Tons of Work to Do

China, with emissions rising, urges developed countries to carbon diet

Posted at 1:08 PM on 17 Mar 2008

China's greenhouse-gas emissions are rising far faster than expected, according to a new analysis to be published in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. Researchers estimate that by 2010, China may spew 600 million more metric tons of greenhouse gases than it did in 2000; to put that in perspective, the total emissions reductions pledged by signatories to the Kyoto Protocol is 116 million metric tons. But per capita, says Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, China's emissions are still much lower than developed countries. "It's like there is one person who eats three slices of bread for breakfast, and there are three people, each of whom eats only one slice. Who should be on a diet?" he says. "If per capita energy consumption is viewed in the context of the fundamental principle that people are all born equal, then I don't think some people are justified in talking about the large emissions of China, as if they have the moral high ground."

sources: SPX, Beijing News.Net, NPR, Daily Times

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (8 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

No One Is Innocent Here

People in the U.S. and other rich countries clearly consume far too much individually, but places like China, India, and Indonesia are grossly overpopulated, so China is consuming far too much as a country. We need to lower both consumption and population, not one or the other. Furthermore, Even if the world were to come to the current level of China's individual consumption, that would still be way too high. We need to all learn to live more simply so that others, such as all the non-humans, may simply live. Ecopathic dreams about everyone being rich should not be the goal.

by Wolverine at 1:58 PM on 17 Mar 2008

Relative Guilt

No one may be innocent, but the amount of guilt is relative. I was teaching kids yesterday who live in one room homes with no running water, and just a bit of electricity. I assure you that their "innocence" is much great than thine and mine.

If "China is consuming far too much as a country", then what is America doing? And what would you suggest to Chinese individuals that you would not suggest to yourself (and me) and other Americans?

If we really want to solve the problem, rather than form circular "point the finger" squads, we need to be fair to everyone, not just concerned about protecting our own positions.

patrick in Beijing

by bookerly at 11:07 PM on 17 Mar 2008

Bargaining on Emissions Is Nosense

Bargaining on Emissions Is Nosense, both need an overall biological and social framwork within which the transformation of commerce could be a complished and practiced.

A shared framwork was needed that could harness the talent of business to solve the world's deepest environmental and social problems.

Carbon tax, Cap-and-Trade,or dual currency system? All these are the methods to solve the problems. We should take practice and perfect them.

by Bulkee at 2:27 AM on 18 Mar 2008

Avoiding the guilt

660 Million tons more than year 2000? So, despite all the reassuring press releases from the PRC's government about their commitment to the environment, their own selfish interests prevail. Isn't it about time for all the great minds who have been ranting about America's terrible guilt for not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol absurdity to admit the truth: the Kyoto Protocol, as written, is an absolute failure, and the US signing on to it would be to lend credibility to a gerrymandered piece of trash. Giving the 'developing nations' of China and India free reign to pollute as much as they please, while forcing the industrial nations of the world to "save the planet" by giving up their own manufacturing bases, is just beginning to exact its inevitable toll.

by edarnold41 at 11:33 AM on 18 Mar 2008

Response To Patrick

"If 'China is consuming far too much as a country', then what is America doing?"

As I said in my previous post, "[p]eople in the U.S. and other rich countries clearly consume far too much individually." If the individuals consume too much, than the country as a whole consumes too much. To top that off, the U.S. is also grossly overpopulated (and still growing), just not as bad as China or India. Between its overconsumption and overpopulation, the U.S. is almost certainly doing more to destroy the planet than most other nations combined.

"[W]hat would you suggest to Chinese individuals that you would not suggest to yourself (and me) and other Americans?"

I advocate the same for everyone (except for the minuscule number of hunter-gatherers left who are not causing any harm): First, I have no kids, car or cell phone, and I advocate aiming for those goals. I consume virtually nothing on a regular basis except food and drink (material things don't interest me).

So that's it: 1) If you want a family adopt kids. If you must have your own, have just one so we can reduce human population; 2) Evolve already and stop lusting after material things, they won't make you happy anyway, and human consumption of them is destroying the planet. (Perhaps the teachings of Siddhartha should be as required as the three Rs.)

by Wolverine at 2:44 PM on 18 Mar 2008

To Wolverine

Fair enough. Except for the cellphones (smile). Most people in China don't have landlines, they have only cellphones. I suspect that this is better overall for the environment. OTH, they are busy catching up with Americans in terms of Internet Access.

Cars?? I got rid of mine long ago, but have trouble telling others they MAY not have one, when I did have one for a number of years. Don't really like the things myself, but I was young once and did then.

I prefer the carrot to the stick. My experience is it works better (smile). Got any carrot ideas?? (Seriously, I never seem to have enough!!).

by bookerly at 5:32 AM on 19 Mar 2008

China will emit more than the rest of the world...

...at it's current rate of emissions increase, by 2030, China will emit more pollution and GHGs that the entire PLANET is right now. In other words, it's pollution output will exceed that of all the countries COMBINED.

China may use the per capita argument, but if they use it for much longer to stave off pollution controls, then the argument will be void, 'cause within a few years their per capita WILL BE THE HIGHEST in the world.

by Tasermons Partner at 6:51 AM on 19 Mar 2008

Carrots

Carrots work best when combined with sticks. Here are some I can think of:

Make public transportation free and subsidize pay for it with a gasoline tax. If people see that they can save a lot of money by using public transit and foregoing driving, many, if not most, will choose public transit.
I think China has already got its carrot/stick down with family planning. The only carrots I can think of are 1) providing free and totally unrestricted birth control and abortion and 2) providing free health care and education (to any college level) for families that limit themselves to one child, and significant annual bonuses to families that have no children.

Re cell phones: I don't see how cell phones could be less harmful than landlines. The wires for landlines can be placed under the ground, so aside from digging into the Earth, which is insignificant in an urban area, there is no harm from them. Cellular technology, on the other hand, emits radiation, both from the phones themselves and from the antennas that broadcast the signals. Moreover, communications towers, such as those used for cell phones, kill 5-50 million birds per year in the U.S., I assume about the same in China.

On a personal level, I'm beyond sick to death of idiots braying loudly into their cell phones in public or answering phones at inappropriate times. I'm tempted to show them how wolverine or grizzly reacts naturally to being annoyed like that!

by Wolverine at 11:21 AM on 19 Mar 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?