The Canberra Times/AFP has the alarming news:
China is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 per cent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the Government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming.
(Note to Canberra Times: Some statements are so obvious you can skip the journalistic hedging.)
Land and Resources Ministry chief planner Hu Cunzhi said the Government planned to increase annual output to more than 3.3 billion tonnes by 2015.
That is up from the 2.54 billion tonnes produced in 2007, according to the ministry.
In short, from 2007 to 2015, China will increase its coal production by an amount equal to two-thirds of the entire coal consumption of the United States—an amount that surpasses all of the coal consumed today in Europe, Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa, and Central and South America.
Such is the legacy of eight years of the Bush administration blocking all national and international action on climate change, and indeed actively working to undermine international negotiations by creating a parallel do-nothing track for countries like China. As Chinese officials have told me, we gave them the cover to accelerate emissions growth.
Some might claim a different president would never have been able to get China on a different path. But if Al Gore had been elected picked by the Supreme Court in 2000, I assert that China would not be planning for its 2015 coal production to be triple that of current U.S. coal production.
Changing China’s rapacious coal plans will arguably be Obama’s single greatest challenge in terms of preserving a livable climate and thus the health and well-being of future generations and thus any chance at a positive legacy for his presidency.
The story continues:
Annual production of natural gas would more than double to 160 billion cubic metres by 2015, while that of crude oil would increase by 7 per cent to more than 200billion tonnes, Mr Hu said.
The Government would set up reserves of oil and coal as part of its efforts to ensure national energy security, Mr Hu said at a news conference.
China began building four strategic oil reserve facilities on its east coast this decade, and two of these are now in operation.
The country’s energy consumption expanded by an average annual rate of 5.4 per cent between 1979 and 2007, the official Xinhua news agency said yesterday, which fuelled average annual economic growth of 9.8 per cent.
China depends on coal for about 70 per cent of its energy.
Its thundering growth has meant the country has become one of the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, alongside the United States.
China said coal, the cheapest and most plentiful source of fuel in the country, would remain its main energy source, despite the impact global warming had already had on the country.
China has repeatedly defended its use of coal, pointing to its efforts to develop renewable energies while blaming industrialised countries for the bulk of the greenhouse gases that are already doing the damage. It also emphasises the per capita emissions of greenhouse gases of China, the world’s most populous country with more than 1.3 billion people, are far lower than those of the US and other developed nations.
That Chinese argument, I think, can now be officially labeled the insanity defense. Yes, the industrialized countries must sharply reduce their emissions—but absent a reversal of this Chinese coal policy, catastrophic climate impacts are inevitable.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations
Comments
View as Threaded
Jon Rynn Posted 7:19 am
10 Jan 2009
Permalink
Billhook Posted 11:23 am
10 Jan 2009
after all, with US AGW culpability and intransigence well attested, it can afford to lose a million people to an extreme climate impact more easily than Washington can ten thousand.
That govt has faced the intransigence of wealthy nations for 17 years since the UN.FCCC was launched. Why should we expect anything but the hardest of hardball tactics ?
The fact of a new US president changes none of the basic calculus:
there is a very limited budget of viable GHG output for this century;
the US has determinedly spurned each & every opportunity to advance an equitable framework for the international allocation of that budget as tradeable national emission entitlements, progressing over time to per capita parity.
The recent bizarre intervention by Hansen (the most high profile of US scientists)
publicly calling on Obama for the setting of punitive tarrifs on imports from any nations refusing an American regime of carbon taxes,
may well appear from Beijing's POV to signal just more of the same obstructionism
holding policy sway under the new administration -
Neither Europe, nor India, nor Africa, nor Brazil, nor China itself, will accept a treaty based on the mere pork-barrel haggling Hansen presumes.
Any resulting treaty would have little chance of enduring the foreseeable geo-political stresses,
and most nations are fully aware of the need for a durable climate treaty.
Contraction & Convergence was formally tabled by Brazil at Poznan; the seminal change Obama can bring to Copenhagen is to declare US support for Framework, not Guesswork, as the equitable and efficient basis of negotiations.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:08 pm
10 Jan 2009
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:00 pm
10 Jan 2009
Incidentally, this is why the economic crisis is the perfect opportunity to push for better GHG controls. This is the time when growth of polluting-industries will be at their lowest, and may actually decline. If we intervene now, we can actually get a step-up.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:37 pm
10 Jan 2009
They are not aware of the alternatives.
Perhaps they are saying...
"You guys, the US and Europe, created this mess by pumping garbage into the atmosphere. Don't expect us to disadvantage our economy to save your butts.
If you aren't going to change and thus take us down, we'll all go down together. But we'll go down rich.
Now if you want to get very busy and change your ways we've got our clean technology ready to go. We can build wind farms rather than coal plants, if you will."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:53 pm
10 Jan 2009
As long as trade restrictions, like the 2 year delay of the BYD plugin hybrid availability here in the US, are applied to chinese innovation, and the west insists on going with coal, then they will too. Are chinese import solar, battery, and wind innovations being stalled too in the name of protectionist policy bribed into place by industry lobbyists?
Wasn't there an article about our selling coal to China? How insane is that? Removing our mountaintops and destroying our groundwater with coal slurry so some corrupt judge can keep getting kickbacks from the coal industry?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:24 pm
10 Jan 2009
Next, second time you've mentioned some sort of "trade restrictions" involving the BYD PHEV.
What are you talking about?
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:35 am
11 Jan 2009
co2 restrictions crimping your market in the U.S.
Sell it to China, they don't care how they burn it.
Nor will they care about how much of the Appa;achian chain that gets destroyed.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:10 am
11 Jan 2009
Ask yourself, how would you feel if another nation kept after you to reduce your GHG, but that holier-than-thou country wasn't investing in plugin hybrids or shutting coal plants. Furthermore they were the country that started this whole mass car ownership, coal and oil fired economic model.
Then they delay your green car from introduction in their markets? As they insist you must cut emmisions on an emergency basis. But don't cut their emmisions at all?
No problem right? Hehey. They are ahead on lithium battery mass production and wind and solar power too.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ted Nace Posted 3:14 am
11 Jan 2009
Help build CoalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:06 am
11 Jan 2009
We're already half way there in proving to them that electric cars/transit is the transportation of the future. Not oil.
We need to prove to them that Coal also can be replaced.
And the only way that that's going to happen is if we lead the way.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
biodiversivist Posted 5:47 am
11 Jan 2009
Would our politicians have the guts and integrity (or our citizenry to force them) to prohibit our selling of coal to China?
The Chinese have just introduced the first plug-in hybrid car.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:17 am
11 Jan 2009
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:46 am
11 Jan 2009
but, it would appear consistent with US hypocrisy as a brazen attempt to block China's development;
and it would do nothing to convince China that the US is at last willing to sign a treaty committing it to a rapid decline of its GHG output, in return for a phased net decline of developing nations' output.
OTOH, US adoption of the C&C framework that would facilitate the treaty's negotiation would be just such a confidence building measure, with utterly practical benefits.
A core issue of the negotiation for western Enviros' concern is surely the ring-fencing of revenues from tradable emission-entitlements to sustainable projects of Mitigation, along with a stringent verification regime.
[International compensation for the costs of Adaption is a legitimate issue in its own right].
If that ring-fencing can be agreed, then there is both the ready funding (from entitlement-trade revenues) and the strong incentive (of additional future trades) for developing countries (lead by China ?} to end their fossil fuel dependency ASAP.
This mechanism serves the "Optimum Rate of Global Change" scenario.
By comparison, the obstruction of the supply to one country of one source of one fossil fuel (coal) looks like a relatively local concern, with potentially counter-productive diplomatic outcomes.
In terms of valiant local efforts, the use of Muscovado sugar as an instrument of self-defence against irreparable damages -
could make a fine precedent in US case law . . . .
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
breckhenderson Posted 11:34 pm
11 Jan 2009
Breck Henderson
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:59 pm
11 Jan 2009
Why, yes, I believe it was....
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 1:19 am
12 Jan 2009
Instead of having to manufacture in an EPA controlled environment and learning how to fabricate in an environmentally friendly manner transferring production to China was just the added cost reduction effect of outsourcing.
We can't just blame the coal corporations for developing markets in China to avoid co2 emmissions and other environmental standards.
All the corporations are to blame for this outsourcing, legacy cost reduction and evading environmental cost model they have sold the American government.
China will burn coal for manufacturing and since they have taken over all our dirty manufacturing this segemnt will increase their demand for coal. When we lost control of the corporate lobby or the shadow government we lost the ability to influence any corporate related legislation. You have to know any legislation that effects the corporate bottom line in a negative manner will have a hard time getting through the legislative process. All Multi National corporations even if they have an American name will fight any efforts to stop the selling of coal to China or pressure on china to clean up the burning of coal.
It has been stated in other blog post that you can't seperate the environmentalist or environmental concern from the economic concerns or plans of action.
I will add that you can't seperate the political from the environmental. Real and meaningful lobby reform will have to be addressed before environmentalist can affect any coal related issue. Especially the selling of coal to China or how they us it.
Be it medical, health care, pharmaceutical, oil, insurance, Wall Street, Medicare, Social Security, earmarks, subsidies, you get the picture, the corporate controll of government by proxy will have to be addressed before any meaningful inroads can be made on co2 emmisions from coal or the other environmental devistaion coal causes.
If Environmentalist join in a concentrated effort to get real lobby reform done first you will find an easier path with less obstruction when tackling coal. The path to alternative energy development will be less steep.
You can not seperate the political from the environmental no more than you can seperate the environmental from the economic but to have a voice in government you will have to get the political done first.
Wrenching the corporate control of government by proxy through the lobby process from these multi-national corporations will have to be done first.
We can be blogging about our conerns in this corpocracy indefinitely. The only way to influence legislation is to either have a powerfull lobby or have some meaningful lobby reform. The environmental lobby is woefully overmatched when it comes to forwarding a legislative agenda. I would suggest lobby reform first.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
edarnold41 Posted 4:27 am
12 Jan 2009
The assumption that 'moral pressure' will cause the Chinese government to do the right thing seems to me incredibly naive. These are the people who schedule the execution of criminals so as to get the best market for their harvested organs. The Chinese government will do exactly what it sees as being in it's best interests, and that obviously means gaming the Western fools with noble-sounding official pronouncements, while going full-steam ahead with economic expansion.
Maybe Mr. Hansen has the right idea with his tariff proposal, but it will never happen: too many U.S. businesses will lose too many of their products.
Basically, just another last-chance for Romm to engage in Bush-bashing.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:45 am
12 Jan 2009
Lets see,
China Joins WTO 2001
Kyoto Treaty signed 1997
Did China join the WTO before, or after the Kyoto Treaty was signed?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
ThomC Posted 6:44 am
12 Jan 2009
Tata are also buying up coal resources abroad to sure up supply.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 7:27 am
12 Jan 2009
and yes GW also rammed through the midnight rule and reg changes to the clean water act and surface mining act to allow even more Mountain Top Removal in Appalachia.
It seems the coal corporations have a powerfull lobby and a lot of influence with GW
You can kiss the Kentucky and West Virginia Appalachian Mountains goodbye
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
rogerkb Posted 9:06 am
12 Jan 2009
Why in the world should China (or any of the rest of the devoping nations) give up on rapid economic expansion when the OECD nations have no intention of giving up on this goal either? If we want to give priority to future human welfare over short term economic growth, then the OECD nations have to agree to reduced resource consumption and reduced overall economic production in order to allow the underdevloped world to rise to meet us on some reasonable common ground.
I realize, of course that, that hell will freeze over before such a plan is adopted, but anyone who is preaching to China about the dangers of full bore economic growth and is not simultaneously proposing economic shrinkage in the OECD nations is either a gigantic hypocrite or completely self deluded about physical reality.
Roger Brown
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:21 pm
12 Jan 2009
So you're saying that there's some sort of conspiracy keeping BYD PHEVs out of the US because they have to meet US safe regs before they can be sold? Just as every other single highway speed car has to meet US standards?
And safety standards, applied equally to US and foreign car models, are "trade barriers?
Permalink
mrrightwing Posted 5:45 am
13 Jan 2009
Anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax. So says the rocket scientist who developed the carbon accounting model for Australia.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,240367 ...
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.
Permalink
mrrightwing Posted 5:52 am
13 Jan 2009
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:19 am
13 Jan 2009
Except that:
David Evans is not a rocket scientist
He's not even a scientist (He's an electrical engineer / computer programmer)
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-e ...
All he really did was create a piece of accounting software with a user interface
He's bluntly wrong
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_w ...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/david_evans_and_t ...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/david_evans_doesn ...
5. Not only is he WRONG, but the irony is that this is actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence that shows that greenhouse induced global warming is occurring.
___
*The Troposphere (Atmosphere above the surface)
*The Stratosphere (Above the Troposphere)
*The rest is too thin to matter
Sunlight turns into infrared radiation as it bounces off, and leaves the earth.
Infrared radiation causes heat.
The troposphere has been getting warmer, while the stratosphere has been getting colder.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
As if "something in the troposphere" is increasingly blocking infrared radiation from reaching the stratosphere.
The greenhouse layer is in the troposphere.
If it were the sun increasing it's output, the stratosphere would be receiving more infrared radiation, not less.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
http://greyfalcon.net/solar.png
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:19 am
13 Jan 2009
is to anchor debate on the probity of AGW evidence,
thus neatly precluding the advance of discussion onto policies of mitigation
(whereby the shills' benefactors will lose market share)
as is neatly demonstrated above,
it is surely time to constrain the intrusion of brazen denialism (such as this mrrightwing) from diverting threads addressing the mitigation solutions
and most especially the primary mitigation issue of the requisite international negotiations by which a treaty will be achieved.
No doubt there are still enough denialists around to justify some threads addressing their concerns,
but the question should be addressed:
how serious a threat must we face for the flow of constructive discussion to warrant being conserved ?
Kilo-deaths? Mega-deaths ? Giga-deaths ? A Mass extinction ?
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
sunanglais Posted 2:14 am
14 Jan 2009
Secondly, as can be seen from the recent downturn the Chinese masses are becoming restless as all those nice jobs in China start to decline. It has been the position of the RECENT Chinese leadership to move to a more capitalistic structure (and inevitably democracy will follow in the decades to come) because a) they can see that communism doesn't work and b) it is a way to maintain control on their vast (1.5bn) and diversified population.
They need to keep their people employed and fed just as the US does because otherwise there will be blood in the streets. The US shouldn't close the door to their products (especially their RE technology etc). There should be no Trade Embargos / Tariffs (just check out the history of the Depression to see why that is not a good idea) BUT the US should embrace a Carbon Price at Port of Entry (as with all imports).
Inevitably, with coal based production and oil based transport the Chinese will see the penalties to this type of trade. They will see the benefits of opening up manufacturing plants here in the US (along with our own entrepreneurs / businesses) to meet our demand as they use their own factories for their own South East Asia demand.
Don't forget as oil peak comes and goes we will need more local production in any case.
China is a very old culture, they have learnt the benefits of patience. They plan for decades in the future just like the Japanese. They can see the way the world is moving to a carbon free world. Give them a clear signal about Carbon pricing and they will rise to the challenge (and hopefully we'll finally see the light ourselves).
BTW 1 Just to be controversial I think that we all should be given a personal Carbon Allowance. That way as I do my best to reduce my Carbon Footprint and most others drag their feet, they will be penlised and I will be rewarded. Nothing like a price to signal a change just look what happened here when gas hit $4 a gallon !!!!
Permalink