Mapped: The world’s largest CO2 importers and exporters<p><a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters" rel="nofollow">https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...</a><p>"Despite the large total of CO2 imports and exports, US emissions are only 6% higher and Chinese emissions are 13% lower when CO2 transfers are taken into account."<p>Energy related carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2007 in the United States [1]. They didn't <i>just</i> get hidden by imports replacing domestic manufacturing. Even incorporating imports into the national balance, US emissions are down from the peak. This is largely due to efficient combined cycle gas turbines replacing coal plants and -- to a lesser but growing extent -- a larger proportion of renewable electricity in the national electricity mix.<p>Chinese carbon dioxide emissions have not peaked yet. As of 2017 (referenced above), 87% of Chinese emissions are attributable to domestic consumption. That should moderate hopes that Chinese emission trends could be reversed by CO2 tariffs. It should also moderate anxiety that Chinese emissions are "really" the offshored emissions of Western consumers.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...</a>
What's left out is the industrial output of China -- which is probably producing for much of the EU and USA. It takes power to produce cheap phones and plastic knick-knacks for western consumers. The fact that the Chinese economy will adapt to meet these demands is inevitable. What is the coal output per capita, subtracting industrial output dedicated to exports to the US/Eurozone -- this would be a more fair assessment.
I encourage everyone here to read the underlying report for a more nuanced view: [1].<p>Apparently, the central government turned over permitting to provincial governments in 2014, leading to a massive surge in permits for coal plants, peaking in 2015 (see Fig. 3). Provincial governments wanted to promote growth above all else, so they went for coal. The central government was apparently alarmed by this, and imposed restrictions in 2016, leading new permits issued per year to drop by 80%. However, the new plants that were approved from 2014-2016 are still in the pipeline, which is why there are still new plants being built. The central government has slowed their construction and has proposed withdrawing a large fraction of the permits (for example, 150 GW of permits were canceled in 2018-19, while 8.5 GW of new construction was approved - see Table 4).<p>But just as in the West, there's a powerful coal lobby in China, which is pushing for already permitted projects to go ahead, for restrictions on new permits for coal plants to be lifted, and for the overall cap the government has set (1.1 TW) to be increased. Playing into all of this is the general economic slowdown in China, which of course puts pressure on the government to ease restrictions.<p>Despite all this, the trend in China is for less coal capacity to actually come online each year (Fig. 4). The question is really whether it will fall fast enough (Fig. 5).<p>1. <a href="https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/out-of-step/" rel="nofollow">https://endcoal.org/global-coal-plant-tracker/reports/out-of...</a>
Realistically, there is little incentive for China to cut back on coal usage. In an ideal world China would use the funds directed to Belt and Road to green infrastructure but in terms of its own ambition and growth prospects coal is the only reliable energy source to match the scale of China's ambition.<p>The global economy needs China to keep on growing. Germany, arguably the most important economy in the world outside of China, India and the US is nearing recessions because of slowing Chinese consumer spending. A recession in the EU spells disaster for the rest of the world.<p>It's difficult to expect China to curb it's growth for the common good when more advanced economies ignored the science for decades (ie. at least since the 70S) to favor its own growth.
this post seems to be used for strategic messaging to boost Bloomberg's current campaign:<p><i>> Michael R. Bloomberg, the founder and majority stakeholder of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, has committed $500 million to launch Beyond Carbon, a campaign aimed at closing the remaining coal-powered plants in the U.S. by 2030 and slowing the construction of new gas plants.</i><p>this kind of thing makes the reporting feel questionable. A shame because the message is really important.
I looked into a few websites tracking climate change progress. They seemed to show that China is doing relatively better compared to others, in terms of climate change goals.<p>Here is the summary that I posted on my blog:<p><a href="https://paraditedc.com/2019/11/22/pdc-10-chinas-real-progress-on-climate-change-goals/" rel="nofollow">https://paraditedc.com/2019/11/22/pdc-10-chinas-real-progres...</a>
> The nation has 148 gigawatts (GW) of new coal fired capacity under construction. That is compared to 150 GW of existing capacity in the European Union and 105 GW in the works for the rest of the world
Many factors driving this:<p>Domestically<p>1. Perverse incentives in some provinces still reward coal production.<p>2. Diminishing incentives for solar and other renewable.<p>3. Pivot to interior development of interior regions, bureaucrats are adopting the same building + smoke stack strategies that worked on coastal cities. There's was some internal response - many of the proposed coal plants are being eliminated.<p>4. Keep in mind China is still at 60% urbanization rate. A lot of construction related CO2 is basically for modern housing stock - commonly referred to as "ghost cities" - but they get occupied eventually.<p>5. Renewable is still central to domestic energy security in response to US security competition. Previously, renewable was a response to air quality complaints, now it has to be balanced with security.<p>US-SINO trade war<p>5. Increased pressure for Chinese energy security - China has access to essentially infinite amount of domestic coal. Now that US seems to be withdrawing from Gulf security because US is energy independent from shale, there's more urgency in China to build up coal security at least short term.<p>6. Reliance on construction to maintain growth. Related to 3&4.<p>7. Related to #3, economic pressures from trade war might motivate more coal plants to be built. There was also a resurgence in shadow banking after deleveraging campaign was cut short due to trade war.<p>Globally<p>8. Exporting infrastructure capacity means more coal plants along Belt & Road.<p>I'm of mixed feelings, cheap goal -> development. Eliminating poverty and development is more pressing than climate change. There isn't a climate change strategy that can handle uplifting the developing world into developed status. I think that's like 3/4 of the world. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do everything in the mean time to figure out how to mitigate, but ethically we should be working towards an end goal of X universal consumption baseline. X being much higher than global average now and probably much lower than western levels. If that's beyond global carrying capacity then I guess WW3.<p>E: typos
Just wait til India gets their coal expansion in gear. China is already the largest co2 emitter, India hasn't quite arrived yet. But India has no shortage of coal to prevent joining the party, and 300M+ people still needing basic electric service.
Meanwhile the US just shut down its two largest coal plants in the past month, and has shed 50 just since Trump has been in office; but people keep touting China as a "climate leader." Pretending a non-binding Paris Agreement the US backed out of meant anything at all. It was non-binding.
Alternative title: Climate Goals a Threat to China Expansion<p>(also to India and other countries)<p>And I find this troubling. On what moral authority the west think it is ok to kick the ladder?
Bloomberg has lost my trust as a reliable source of information since the invented story about China Chip hack[1]. Contrary to the article, China is the leading investor in renewable energy[2][3].<p>[1]<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...</a><p>[2]<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-renewable-energy-superpower/#51dd9cb0745a" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-...</a><p>[3]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China</a>
If one thinks and supports politicians that believe climate change is a threat to human existence you would, logically, wholeheartedly support the following:<p>1. Ban all air travel
2. Ban all consumer goods made in developing nations. (a large contributor to China and India's carbon footprint)
3. War with countries producing a large carbon foot print if they refuse diplomatic efforts to meaningfully curb emissions.
4. Eat only plants and insects.
5. No cars (battery or otherwise).
6. Culling or otherwise slowing the population.<p>If one is not willing to adopt all of these (and more unmentioned) as part of their own lifestyle and political views one does not truly believe climate change poses as great a danger as it is made out to be.<p>In fact, it is proof there is a particular political end in mind and climate change is a convenient excuse for those in power to meet their own political ends.