these matters believes: "It will be difficult or even impossible for China to reduce CO2 emissions in absolute terms." Depressing conclusion. As he saw it, "The question now is, what can be down to reduce China's growth rate [of CO2 emissions]?"

While refusing to sign international agreements on carbon caps, Beijing has issued some fairly ambitious goals of its own. One is to have 15 percent of energy come from renewable sources by 2020. Of course, whether this target is based in reality is another question. As Dr. Zhao told me, "In most other countries, you do the analysis first, then set goals. In China, you set the goal first, then you do the research and set the policy to try to achieve it." Translation: the temptation to fudge numbers to reach preordained conclusions is dangerously high.

It is, after all, impossible to talk about China's capacity to either reduce or control CO2 emissions without also sizing up the reality of Chinese politics. On the one hand, a one-party system allows the government to reach decisions more quickly, on all matters. On the other hand, the lack of independent oversight and endemic corruption makes it more difficult for Beijing to actually implement its writ across far-flung provinces.

Finally, a point that gets back to David's original inference about our responsibility at home. Given the structure of America and China's economies, and the respective levels of technological sophistication, Dr. Zhao thought that, "It's actually a lot easier to reduce CO2 emissions in America than in China." Things like, you know, raising fuel efficiency standards and creating a consumer market for electric cars.

Not that this last point excuses either party, but just sayin'.

For story: Beijing Dispatch: China's carbon harbingers
7 Comments | Post a Comment

Focus on per Capita Emissions

It is per capita emissions that must be focused on. Why should Americans and Canadians have more of a right to more emissions per person than someone in China? And on top of that, a good portion of China's emissions are as a result of the production of stuff for you guessed it, us. Perhaps these emissions should be accounted for in our emissions per person. If we were willing to pay more for stuff from China, it is more likely that they could afford to reduced ghg emissions.

In China per cap emissions are around 4 tonnes per year while US per cap emissions are around 20 tonnes, five times as much.

Then there are all the cumulative emissions we have already placed in the atmosphere in our lifetimes so far. We should offset those. But that is another story.

All this worry about China just seems to be an excuse to give up and not make difficult choices here.

We are so full of ourselves it is ridiculous.

by racc at 9:17 PM on 10 Nov 2007

Nature bats last......

and Ma Nature is swinging very hard in China indeed. The current Chinese government has some tough choices to make.

It can use all of the power of political control to demand efficiency controls and install geothermal, solar and wind energy resources on a wartime emergency level. This would be painful for the oligarchs and the new money millionaires but they could play this game for status and control just as well as they could play burn-all-the-worlds-coal.

OR.....

They could wait. Waiting will allow the consequences of Climate Change and massive pollution to add up in the already fragile ecological balance books of China's population and farmland. Imagine a year in which China experiences the kind of drought Australia or Atlanta has working now. Imagine what happens when a generation of children are discovered to be almost entirely poisoned. Imagine what happens when the Islamic tribesman of Western China find that there is no water, no fodder for their animals and no relief coming from the central government. There will be an explosion, heads will roll, and the mandate of heaven will shift.

One way or the other China's carbon emissions are going to come down.

Put the Carbon Back

by Pangolin at 11:40 PM on 10 Nov 2007

Rock-hard ball

It would, I think, be naive to expect the slightest hint out of China as to its willingness to commit to GHG output cuts
until the US has clearly declared its acceptance of the policy framework of Contraction & Convergence,
with the latter's phased allocation of per capita emissions rights under a declining global budget.

For a start, what China signs up to, it honours, while the present Whitehouse regime has pissed on more sober treaties than I can recall.

At bottom though, in the US-Sino brinkmanship over who can ignore global warming the longest,
it is the US that is the senescent fading power, while China's power grows apace,
meaning that the US will have to blink first if a mutually catastrophic outcome is to be avoided.

Please note that I don't applaud either party's gamesmanship, I merely observe the dynamics.

Regards,

Bill

by Billhook at 3:53 AM on 11 Nov 2007

Worldwide carbon tax effort.

So which one of these affects global warming the most, a country with a billion people, but emits a ton of carbon per person or a country with 100 million people, but emits 10 tons of carbon per person? Wouldn't they be the same?

There needs to be another way to look at the problem. I am a believer in carbon taxes that will be exchanged for other taxes. Right now, in the United States, we tax at a 28 percent tax as a percent of Gross National Product. Almost none of that is a carbon tax. (Except for vehicle fuel tax, but that's a long discussion.) Let's change that and make a deal with all nations that the first consumption tax the country makes is with a carbon tax and that should be 5 percent of GNP. That would mean in our country of 13 trillion GNP a year and 4 trillion in national, state and local taxes, we would change 650 billion from sale, income, property and social security taxes into carbon taxes.

Have every country to agree on the effort of carbon dioxide release suppression as a percentage of carbon taxes to that countries GNP.

The worldwide Cap and Trade wants to do is just that. But a cap and trade system would be filled with corruption. It's the trade part that's the mistake. Energy systems would be over promised and under promised; politicians will be corrupted with the extra money they can give out to constituents and how energy laws are written to get cap and trade money. The criticism of money leaving our country to other countries would be eliminated with carbon tax effort agreements. Any taxes would stay in that country, the carbon tax money collected in the United States would go solely to the United States governments and no others.

A simple world wide carbon tax system effort agreement would be better. Less corruption. Less mess.

by trock at 6:56 AM on 11 Nov 2007

Getting it

Why should any developing country commit to binding reduction terms for CO2? Frankly, unless the West transfers money and technology towards the developing world, it won't happen.

Developing nations need to develop in order to provide their people with the basics of a decent life (food, education, water, housing.... and hey... maybe a beer once in a while (smile)).

People in developing nations look at what people in the developed nations have, and ask themselves this: "Why should I not have that if I can acquire it? Am I not as worthy as they are?"

Some people in developed nations apparently feel the answer is "no".

You can't eat all the food and then tell a hungry person that they can't cook more because the air is dirty from your cooking.

Get it?

As to "endemic corruption", you should look at America first. And you might ask Congress about "independent oversight" (no point asking the White House, they yawn and say "executive privilege").

It would be helpful to have balanced fuller journalism about China. The NYT does a better job (I just saw a tv show with a Mr. T. Friedman on Chinese TV, he was talking about environmental problems, and also talking to people who are actually involved in environmental issues in China (unlike the World Bank.... really...)).

patrick in beijing

by bookerly at 8:00 PM on 11 Nov 2007

china carbon

ok, but China is now building yet ANOTHER new damn DAM
cutting off more of the flow of their largest and most powerful river. they could say NO to damaging their environment for all of us in the West, but they don't (no one else say no to us either, we are golden). they continue to make cheap goods in a mad frenzy just because we in the West want cheap goods. it's out fault, but they are our enablers.
and vice versa- we "enable" them to ruin their country so that we can buy cheap crap at Wal***t (for example).

i haven't bought anything from China in over a year - it can be done, but i do buy goods from other countries, like India. i try to find alternatives available made in the USA and other western countries (like Canada). however, it is difficult and requires time and effort and usually more money.

by mat at 8:05 AM on 12 Nov 2007

People Need to Eat

Dear Mat,

The Chinese government does many things that even it thinks could be done better. It is certainly not perfect. But, how do you suggest it end poverty and provide people with a decent living? Magic? Wave its hands and shout "I believe!"?

They make goods for the West for the same reason that workers in the West work in factories that cause pollution. They need the jobs.

It is nice if you never face that dilemma. I wish that no one did. But many people do. It's great you have "time" and "money" to do as you please. Many people don't in this world (not only in China).

Blaming China for this is like blaming the workers in a factory for what the boss decides to produce. Maybe it makes sense to you.

You refuse to buy anything made in China because_____? until _____? Or do you just hate China??

patrick in Beijing

by bookerly at 10:57 AM on 12 Nov 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.