Climate officials from around the world have assembled in Copenhagen for two weeks to address global warming. Here’s an interesting article from today’s Guardian. Highlights:
China’s carbon emissions will peak between 2030 and 2040, the country’s science and technology minister [Wan Gang] told the Guardian as the global climate change summit began in Copenhagen.
And:
The precise timing, he said, would depend on uncertain factors such as the pace of China’s economic growth, rate of urbanisation, and level of scientific development. But he added that the earlier date in the range would be possible if China continued to invest in renewable energy, improved energy efficiency, commercialized carbon capture technology, and changed consumer behavior.
And:
Environmental groups gave a cautious welcome to the figure, but said China could be more ambitious if rich nations provide technology and finance. “This is a good thing. This is the first time that a ministerial-level official has confirmed the peak range,” said Yang Ailun of Greenpeace. “If China really makes climate change a priority, they could peak by 2030. And if they get support from developed countries, they could do it even faster.”
An agreement to transfer technology and money from rich to poor nations is one of China’s main goals at the Copenhagen conference. China is keen to get international help to reduce the price of silicon processing for solar panels and to develop ultra-efficient coal gasification plants. It is already collaborating with the U.K. on a project to capture carbon dioxide. In future, Wan said the country will explore the potential for storage or conversion to algae biofuels.
There is an awful lot to unpack in this one brief article. Is this really a “good thing” from the Greenpeace perspective? What shape and scale will the “technology and money” transfers take? Also at Copenhagen, the deputy head of China’s climate delegation has reportedly complained that “neither the U.S., the E.U., nor Japan had offered sufficient cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.”
What do these reports make you feel about the future of governmental efforts to decrease greenhouse-gas emissions? I suspect that, as with other climate issues, one’s incoming biases will dictate whether the glass looks half full or half empty.
In SuperFreakonomics, we express skepticism about the likelihood of meaningful agreements in this realm:
If, say, Australia decided overnight to eliminate its carbon emissions, that fine nation wouldn’t enjoy the benefits of its costly and painful behavior unless everyone else joined in. Nor does one nation have the right to tell another what to do. The United States has in recent years sporadically attempted to lower its emissions. But when it leans on China or India to do the same, those countries can hardly be blamed for saying, Hey, you got to free-ride your way to industrial superpowerdom, so why shouldn’t we?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
As of a well-off urban citizen in Shanghai, I turn on AC only 2-3 hours a day in the freezing cold days. While, when I was in US, I turn on heater after I got home and turn it off when I go to bed. It is cold and inconvenient but that’s how we have been living. Many Americans I know keep the heater on all day or overnight, and take that for granted.
Though the numbers of cars are growing fast, most Chinese still take public transportation, which is crowded and unpleasant. While most Americans own more than one car.
Per capita, average Chinese emits a fraction of carbon compared with an average American/European. It seems unfair to me to require China and US to cut the emission by the same percent.
The author tell us that developing countries such as China attend the copenhagen conference mainly for getting clean technique from developed countries.
He also said,”The United States has in recent years sporadically attempted to lower its emissions. But when it leans on China or India to do the same, those countries can hardly be blamed for saying, Hey, you got to free-ride your way to industrial superpowerdom, so why shouldn’t we?”
I think such views are unfair, To some extent, developed countries should be responsible for the poverty of developing countries. I am so glad to point that it is developed countries that have been emissing the largest amount of carbon dioxide since the first Industial Revolution. Rich countries robbed poor countries during the colonial period, and they buy resources from poor counties through unfair trades in modern times. Then,they get economic developed,consume most of the resources in the world and get the water and air polluted. At last, they seek to transfer pollution to poor countries. And now they want to sell clean technique to poor countries at a high price!
Rich countries shall be responsible for what they have done! There is NO country that can sustain the loss of global warming.
China is a “developing nation”? No ! lots of people in west region are very very poor.BUT I KNOW our government makes efffort to clean the air
@choikyo
Yes, the primary marginal benefit from rich countries reducing their emissions is to help poor countries avoid serious losses from climate change though.
I think you’re missing much of my point though.
Its all very well for us to phrase things in terms of “should” and “ought” and “obligation” and “fairness”. Those are great things to have, and they make great rhetoric.
But thats unfortunately not very realistic. I think we need some realpolitik here. International negotiations are made significantly based on national interests. Historical/moral arguments about who can/should be blamed for existing emissions are somewhat orthogonal to the issue of actual bargaining power on the ground.
If China/India/Brazil/Indonesia refuse to commit to anything, and just demand cash handouts, then there won’t be the political will in rich countries (especially the US) to make significant cuts. And it won’t be the rich countries who suffer the largest losses from changing climate.
Also, I don’t think anyone is seriously asking poor countries to reduce their absolute emissions below current levels. Even the strictest proposals still have China’s emissions growing until 2020.
What is being asked is to have commitments on when their emissions peak, and commitments to reduce their emissions intensities.
The figures you are quoting are different things.
Europe is talking about reducing *absolute emissions levels* by 20-30% below 1990 levels.
China is talking about reducing *emissions intensity*, ie the ratio of emissions to GDP. So, a 40% reduction in intensity means that if China’s GDP doubles by 2020 (compound growth of ~7.5% per year) then its total emissions will still rise 20% over 2010 levels.
Nobody is asking China to cut its emissions by the same amount as rich countries.
The Chinese government also seems to be taking climate change much more seriously than say India.
“If a temperature increase of 4 degrees melts the himalayan glaciers and messes up the water cycles of the great south asian and east asian river basins, then the person who barely has bread and butter will definitely care because agricultural yields will drop significantly”
Yes, but I should think that they have more immediate issues on their mind.
Anyway, if China is requesting technology and finances (which I thought they had plenty of) does that make them the bootlegger and Greenpeace the baptist?
@misterb (coment 7),
Sorry? If “Australia alone makes reducing changes (then) Australia will profit”; how on earth do you figure that?
Put a massive impost on the Australian economy, make Australian labor/labour and so exports less competitive (particularly coal and LNG), nobody else does anything and exactly how is there a benefit? Certainly not an environmental one – Australia is 1.4% of global anthropogenic CO2 production, and reduction other than to zero won’t be measurable.
If the entire world makes reducing changes then the best that an energy-exporting country like Australia can expect is to at least get no disbenefit. To assert that a unilateral cut would provide unique benefits is nuts.
And by the way, there are of course unique local environmental issues but these will not be effected by CO2 emission cuts, as these will contribute globally (if at all). Disconnect CO2 from the argument and you have an inkling of a point – focus on real pollution, waterway preservation, land use changes deforestation etc. This focus on CO2 is destroying true environmental concerns.
You make typical false, unsubstantiated (and unsubstantiatable) assertions which at best would make people feel good in their poverty (maybe).
I definitely think that there are enough local effects to make it worthwhile cutting out the CO2 since that will have an effect on other environmental issues. Seriously. Imagine any big city like e.g. my dear Taipei with everyone riding bikes and the MRT. Now that’s heaven!
“Yes, but I should think that they have more immediate issues on their mind.”
If by immediate you mean chronological – sure. I’ll grant that people are myopic. If by immediate you mean important, then no – what is more important to a rural farmer than their crop yield – which determines both their income, and whether or not they can eat?
“I definitely think that there are enough local effects to make it worthwhile cutting out the CO2 since that will have an effect on other environmental issues.”
Why would you think that? There is no scientific basis for that.
CO2 does not affect other environmental problems. It doesn’t cause air pollution. Particulate emissions do a local level, but that is a separate thing from CO2.
Climate change depends on the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere – it doesn’t matter which country emitted it.
This is why climate change presents the classic public good problem; for all but the largest countries, the marginal environmental gains to a country from reducing its own CO2 emissions are negligible.
Hence the need for international cooperation.
Australia’s (and the USA’s) decisions and behavior are arguably irresponsible and immoral, in that they impose negative externalites on the rest of the world, but they’re not irrational. The costs Australia will suffer from climate change (higher temperatures, worse droughts, desertification, cyclones, etc.) are basically unrelated to their own GHG emissions level.