China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Exceed Those of All Other Developed Countries Combined
By: Sara Schonhardt (Scientific American)
China is a smoking dragon. The Chinese government has committed to a policy of economic development and will not allow international accords interfere with that economic initiative.
What is most worrisome is that climate activists are calling for developed countries to do more to combat climate change to accommodate China's disregard for environmental issues in pursuit of economic development.
Are we going to allow China to dominate international trade using cheap, abundant fossil fuels? That disadvantages the United States both environmentally and economically. It would seem that the United States should meet the challenges posed by China with an initiative to industrialize the United States using clean technology. The United States needs to become an exporting country with goods manufactured cleanly. By challenging China with clean exports, the United States would be directly lowering China's emissions.
Our current NIMBY approach of consuming Chinese manufactured goods while pointing fingers at China's emissions doesn't seem to be providing an incentive for China to clean up its act.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Countries around the world have been committing to ambitious measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions. New research shows they have further to go than they thought.
The Rhodium Group released an analysis today showing that China, the world's largest emitter, saw its 2019 emission levels exceed those of all developed countries combined to reach 14 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent. That's about 27% of the global total.
Over the past three decades, China's emissions have more than tripled, Rhodium estimated. At the same time, global emissions reached 52 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2019, an 11.4% increase over the past decade. The estimate measures six greenhouse gases, including CO2 and methane.
Those increases put the world further off track from meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement, which aims for carbon neutrality by 2050, said Kate Larsen, head of international climate policy research at the Rhodium Group.
"The shifting dynamics of global emissions—with China surpassing the developed world for the first time—means that meeting the Paris goals will require significant and rapid action from all countries," Larsen said in an email.
The United States followed China as the world's second-largest emitter, with 11% of the global total. India beat out the European Union for third, with 6.6% of total emissions.
The Rhodium Group also calculated per capita emissions and found that China now registers just below average levels across the bloc of countries that make up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. China's per capita emissions still remain well below those of the United States, which has the world's highest rate, at 17.6 tons per person.
Larsen said China's per capita emissions have grown "largely as a result of higher standards of living, comparatively fossil-intensive electric power, and its role as the manufacturer of goods consumed around the world."
That growth carries implications for how emissions in other developing countries could accelerate if they follow a similar pathway.
During a virtual climate summit last month, China reiterated its pledge to peak emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, a decade later than other major economies. It also said it would peak coal use in 2025 and start to phase it out the following year.
Last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping said high-emissions projects that don't meet environmental standards would be halted, Bloomberg News reported (Climatewire, May 3).
But Beijing continues to finance fossil fuel projects overseas and is continuing to build out coal-fired power plants at home. It is both the world's largest producer of renewable energy and its largest coal consumer.
"The big test is whether these plans together suffice to peak emissions and reach the rapid rate of emissions reductions needed to meet the long-term goal of carbon neutrality before 2060," said Lauri Myllyvirta, a lead analyst who focuses on China at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.
A preliminary estimate of China's 2020 emissions by the Rhodium Group shows that while all other major economies saw emissions drop significantly during the coronavirus pandemic, China's emissions are estimated to have increased by 1.7%, due in part to industry-driven economic growth and an uptick in natural gas use.
The Rhodium Group provides annual estimates of economywide emissions for more than 190 countries. The latest data looks at emissions from 1990 to 2019.
Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2021. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.
Tags
Who is online
149 visitors
We aren't going to guilt shame China into reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. The United States continuing to rely upon China's factories only makes consumers complicit in what China is doing. We need to be building clean factories that directly compete with the dirty products China is selling on the world market.
How could we ever do that?
Apply the Newt Gingrich model to finance: starve Wall Street.
Kick the supply-side neoliberal nutters out of government. Ban Milton Friedman (and Ayn Rand) economics as basis for policy. Fire anyone that mentions Ludwig von Mises. Don't put Goldman Sachs executives in charge of the Treasury Dept. Force Citigroup into bankruptcy and hold a fire sale. Let the big banks fail.
Bring back Glass-Steagall and make it tougher.
Make offshoring business so unattractive that domestic investment in manufacturing becomes the only way to make money. Stop rewarding failure by allowing vulture capitalists to close businesses. Create tax incentives to build and tax disincentives to shutter.
Make free trade support exports rather than imports. If imported goods have a competitive edge then import duties are too low. If import businesses are more lucrative than domestic manufacture then their taxes are too low.
Begin treating the wealthy like the working class is being treated.
Did you see the Job numbers today? They expected a million and we got 266,000 jobs added.
That's your Keynesian economics in action.
The president spent Trillions and today stumbled and bumbled to spin it as proof we need Trillions more. Pay people more to stay home and they will do it. How many times does it have to be proven?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I bet the free traders are really upset.
The trade deficit proves that the economy really does respond to Keynesian stimulus. If free traders hadn't killed our industrial base to make nickel then the job market would have responded as expected.
How can a country that imports so much have such a large carbon footprint? Must be all the smoke blown by supply-side neoliberals.
Even before the pandemic, I would see pictures of Chinese residents wearing masks due to the bad air quality.
Consumers may talk a good talk but their number one concern is cheap prices. So long as China can produce and ship cheaper than local manufacturing can, China will continue to win the marketplace. I look at this about the same as airline travel. I hate the way airline travel has developed but so long as the consumer puts more emphasis on cheap tickets rather than quality service the currant trends will continue.
People are great at bitching but they usually seem to want other people to actually take action.
For the first quarter2021, our trade deficit with China was $78.5 billion.
Seems that the trade war isn't the winner it's trying to be made out to be, American will buy it if it's cheaper.
No surprise.
and the left will blame America.
What does THAT tell you? Is it China's fault that its population is around 4.5 times that of America's?
Maybe because China was capable of containing the virus better than all other major economies, permitting more stable manufacturing and consumerism. Now THERE'S a fair comparison, eh?
Anyone who reads the headline of the seed is going to say to him/herself China is the reason the world can't breathe, and the article itself buries the reasonable explanations, but even points out that fault also lies elsewhere. Previously I have pointed out the media's method to mislead readers about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The example was a headline that said that Israeli Soldiers kill Gaza protesters, and it was not until one read down into the article was it noted that the Gazans had breached the border and thrown bombs at the Israeli soldiers guarding the border. I know the game. I was the Editor-in-Chief of my univerversity newspaper for almost two years and I know exactly how that misleading is carried out and how it works. What I have posted above is not a defence of China, which I'm bound by certain members here to be accused of, but a clarification as to what the seed is actually reporting, and a hope that it will alleviate the bias that is endemic in the American media. Personally, I don't think China's view of American media is so far off - and here is an example of how China feels about it.
What the narrative is trying to tell us is that other countries are supposed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to offset China's increase in emissions. The end result of that approach is that the world stays where it's at. If the United States reduces its emissions by half and China increases its emissions by the same amount then nothing has been accomplished environmentally. That only shifts the source of emissions away from the United States into China.
China's priority is economic development. There are two choices. China could build an economy that is dependent on fossil fuels. China could build an economy that uses cleaner energy sources. China has chosen the shortcut of fossil fuels in the apparent hope that will speed economic development. But China increasing its dependence on fossil fuels will only make the transition more painful in the future. Unless, of course, China is not planning to transition away from fossil fuels. China may be hoping that the rest of the world reduces their emissions enough that China won't need to give up fossil fuels.
The crystal ball suggests that as the rest of the world progresses toward the goal of net zero China will begin a science oriented campaign to make political arguments that China doesn't need to reduce its emissions which avoids the painful transition away from fossil fuels.
At present, China is engaged in an economic policy approach that makes industrial revitalization more difficult in developed countries and hinders industrial development in other developing countries. China is depending upon fossil fuels to dominate the world economy and will likely oppose giving up that advantage in the future. China increasing its consumption of fossil fuels now to achieve rapid economic development will only make a future transition away from fossil fuels more costly and disruptive.
China sets long-term goals and meets them. It has done so notwithstanding your speculation, and has proven that it CAN set goals and meet them such as the eradication of absolute poverty. Accomplishments like that may not be so available in countries that change direction every four years or so.
China is exporting solar panels and wind turbines while the country is building hundreds of coal fired power plants. And I'm expected to believe that China will begin replacing those coal power plants in nine years?
China is making huge investments in power resources that climate change is making obsolete. The government of Xi Jinping has made no commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. China is pursuing a long-term goal that doesn't address climate change.
Climate Action: China to honor its commitment
.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings
Maybe because China was capable of containing the virus better than all other major economies, permitting more stable manufacturing and consumerism.
Really? Looks like they did a piss poor job of it
Maybe he means China was better at container the virus from spreading within China. They didn't give a shit about transmitting it to the rest of the world.
They didn't give a shit about transmitting it to the rest of the world.
It's only killed 3 million plus people. That's a rounding error to the CCP murder machine.
Since I'm an unusual case on NT being a person who checks out and understands BOTH sides of a story, I feel no obligation to plead China's case to those whose governments for the past 4 1/2 years have done everything in their power to shift its own shortcomings and deflect from them by finding a scapegoat, obviously China, and obviously have been very successful in their method, but your linked article does not indicate that China does NOT intend to meet its stated reduced emission level goals, and as history has shown it meets those long term goals. The article I posted indicated that China is phasing out the worst offending coal and using a different kind that is not so damaging.
Maybe the USA should attempt to reduce its per capita pollution levels to at least APPROACH the much lower Chinese per capita pollution levels. Or would that be too much of a constraint of your individual rights and freedoms?
Since I'm an unusual case on NT being a person who checks out and understands BOTH sides of a story
Way to start with a joke! Your entire MO is to defend China from criticism for its ongoing crimes against humanity by attacking the internal affairs of the USA. Do you think that's not obvious?
no obligation to plead China's case t
3 million died so far thanks to China's negligence. Hard to plead that case.
he USA should attempt to reduce its per capita pollution levels to at least APPROACH the much lower Chinese per capita pollution levels.
You mean impoverish Americans so they don't consume any energy? The per capita income in China is 1/6 of that of the US. Imagine how much pollution China would create if it's rural population lived in a first world country? If you make 3 dollars a day in rural China, you don't count as poor. That's how impoverished rural Chinese are. Of course they don't consume energy.
The income is less, but try to comprehend, so are the expenses. I live here in relative luxury on my Canadian government pension that would make me a pauper relegated to a rooming house in Canada or the USA. Extreme poverty has now been eradicated, and the middle class consumer sector is large and growing. You seem to think the Chiinese people live in caves and light bonfires for warmth and food.
I don't expect you to admit that a VERY BIG PORTION of the more than 550,000 American coronavirus deaths were the fault of Trump, who didn't want anyone to panic.
I'll assume you were never a fan of Paul Harvey, maybe he was before your time. What I defended China from was NOT its human rights record, it was a defence of the misinformation and unfair emissions criticism raised by the article herein and by its proponents. If I pointed at the fact that it is no surprise to me that America is CONDITIONED to hate and smear China, well, so be it, and as well it is fully open for me to answer criticism with criticism - I didn't start the argument. So you can criticize China for its human rights record while championing your nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world and one of the most racist of populations and I just took off half an hour to watch the daily news so I could learn of America's DAILY SHOOTING DEATHS. Be proud, Sean, be proud.
The coronavirus is an airborne disease, an air pollutant, that kills people. The coronavirus, as an air pollutant, traveled around the world causing disruptions, sickness, and death. China's other air pollutants are doing the same thing. Even China cannot contain the air.
The Chinese response to the coronavirus was all about China. The Chinese government did not display concern or responsibility toward the rest of the world over spread of the coronavirus. And the Chinese government has adopted the same course of action for the country's air pollution.
The Chinese government has demonstrated willingness to sacrifice lives around the world for the benefit of China.
So don't worry about it. You have nothing to fear but fear itself - isn't that what some previous POTUS told America?