China tells rich nations to cut emissions by 40 percent

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE54K0X320090521

China tells rich nations to cut emissions by 40 percent

Thu May 21, 2009 5:45am EDT

By Chris Buckley

BEIJING (Reuters) - Rich nations should cut their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels as part of a new global climate change pact, China said on Thursday, spelling out its stance ahead of negotiations.

The pact must ensure wealthy nations "take on quantified targets to drastically reduce emissions," said the statement, issued by the National Development and Reform Commission (www.ndrc.gov.cn), which steers Chinese climate change policy.

Developed countries should also give 0.5 to 1.0 percent of their annual economic worth to help other nations cope with global warming and curtail greenhouse gas emissions, China said in the document, laying down demands for a conference in Copenhagen in December meant to seal a new climate change pact.

The Copenhagen conference is looking to agree on a treaty that will build on the current Kyoto Protocol.

…

[SteelPenguin]

1. Which wouldn't apply to China...

...the biggest CO2 polluter..Nice one China.

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Putting things into perspective for a moment

China's population is about 4 times that of the United States, and yet, China just recently exceeded the US in production of CO₂.

So, the average American is responsible for about 4 times as much CO₂ as the average Chinese.

[SteelPenguin]

3. Doesn't matter

apples and oranges. The U.S. and industrialized world need to get their pollution in check, no question...but to put rules on the U.S. that don't apply to the developing world will not solve the environmental problems our world is facing, while also making it harder for American companies to compete with Chinese companies both in the U.S. and on the global market.

The pollution in china, air, land, and water is already out of control. What will it be like if left unchecked? 2/3rds of their rivers aren't even clean enough for INDUSTRIAL use much less using for drinking water.

I see no reason to give them a pass on any grounds. Without environmental rules applying to the deveoping world, particularly China and India, they're pointless.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. China is essentially going through what we went through 40-50 years ago

(Please remember the reasons for the original "Earth Day.")

However, not only is China's CO₂ output now exceeding ours, their development of renewable energy is as well

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-silver19-2009may19,0,6622766.story

China's edge in the energy-efficiency industry

The sleeping giant is taking the lead in manufacturing components for solar and wind generators and building electric cars, but the U.S. could still catch up.

By Edward Silver
May 19, 2009

…

Americans have by now become inured to China peeling off layers of the U.S. manufacturing base. The Asian giant, though, has never been at the starting gate of a new industry that promised exceptional growth. That's a natural place for America, we like to think. Indeed, the U.S. booted up the Internet business, fostering phenoms such as Cisco Systems and EBay. Those innovators brought the world online, enriching our national economy.

But with "clean tech" and renewable energy heralded as the next world-changing opportunity -- and our ticket out of the Great Recession -- the United States is at risk of ceding this strategic terrain.

U.S. setbacks dealt by the weakened economy have helped China's prospects in green commerce. It's become the capital of solar and wind power manufacturing, and it aims to be the main source of affordable electric cars. In the U.S., the lending freeze has combined with cheap oil to stunt the fortunes of clean energy. Wind, solar and biofuel projects have been canceled and seed capital is scarce, leaving fertile ideas on the drawing board.

While U.S. gross domestic product shrank 6.1% in the first quarter of this year, China's expanded by the same proportion. Its banks are not only standing but healthy, even amid a global downturn that has curbed demand for Chinese exports. At the same time, Beijing has raised efficiency and sustainability goals, largely in a quest for energy security.

…

So, perhaps you may want to reassess.

[SteelPenguin]

5. Nope

They're still building 2 new coal power plants every week. They're indeed ramping up on the green tech and it's going to make our own green tech companies have a hard time competeing, particularly if we hamper our entire ecnonomy to do so.

China MUST BE held to the same environmental standards as the rest of us in any accord or the accord will be meaningless and pointless environmentally.

I understand that they're still developing and it'd be harder on them to do so cleanly rather than building tons of coal plants, but I thought the point here was to protect the planet, not china's GDP.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Should they let Germany have all of the fun?

Is it unreasonable to expect China to do what the "developed" world will not?

The narrow majority of our power comes from coal plants. Until recently, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants#U.S._Coal-Fired_Power_Production_in_the_Global_Context">we burned more coal than China.

Will we be decommissioning our existing coal plants tomorrow? Have we stopped building new ones?
http://www.energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=7355&Governor_Approves_Sunflower%27s_Proposed_Coal-fired_Plant_in_Kansas

Has Germany canceled their plans to build new coal plants?
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE53S1S820090429

Are we building any "clean coal" plants?


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html

China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants

By KEITH BRADSHER
Published: May 10, 2009

TIANJIN, China — China’s frenetic construction of coal-fired power plants has raised worries around the world about the effect on climate change. China now uses more coal than the United States, Europe and Japan combined, making it the world’s largest emitter of gases that are warming the planet.

But largely missing in the hand-wringing is this: China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

Construction has stalled in the United States on a new generation of low-pollution power plants that turn coal into a gas before burning it, although Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Thursday that the Obama administration might revive one power plant of this type. But China has already approved equipment purchases for just such a power plant, to be assembled soon in a muddy field here in Tianjin.

…

[SteelPenguin]

7. No. THEY ALL NEED TO DO IT

Something that just affects China does dick all for the world. Something that just affects Germany does dick all for the world. Something that just affects the developed world and not China and India, does dick all for the world.

We need the rules to apply to EVERYONE. We need China to not just develop green technology to sell to western countries, but we need them to USE IT THEMSELVES. WE need the U.S. to go green, Germany to go green, China to go green....

Rules and Accords and treaties that make the developed world act one way, and China act another doesn't help the environment, it helps China's development which they're doing at the expense of their own and the world environment. Not including China would be as ridiculous as not including the U.S. in an environmental pact intended to help the world.

If we're just going to do status quo that's fine, but if you want us to sign an agreement where we need to provide X percent of our power from renewable sources, or stop building coal fired plants, or whatever, they need to not just apply to us but to China as well.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. OK, so how about a pronoun change? As in, "WE all need to do it?"

Once the average American burns no more coal than the average Chinese, then we'll all decrease our coal use together.

It just seems incredibly arrogant for us to burn the amount of coal we do, in our dirty old plants and tell the Chinese, "You can't build new clean coal plants! Just think of what you're doing to the environment!"

I mean, I agree, it's scary, but the hypocrisy really bothers me. (Kinda like us wringing our hands over the environmental problems caused in China by us shipping them our "e-waste.")

[SteelPenguin]

9. WE need solutions

Things that restrict just us, and let China go hogwild will not solve the problem, only shift the balance of the problem to another location.

Also american GDP per capita is $46,859. Chinese GDP per capita is $5,963. We may burn equivalent amounts of coal, but we also produce nearly 8 times as much for said coal. Imagine if that were the same, and China's GDP per capital were the same as ours, they'd be burning 8 times as much per person than we do.

so what would it solve if the Americans reduce their coal burning in half, if we let the cHinese burn as much as they like and develop their economy to our level? WE'd be using 1/2 X, where X is our current coal consumption and burning, and they'd be using 24 X, 48 times as much as us. What kind of environmental solution would allow the output after the accord to create nearly 50 times the pollution?

yes we need to move to clean power, adn we need to do so aggressively, but so do the chinese, because if they're not involved with it just like us we're more screwed than we were before.

[pscot]

10. I guess I missed the part

where it says China is using clean coal technology. I also missed the part where it says that China is installing all this alternative wind and solar technology and not just exporting it. Certainly we need to get our own house in order to have credibility, but the implicarion of China's statement seems to be, that if we don't meet their guidlines, they are exempted from cleaning up their act. This sounds more like tit fot tat, than the beginnings of a negotiation

[joshcryer]

12. It's disingenuous to "average over per person" because those "per person" rates are rising.

And when you have more than 4 times as many people those rates are alarming.

[joshcryer]

11. "US cuts emissions by 40%." "China gets upset over cap and trade. Says it's hurting them."

[GliderGuider]

13. The attitudes on display in this thread are a perfect illustration of the reason why

climate change is going to kill us all.

It's exactly the outcome predicted by the "Prisoner's Dilemma" game theory: no one wants to risk getting the sucker's payoff, so nobody is willing to risk altruism. That includes China and the USA, but also most of the other nations on the face of the planet. "It's not fair for us to go first because (insert expedient rationalization here). Let someone else demonstrate goodwill first, then we'll get on board."

How high does the CO2 and the temperature have to climb before one of the big players will finally blink and do what we all know needs to be done?

Perhaps a species that is this selfish deserves to reap what it sows.

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. You Canadians just don't understand

We (real "Americans") have a birthright to burn just as much coal as we want.

Oh sure, it will be hard for a country like China to develop economically without burning as much coal as we do, but that's just the sort of sacrifice they simply have to make for all of our sakes.

On the other hand, while we might like to decrease the amount of coal we burn, that would have an unacceptable impact on our economy. It just tears us up, but it's what we have to do, for the sake of our economy.

Now do you understand?

[joshcryer]

Cap and trade is the only solution to this problem.

You can't stop burning coal overnight but you can make an economy out of it. It would not hurt us bad at all.

But those $1 trinkets from China suddenly costing $5 will irrevocibly hurt China.

China wants us to cut emissions without capping consumer carbon expendature.

ie, we'd still be polluting out the ass, but instead of it being "US Americans" it'd be "US Americans buying polluting Chinese goods."

So yes, China has just as big of a double standard.

[joshcryer]

15. Cap and trade is the only solution to this problem.

You can't stop burning coal overnight but you can make an economy out of it. It would not hurt us bad at all.

But those $1 trinkets from China suddenly costing $5 will irrevocibly hurt China.

China wants us to cut emissions without capping consumer carbon expendature.

ie, we'd still be polluting out the ass, but instead of it being "US Americans" it'd be "US Americans buying polluting Chinese goods."

So yes, China has just as big of a double standard.