The recent thread on reducing meat consumption as a way of cutting back on CO2 emissions got me to thinking: it might be a nice gesture, but is it worth it? What does it matter what we do to reduce CO2 emissions if someone else is polluting up a storm and enjoying the economic benefits thereof? Would a really effective plan to reduce global CO2 emissions be to do everything possible to help/encourage China to rely less on coal?
**Is China singlehandedly undoing the rest of the planet’s CO2 control efforts? **
No, India has agreed to help.
Well, the US’s carbon footprint has (slowly) gone down, while China’s has (rapidly) gone up. But singlehandedly? No. China has finally overtaken the US for CO2 emissions, but we are still solidly number 2 and I doubt we’ll lose that lofty status any time soon.
From China’s (and India’s and other emerging nations) perspective it’s kind of unfair to bust their chops on this issue…after all, the West got their chance to to boost their economies through massive use of FF, and it’s the driving engine fueling China’s (and those other countries) economic growth.
That said, China is going to be the country that kills any realistic effort to stem CO2 emissions from now on. I think the US (and Europe) will slowly lower our own, but China will increase at a rate higher than we could possibly match in the other direction. Their economy and industry is just starting to kick into high gear, and they have a LOT of slack in their system (from the point of view of their living standard) that they will be increasing in the near future.
-XT
Uh, from the WTH side of the fence, The concept of a carbon footprint didn’t exist 100 years ago. We have the technology now to make changes and the countries in the best position to do it are emerging nations with money. Making a duplicate of the US with a dependency on cars/trucks is definitely worth busting their chops over.
Their economies are emerging still and they are trying to quickly jumpstart them to capitalize (heh!) on the demand for cheap manufactured goods and services…all of which means they need a quick and dirty power source. Additionally, as they are in a pretty much boom economy it would be unrealistic to expect them NOT to want some of the fruits of that boom in the form of cars and various electronic toys. Finally it’s their nest after all…just like this is our nest. Sure, all of our various nests are interconnected, but just as I don’t like the Euro’s attempting to make environmental decisions that will effect OUR economy I expect China/India aren’t going to be too keen on anyone else telling them to slow down their’s either.
Now…criticize them? To be sure…just like our Euro buddies criticize us (though I think it’s kind of rich that they are struggling to meet the Kyoto accords they themselves signed…while busting our chops about it).
I realize that on this MMV and it all depends on one’s viewpoint both on the actuality of AGW/GCC and on what people actually think can be done…and perhaps what they think should be done. However, I think each country will, in the end, make it’s own decisions on what’s best for both it’s people (not that China seems to care much about this aspect) and it’s own economic future. Myself, I think that eventually China WILL clean up it’s act…simply because I can’t imagine the big wigs wanting to live in an industrial disaster zone. Taking out the party big wigs part and looked at from the perspective of citizens, that’s pretty much why WE have cleaned up our own act in the last few decades…and continue to do so.
-XT
It’s not just China. It’s everyone who consumes oil. Any efforts to control CO2 through voluntary restrictions on oil use is doomed to fail, because oil is a global commodity. If 3/4 of the world stopped using it and switched to higher cost alternatives, it would just lower the price for the other 1/4 of the world dramatically, which would stimulate demand for it there.
And there are too many bad actors in the world who profit from oil (the Middle East and Russia, for example), and too many people who gain by using it, that you simply can’t stop it. Not unless you’re willing to use military force to blockade oil movements.
Control of a valuable commodity always fails. Black markets spring up. In this case, there isn’t even a legal framework in place by which to punish countries that wish to continue burning oil in big quantities. Again, unless you’re willing to go to war for it.
If China were to voluntarily cut back now because of some newfound love of their neighbor countries, that would just make oil even cheaper for Russia and India.
The Kyoto Treaty itself proved just what folly this is - not only did a lot of major oil consumers refuse to sign it, but those countries who did sign and pledged to start working towards those targets completely failed. Oil use didn’t start to slow until the natual price of it went up. Kyoto was about as mild a restriction you could come up with and still plausibly claim that it might do any good at all. Had it been fully complied with, the net effect would have been to push out the global warming curve by a few years. And even that utterly failed to gain acceptance or compliance. And before you point at the bad U.S., countries like Canada, which made all the right noises at Kyoto and constantly bleated about the dangers of global warming, actually increased their emissions of CO2 more than the U.S. did.
There are a few ways you can slow global warming. One is to have a big damned worldwide recession. Shrink economic output, and you’ll lower the consumption rate of petroleum. Another is through use of the military to physically control oil flows. Good luck with that.
The final, and only palatable and possible way, is to develop energy sources that are as cheap or cheaper than oil, so that demand shifts away from oil and towards it. The other way is to wait for oil to naturally increase in price until it prices itself out of the widespread energy market. It’s getting close to that point now, which is why you’re seeing such a sharp drop in demand.
Right now, the price curve for oil is going up, and the price curves for alternative energies are coming down. As each of the progressively expensive alternative energy sources becomes cost efficient, it will start to grow in usage. Wind power is there now, and it’s a boom industry. Solar looks to be a few years behind that. Nuclear is making a comeback. Alternative petroleum sources like the Alberta Tar Sands are growing as fast as they can.
How much carbon ultimately winds up in the atmosphere will depend on just where those curves intersect. Anything you can do to lower the cost of alternatives or increase the price of oil will prevent some CO2 from making it into the atmosphere. Or at least dramatically slow the rate at which it’s released.
China isn’t being ‘bad’. It’s doing what everyone else does - it pays market prices for oil and consumes it. It’s playing by the rules. If oil is running out, soon enough the rules will change. If it isn’t, or not for a long time, then you can predict that China is going to dump all that CO2 into the atmosphere, along with everyone else.
This is actually the only good argument to be made against new drilling, but it’s one the anti-drilling people don’t really want to say: If you don’t drill the oil, you push the price of it up, and thereby punish people more for using it. Which will be much more effective in curbing their CO2 use than treaty ever will. You can keep that in the ground, and protect it with your military, and take it off the market forever.
But these days, everyone is supposed to say that prices are too high and that the people who use gasoline need to be given ‘relief’. Obama says it, McCain says it. The Democrats and Republicans both say that high prices are a problem. And yet the Democrats are working hard to make sure it stays high. But at least you can say that this policy can actually work in terms of keeping carbon out of the air. But they should be honest about it.
It is still the responsibility of the already developed nations to lead the way and develop the innovations that can be sold to, licensed, to or given to the developing nations to reduce CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions.
Everything from cleaner cars and trucks, to better land management, to cleaner & safer nuclear, to cheap solar and wind and of course the big one, clean coal plants. Clean coal plants would be a huge one for the #1 & #2 CO[sub]2[/sub] emitters. (China & USA)
The developed nations need to be more aggressive in inventing new technologies and refining existing ones to lead the way to CO[sub]2[/sub] emission reduction. Beyond AGW, this is also a major health area as emissions do correlate to air and water pollution that pose serious health risks.
It is also a means of cutting dependence on foreign oil and this should be considered a huge incentive for the US, Japan and Europe at least. I note that both our current US Presidential candidates have said as much and show every sign in believing that our “oil addiction” is a serious problem with defense and CO[sub]2[/sub] issues. McCain is heavy on self-sufficiency and Obama more on the AGW, but they both address both concerns in a serious way.
China is not addressing the problem of global warming. They are addressing the problem that the air in their major cities is horribly polluted. Those older fossil fuel plants are being closed, but they are being replaced with newer fossil fuel plants. They will be cleaner in terms of particulates, but will emit exactly as much CO2 as the old ones.
It’s doing as much as the USA is pretending to do, if not more.
China announces Climate Change plan
And like they say - we have already benefited so are in a better position to make bigger changes. Also - their pollution is partially our outsourcing and our profits.
:dubious: No they aren’t. As Sam noted, they are addressing issues we addressed decades ago…i.e. cleaning up air particle pollution. The US has decreased CO2 emissions in the past few years and we are slowly but steadily dropping them. China is wildly increasing them…they are putting up a new coal fired power plant at a rate of something like a new plant a month.
As I said earlier, I think China is doing what it thinks is best…but lets not get ridiculous and pretend that China is doing more than the US (or Europe) is to fight CO2 emissions…they aren’t. Nor should they be expected to be doing so at this point. Sure, they are increasing their renewable energy stance, sure they are starting to clean up their act somewhat…but they are decades behind even the US on this and it will take time, money and desire to enforce their own environmental laws before they catch up.
-XT
)
China, as has already been cited as as is common knowledge anyway, is closing down masses of small polluting (pollution and green-house gases being 2 sides of the same coin) plants and replacing them with less polluting bigger ones.
I’ve no interest in defending China but to pretend the Bush regime is doing anything but kicking climate change into the long grass by issuing pious statements and promise of ‘jam tomorrow’ is pointless.
All Bush is promising is to reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity, not greenhouse gases.
Projected Green house gas emissions
Fourth Climate Action Report to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, produced by the US Govt.