On the heels of Bush's bluster of the week, China today released its first comprehensive plan for climate change. But as the NY Times reports, it too isn't much to sing about. Said Ma Kai, head of China's National Development and Reform Commission:
Our general stance is that China will not commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets, but that does not mean we will not assume responsibilities in responding to climate change.
Thus, the plan calls for improving energy efficiency, but doesn't include any hard caps on carbon emissions.
This is pretty scary news, since by now we all know that no matter what the rest of the world does, we sink or swim with the decisions of China, and in the near future, India. On one hand, it's hard to blame China for protecting its booming economic growth -- after all, per capita, China still consumes only a fraction of the energy we do. On the other hand, the rationale seems myopic at best. Said Ma:
The ramifications of limiting the development of developing countries would be even more serious than those from climate change.
But with experts predicting vast numbers of climate refugees from the Yellow River basin due to shrinking glaciers, a sharp decline in arable land, and consequent overcrowding of the cities (with no food to eat), it's hard to imagine what that "more serious" would look like.
Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets
Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 4:03 am
05 Jun 2007
China's another matter, of course. And I think we need to negotiate "bilateral reductions."
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:32 am
05 Jun 2007
given the scale of change required, and the immediate impacts
on economic competitiveness of unilateral or merely bilateral binding targets,
might I suggest that we actually require,
both for its negotiability and for its function,
a treaty that is, at least eventually,
omnilateral ?
With regard to its terms, there is clearly no point in asking
for pro rata % cuts between, say, US & China.
What is required is that China be allowed to raise its per capita emissions
a little nearer to those of the US,
while the US makes heavy cuts to converge with the Chinese per capita level,
with an outcome, by an agreed date, of convergence to per capita parity of emissions
at a level that allows the 2 degrees C threshold to be respected.
This framework for the treaty, which is proposed by both the EU Parliament and by the Africa Group of Nations at the UNFCCC,
is known as Contraction & Convergence.
It is about equity for survival.
In brief, it is about:
CONTRACTION
of global GHG emissions to respect the Earth's capacity,
and
CONVERGENCE of all nations'GHG emission rights to per capita parity.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:04 am
05 Jun 2007
By China's prespective, the US and western nations made nearly all of the mess thats still floating up there.
_
One could also note that China's population is over 4x larger than the US.
So if you measure it on a per capita basis, they aren't going to pass us any time soon.
_
Either way, if the US doesn't lead the way, they they aren't going to do anything.
_
Our best bet is to create scalable cheap renewable energy which they can then install instead of coal power.
Since asking them to handicap their growth by sequestering their coal CO2 just is NEVER going to happen.
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:53 am
05 Jun 2007
I am not a "bright green" Pollyanna (I'm being rude it this post, aren't I?), but I do think that we should try for a win-win in all of this ... at least until we know the limits to "bright green" futures.
Permalink
JMG Posted 7:07 am
05 Jun 2007
http://www.columbiabasinenergyreport.com/Archives/Unrestr ...
SURVEY SHOWS WESTERN COAL PRODUCTION UP 5.4 PERCENT IN 2006; MORE OF THE SAME FOR 2007
Posted on Monday, June 04, 2007 (PST)
The National Mining Association's recently published 2006 Coal Producers Survey documents the nearly 3% jump in coal production seen in 2006 that bettered the record level set in 2005.
Production in the West came in at 671.9 million tons, accounting for 609.4 Mt or 57.9% of 2006 production. Western coal production jumped 5.4% in 2006, with Montana, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming all experiencing production increases.
For 2007, coal producers believe Western coal production, primarily from the Powder River Basin, will continue to increase.
Looking forward, the survey found coal producers believe production in 2007 will either equal or better the 2006 mark.
According to the survey, which examined preliminary data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), coal production in 2006 stood at 1.053 Mt, an increase of 27.1 Mt, or 2.6%, over the 2005 record production figure.
According to EIA information analyzed in the survey, coal produced east of the Mississippi River accounted for 42.1%, or 444 Mt, of total 2006 production, marking a drop of 0.9% from 2005. However, Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia and Illinois all experienced production increases in 2006.
Of the 43 companies surveyed, 46% reported that they expect 2007 US coal production to be at the same level as last year, while 26% expect another record year and 9% expect production to dip in 2007.
...
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Aubrey Meyer Posted 12:22 pm
06 Jun 2007
A DVD commissioned by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change presenting Contraction and Convergence has been distributed to all UK MPs and Peers. It is endorsed by numerous eminent spokespersons who are interviewed at length on the DVD.
Copies of the DVD can be obtained by written request to GCI aubrey.meyer [at] btinternet.com
Alternatively, as a large file [overnight download] interview material is retrievable at this link: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_ ...
The DVD also includes a heuristic animation of Contraction and Convergence for a risk analysis of different rates of sink-failure endorsed by prominent industry persons. This is a large file [overnight download] and is retrievable at this link:
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_ ...
Context is precaution equity CBA propertity. A context animation the arguments, presented at the Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA] international conference in Venice last October, is here: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Final_presentation.exe or
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/CandC_model_context_animatio ...
[Note: - touch buttons to advances within scenes and touch logos to advance between scenes].
GCI's definition statement for C&C is here: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf
General referencing for the C&C provenance is here: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/links/detail.pdf
Some promotional material is here: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Movies/Contraction_and_Convergence_ ...
Permalink