Apparently, based on some recent threads on this site, there's some dispute about the role China plays in the Great International Climate Change Debate. I'm absolutely snowed under right now, but I want to make two quick points:
It is indisputable that the U.S., and developed countries generally, bear a vastly larger share of the responsibility for climate change than China, and developing countries generally. This is true whatever perspective you take: physical responsibility (we put the vast share of the CO2 up there), moral responsibility (we're hurting people that are largely defenseless and innocent of wrongdoing), financial responsibility (we're much richer and more capable of solving the problem).
China must nonetheless act, and act quickly. Whether or not China's getting a fair deal, the situation is what it is, and if the country stays on its present course it's going to doom all of humanity to a horrendous future. If you doubt that, read this new Mother Jones feature on China. It's astonishing. The country is consuming resources and producing pollution -- climate pollution and every other sort -- on a scale that's difficult to comprehend.
Check out some stats from an accompanying piece. China is:
• The world's largest consumer of coal, grain, fertilizer, cell phones, refrigerators, and televisions
• The leading importer of iron ore, steel, copper, tin, zinc, aluminum, and nickel
• The top producer of coal, steel, cement, and 10 kinds of metal
• The No. 1 importer of illegally logged wood
• The third-largest producer of cars after Japan and the United States; by 2015, it could be the world's largest car producer. By 2020, there could be 130 million cars on its roads, compared to 33 million now.
More:
• China produces half of the world's cameras, 1/3 of its television sets, and 1/3 of all the planet's garbage.
• China uses half of the world's steel and concrete and will probably construct half of the world's new buildings over the next decade.
• China used 2.5 billion tons of coal in 2006, more than the next three highest-consuming nations -- Russia, India, and the United States -- combined.
• It has more than 2,000 coal-fired power plants and puts a new one into operation every 4 to 7 days.
• Between 2003 and 2006, worldwide coal consumption increased as much as it did in the 23 years before that. China was responsible for 90% of the increase.
• China became the world's top carbon dioxide emitter in 2006, overtaking the United States.
• More than 3/4 of China's forests have disappeared; 1/4 of the country's land mass is now desert.
• Until recently, China was losing a Rhode Island-sized parcel of land to desertification each year.
• 80% of the Himalayan glaciers that feed Chinese rivers could melt by 2035.
• In 2005, China's sulfur-dioxide emissions were nearly twice those of the United States.
• Acid rain caused by air pollution now affects 1/3 of China's land.
• Each year, at least 400,000 Chinese die prematurely of air-pollution-linked respiratory illnesses or diseases.
• Of the world's 20 most polluted cities, 16 are in China.
• Half of China's population -- 600 to 700 million people -- drinks water contaminated with human and animal waste. A billion tons of untreated sewage is dumped into the Yangtze each year.
• 4/5 of China's rivers are too polluted to support fish.
• Dust storms used to occur once a year. Now, they happen at least 20 times a year.
• Chinese dust storms can cause haziness and boost particulate matter in the United States, all the way over to Maine.
• Currently, up to 36 percent of man-made mercury emissions settling on America originated in Asia.
• Particulate matter from Asia accounts for nearly half of California's annual pollution limit.
• Environmental damage reportedly costs China 10 percent of its GDP. Pollution-related death and disability heath care costs alone are estimated at up to 4 percent of GDP.
• In 2005, there were 50,000 pollution-related disputes and protests in China.
• China's middle class is expected to jump from 100 million people today to 700 million people by 2020.
There's more in the original piece.
Point being: the international community is heading for a cliff, squabbling like teenagers about who took a wrong turn and who should grab the wheel. It's insane. Contra Eric, Al Gore is exactly right: both countries are obliged by human decency, nay, by simple survival instinct, to act immediately to reduce emissions. This is true for both countries no matter what the other one does.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
Eric de Place Posted 5:46 am
13 Dec 2007
Sure, Dave. But what I was objecting to was a type of discourse (Al's in this case) that has the effect of leading people to weight China and the U.S. about equally. As you note, they're not even close in terms of moral responsibility, nor practical ability to address the problem.
I'll step out a bit further. I'm actually not sure that "human decency" requires China to adopt drastic emissions cuts in the near term. Heck, there are still plenty of Chinese who don't have sufficient material goods to keep body and soul together. To borrow an analogy from a commentor to my previous post, the US is a bit like a glutton gobbling up all the available food. Then when the people arive and start consuming even one-third as much food as the glutton (per capita), it's not right for the glutton to cry: 'hey, no fair, we're all going to run out of food. Human decency requires you to stop eating.'"
The problem, as I see it anyway, is a terrible tangle of split incentives, historical injustice, and an ongoing tragedy of the commons. From a moral perspective, I just don't think there's now a clear or easy way to fix our problems -- though fix them we must. So, yes, the Chinese should adopt emissions cuts -- for the sake of all of us -- but it hardly seems fair.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:56 am
13 Dec 2007
I also agree that what China's engaged in right now, however authoritarian its execution, however horrific its environmental consequences, is, at its root, profoundly humanitarian: lifting millions and millions of people out of grinding poverty.
Still, abstracted away from all these confounding considerations, the fact remains: they are on a road that's heading toward a very bad place.
The obvious solution is for the wealthy West to give them a shitload of money to shift from dirty development to sustainable development. I'll advocate for that until I'm blue in the face.
But they can't wait on that -- they can't use its absence as an excuse. They need to act on their own, no matter what we do; we need to act on our own, no matter what they do; everyone has compelling internal reasons to act, independent of what the other players do. That's my point.
grist.org
Permalink
Eric de Place Posted 6:17 am
13 Dec 2007
Yep. Whether or not it was clear, that was sort of the point of my original post: we in North America should just STFU about how big and dirty China is. Instead, we should actually do something about the mess we've created.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:21 am
13 Dec 2007
The Republicans are insane to ignore such huge future opportunities. Too bad them.
It is a dark dank day in Seattle.
Permalink
NVMecp Posted 8:13 am
13 Dec 2007
http://www.efficientenergy.org/Top-Ten-Green-Cities-in-th ...
this article shows who is and who isn't. I also too the carbon calculator at http://www.earthlab.com and I can see that I am not the one who is polluting, you guys should take it too to reaffirm that you aren't either (I could be preaching to the congregation here)
Permalink
knotaname Posted 9:37 am
15 Dec 2007
China will have to act in the next five years as their environmental degredation is not sustainable at the current rate. They know it, we know it and that they will be hurt more than the West as a result of GW. For the reasons listed in the post.
What they need is technology, which the west already has (but chose not to adopt for financial reasons), technologies like solar and wind power, cleaner and safer nuclear reactors, hybrid vehicles, more efficient buildings materials, etc.
Also regarding the last post, while it is commendable for these cities to average out to less than 9 tons per capita. We still have a long ways to go. Case a point, Chinese burns 3.8-tons per capita, Indians 1.2 ton/capita. As a nation, US burns 20 tons/capita. It is clear we have an obligation to act with or without the Chinese or the Indians. But I hasten to add they will follow, because they have to.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:55 pm
20 Dec 2007
The thing about China (and India to follow) is that the country is roughly (okay, very roughly) five times the size of the US. So, it's raw numbers on anything will be the biggest. But this is a meaningless comparison, what matters are per capita figures.
And before you go all ballistic on me and insist "it doesn't matter, China has to do something!!", it IS doing something.
Read the Grist posts about China's CAFE standards, and it's investments in renewables.
Is it doing enough?? Probably not, but look around and find a developing country that is doing more. Find developed countries that are doing more.
Criticizing China (or any developing country) is a waste of time, what we need to do is help.
We can stand and watch (while loudly criticizing) the man trying to push his cart out of the mud, or we can roll up our pants, climb in and help push.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink