China has officially passed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. This is likely to prompt a lot of misinformation and obfuscation from the usual quarters.
So here are some simple truths about China and global warming that everyone should remember as the debate proceeds.
1. The U.S. still vastly outpaces China in terms of per-capita GHG emissions, and will for the foreseeable future. That's because the U.S. is a much more industrialized and richer country, with a GDP of around $13.2 trillion compared to China's of $2.5 trillion.
2. The West in general and the U.S. in particular are responsible for the vast majority of manmade greenhouse gases presently in the atmosphere. (That, after all, is the reason we don't have room for any more up there.) The West also consumed many resources to the point of near-depletion, among them petroleum. That means China will be denied the ability to develop in the same way and at the same pace the U.S. did. In addition, China will have to contend with the already-inevitable impacts of global warming, which it did not create. This is an extraordinarily unjust situation for China -- socially, economically, and morally.
3. China still contains millions of people in abject poverty. Economic development there is an ethical and political imperative. For people in the West to discourage development in China is both futile and unethical.
4. If China develops along the same path as the West, it will condemn all of humanity to a Lord of the Flies future of disease, extreme weather, violent conflict, starvation, and mass immigration. Again: if China develops based on fossil fuels, humanity is f*cked.
5. Sustainable development for China -- using green energy and cradle-to-cradle manufacturing -- will be much, much more expensive than the default (Western) path to industrialization.
6. The only way China will choose to develop in a more sustainable-but-expensive way is if somebody else pays for it.
7. Who should pay for it? Those who reaped the benefits of fossil fuels and filled the atmosphere with carbon. Us. The West. Principally the U.S.
There you have it. The logic of the situation -- the moral logic, the economic logic, the climatic logic -- points in one direction: we need to start sending a lot of sustainable development money (and technology, and know-how) to China.
(And India, and Africa, etc.)
Anybody want to tell me where this chain of reasoning breaks down? And if doesn't, why so few people forthrightly face its conclusion?
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Threaded
Matt G Posted 4:37 am
20 Jun 2007
Ha. You know the answer to that. Few people have no monetary agenda. The thought of sending our hard-earned money to the third world is unthinkable to all but the far sighted.
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:47 am
20 Jun 2007
5. Sustainable development for China -- using green energy and cradle-to-cradle manufacturing -- will be much, much more expensive than the default (Western) path to industrialization.
China has an entirely different cost structure than we do. They get to use slave labor in coal mines for goodness sakes ... but, it isn't all bad when you look at sustainable technologies. They benefit from a different cost structure there too. I'm not saying they should kidnap kids off the street and make them insulate buildings ... but retrofits & etc. are surely cheaper than in the west.
The challenge, and I'm sure many are working on it (can you invite them over to Grist?) is to find a plan that works with Chinese (or India) cost structures.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:53 am
20 Jun 2007
Look at us---when Monbiot et al. point out that we have to stop flying, people shriek as if he suggested that the West should isolate itself like pre-Perry Japan and kill any outsiders who happen to wander in. Huge tracts of virtual Grist real estate are taken up in endless discussions about how to keep the personal automobile going.
People in general are quite willing to talk about whether 80% in 2050 is enough, or whether it should be 90% by 2030, or 60% by 2040 --- what they're not willing to do, as so many here are apparently not willing to do, is change their behavior tomorrow.
The quibble is over your use of the phrase "near depletion" to describe what the West did with many resources, including petroleum. I think you know that peak oil is nothing like the point of near depletion--rather, it is the point of maximum production. The only thing depleted at peak is the ability to raise the peak and produce at a greater ratel about half of the original endowment of the resource remains.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:13 am
20 Jun 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:48 am
20 Jun 2007
...it's still a dictatorship -- one in which human rights and freedoms are foreign to an American's concepts.
The same goes for India (remember the Richard Gere kiss).
So before the unholy alliance of Greens and Globalists goes jumping for joy about Chinese ascendancy, think about how you, as even a middle class person, may be treated, if China comes to dominate.
Sorry, but I feel no sympathy for the businesses and governments of these countries, until they reform and adopt a Bill of Rights.
I do fell deeply for the people, the bottom 90 percent of whom, are treated badly.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Billhook Posted 7:59 am
20 Jun 2007
it's a delight to see these points listed, as I've got very bored of the China-bashing nonsense
that the MSM have been getting frantic about this year.
One minor tweak might be worthwhile should you publish the list elsewhere,
namely in item 6/., China simply hasn't the wealth to invest wholesale for sustainable production -
it doesn't have that choice - thus:
"the only way China will be able to invest for sustainability is with its share of international payments.
In this context I think Odograph is mistaken to emphasize China's cost strucure being less than that of industrialized states -
surely the sustainables investment cost required is relative to China's current, far lesser depletionary investment costs.
The issue of western populations' willingness to change, that JMG raises,
is convoluted and demands much scrutiny.
The observation I'd make is that change that is phased over a known period of years,
to achieve a known set of targets,
for a known issue of moral self esteem as well as simple prudence,
with a known reciprocal actions by other signatory nations that are of crucial relevance to national wellbeing,
this is a sort of change that few politicians have yet got around to discussing in public.
When they do, I think they're liable to find the public keenly interested
in just what is the global climate policy framework
that can facilitate the agreement of that necessary quality of change.
For the record, that framework is called Contraction & Convergence [C&C].
India has just followed the examples of the European Parliament and of the Africa Group of Nations at the UN,
by declaring, de facto, for C&C.
What puzzles me is why there is so little willingness here on Grist
even to engage in this or any other framework's discussion,
let alone to face up to campaigning for its formal adoption at the UNFCCC.
Do Gristers still need to understand that without the requisite treaty,
allocating (tradeble) national emissions entitlements equitably,
under a declining annual global GHG budget,
we have no serious chance of avoiding catastrophic climate chaos ?
I mean no offence whatsoever,
but I'd really like to know where Gristers are at on this seminal issue.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:51 am
20 Jun 2007
surely the sustainables investment cost required is relative to China's current, far lesser depletionary investment costs.
Not "less" so much as different, which makes it less easy for us furriners to pontificate on what exactly they all should do.
Permalink
noolympics Posted 3:08 pm
20 Jun 2007
In China, more 90% of the population are living in the rural area. Less than 0.1 billion people are living in cities. Amongst these city dwellers, less than half of them own air conditioners. And Yet China has managed to become the most polluted country in toxic gases, such as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and ozone many years ago!
An European environmental group just confirmed yesterday that China has become the #1 emitter in carbon dioxide since 2006.
Now, the question is, who in China is producing all the evil pollutants to pollute planet earth? Definitely not common people in China.
The main sources of air pollution in China are illegal power plants and sub-standard industries. These power plants often collude with local officials of the Chinese Communist Party by bribing them. Some of them are even owned by the Chinese Communist Party members.
Yeah, you can blame international corporations for buying "polluting" products from China knowing that they will eventually pollute the world. However, the Chinese Communist Party should also be sanctioned!
The ONLY solution:
Impose "pollution tax" on some products made in China! No consumer is willing to save that kind of dirty money just because they want to buy some dirt cheap Chinese commodities! Eventually, all consumers, from advanced nations or from developing nations, will suffer if no action is taken.
Who will benefit from air pollution? Evil businesses and dictators in developing nations!
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 9:02 pm
20 Jun 2007
China is ONE people
The West
>> often turn into kleptocracies ruled by thugs.>>
Your path is to hell, unless you REALLY WAKE UP !
China will beat the rest hands down.... but I guess y'all are poor losers, so make war, uh ?
You will still lose.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:22 am
21 Jun 2007
This is an oligarchy based on provincial strongmen with a complete lack of care for its citizens: one of the largest capital punishment programs in the world, anyone? It's a corrupt state that is capable of the production based on a cheap and plentiful workforce and an idealistic attempt to 'modernize' at the expense of its natural capital, people included.
I don't think that we need to help them by giving them money. That is ludicrous, it's something like giving Google lots of money two years after its inception, only because they haven't been in the game as long as Microsoft has.
Horrible reasoning.
Maybe if we provide orders on green tech, and pressure their gov't, we might do a better job.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 4:14 am
21 Jun 2007
not least because the US cannot afford the consequence BAU.
Having lead the world in poisoning the atmosphere,
and having twice accepted the denialist duo of oilmen in the Whitehouse that have effectively blocked remedial measures,
most Americans seem clueless as to what kind of barrel developing countries have them over.
Given that destabilization of the global climate is intensifying,
and that developing countries' regimes can tend to afford politically to lose > 50,000 casualties for every 1,000 of losses that Washington could stand,
and that Katrina demonstrated the utter pitiful incompetence of US crisis management capacity,
- it seems pretty obvious that the US will have to accept equitable terms with the global community,
(and that includes China, India, and Brazil),
and that the longer that agreement is deferred, the more painful will be the conditions attached.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:26 am
21 Jun 2007
Facts are facts. China develops sustainably or we're all screwed. They won't develop sustainably without our help. To save our own asses, it's in our best interests to help.
I also happen to think that sustainable development would lead to political reform, but that's not a necessary part of the argument.
grist.org
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:51 am
21 Jun 2007
I think that because China is a world-wide power, and it truly is, we don't have to give them money, we have to give them incentives. Something along the lines of: we will reduce imports until a certain percentage is created sustainably, or maybe give stated preference to sustainable products.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 5:03 am
21 Jun 2007
your proposals for coecing China to your will
are remarkably similar to proposals I've heard for coercing the delinquent US
into more responsible behaviour.
How long would you like the US to be allowed for changing its ways
before such coercion is applied ?
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:01 am
21 Jun 2007
Permalink
JohnCaley Posted 9:29 am
21 Jun 2007
ah ha, and where do these "facts" come from ?
Politicians!... so you see, you know squat about facts.
I can assure the facts are not on the table, and the facts you think you know are contrived and congenially couched to placate panic.
I suggest YOU PANIC !
omegafour.com
Permalink
Rudmin the Green Posted 11:44 am
21 Jun 2007
The sustainability of BOTH China AND the U.S. is in the "must" category, I would say. At least if we don't want to turn Earth into Venus or Mars. Therefore, we need to do what WILL work, for both countries. How could we ever pay for China's green overhaul, if we don't pull it off in our smaller country first?
So our first priority is to set the example.
And that opens up an interesting opportunity...
Americans are the consumer kings of the world. We create the demands for products, and China rushes to fill our demand. So if we demand solar panels, windmills, buses, trains, bicycles, and small-scale farming tools...China will make them!
And then they'll be available to the Chinese, to complete their green retrofit more inexpensively.
I guess you would call this green-supply side economics.
I'm not an economist, so I'm sure there's some kind of Achilles heel in my hypothesis. Perhaps somebody smart can point it out.
Permalink
DaaiTouLaam Posted 7:24 pm
21 Jun 2007
Did I hear a mention of China's failure to meet its own emissions and improved energy efficiency standards? In fact according to the Working Report of Premier Wen Jiabao for 2007, China didn't just fail to improve its energy effiency, it became less efficient once again... using more energy and emitting more pollution to create the same dollar of GDP. The National People's Congress responded by gutting Wen's beloved Green GDP scheme, because it was producing embarrassing economic/ecological reports that would impair the promotion of provincial and local cadres.
As an editorial in the mainland Nanfang Daily put it earlier this week, China's environment isn't a problem of a lack of US funding or Chinese interest (see Article 26 of the PRC Constitution), but a political one, where too many party members' careers and finances are wrapped up in creating high GDP numbers at any and all costs.
Permalink