The government of China is quite capable of fulfilling these threats -
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

As long as the U.S. continues to pour garbage into the air no one can destroy the climate single-handedly. Perhaps the term you are looking for is "redundantly".

...given how the recent economic crisis has effected growth, and has forced dozens of major Chinese energy-guzzlin' plants to shut down, I question how they came up with numbers that say they'll need that much more energy in the coming years.

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.

China has very recently opened the largest thin film solar plant in the world.  They are multiple years ahead of the self-set schedule to install wind power and have become major players in the wind business.  They're the first to market a PHEV.

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."

This may constitue an offer we can't refuse.  Is the chinese position, either accept our lower cost plugin hybrids and wind and solar equipment or we will keep expanding coal use.  We won't go to renewables ourselves until you let our version of renewable energy into your mass market, afterall the US is still the primary consumer market.

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

I really doubt that the Chinese would demand that we buy their solar/wind equipment.  They can probably use all they can produce and if there is any extra they can most likely under price us on anything that isn't too expensive to ship.  (Like turbine blades, concrete, etc.)

Next, second time you've mentioned some sort of "trade restrictions" involving the BYD PHEV.

What are you talking about?

I have noticed a disturbing trend of late for Appalachian coal. They are starting to make some inroads opening markets for selling coal to China.

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.

So detroit gets a free chance to catch up?  BYD put in the time and money to mass produce plugin hybrids and they have to be blocked by bogus "safety" testing?

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

We need to supply China with a viable alternative to electricity creation.

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

1. As was brought up in the tax versus auction debate, what might be more important is if you put a carbon price on coal, BEFORE it has the chance of being sold overseas.

-David Ahlport

Denying China access to US coal may (or may not) slow the shameful damage in the Appalachians;
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

China is not going to curb it's economic growth for any reason, and certainly will never bow to environmentalist religious dogma, which would have us believe that CO2 is destroying the planet. China has perfectly competent scientists who obviously know better.  It will be interesting in the coming years to witness environmentalist reactions when CO2 increases continue and the world fails to come to an end.

Breck Henderson

Wasn't that the country that took a look at where out of control population growth would take it and instituted the "One Child" policy?

Why, yes, I believe it was....

When the corporat elite determined China was the place to go to reduce their labor and legacy cost the dismantling of the manufacturing segment of our economy was undertaken. I don't miss some of the old dirty smokestack industries but all we did was transfer the pollution and environmental problems to China.

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.

This one is just too ridiculous to pass up! According to Mr. Romm, 8 years of the Bush administration is why China is planning to blanket the world with it's coal soot, smog, and GHG. If memory serves, the Kyoto Treaty that GW didn't sign specifically allowed poor little third-world China to just exactly that, no? So if Al Gore had been president for eight years, the outcome would have been exactly the same, yes?
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.

If memory serves, the Kyoto Treaty that GW didn't sign specifically allowed poor little third-world China to just exactly that, no? So if Al Gore had been president for eight years, the outcome would have been exactly the same, yes?

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

It also appears that India is looking to source more power from coal. Tata power has stated in its annual report that it plans to install a further 10 GW of power in the next five years of which >80% will be from coal fired power.

Tata are also buying up coal resources abroad to sure up supply.

edarnold,

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.

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.

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

"So detroit gets a free chance to catch up?  BYD put in the time and money to mass produce plugin hybrids and they have to be blocked by bogus "safety" testing?"

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?

Are you claiming China was not consulted about its willingness to participate in Kyoto?  They were left out of the treaty precisely because Deng scoffed at the idea of slowing growth to placate silly Western liberals who already have their wealth secured.  Same with India.  It had nothing to to with the WTO.

Given that the obvious central goal of malign denialism
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

From a Federal government perspective not only does the US NOT have a strong moral standpoint to dictate to the Chinese, it is also true that we are owned by the Chinese so we can say or do very little.

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 !!!!