China Passes US as World’s Biggest CO2 Emitter
China has overtaken the US as the biggest producer of carbon dioxide, a development that will increase anxiety about its role in driving man-made global warming and will add to pressure on the world’s politicians to reach an agreement on climate change that includes the Chinese economy.
China’s emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen next year.
But according to figures released yesterday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which advises the Dutch government, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China’s recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those of the US.
The agency said China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes. But per head of population, China’s pollution remains relatively low, about a quarter of that in the US and half that of the UK.
China’s surge to 8% more than the US was helped by a 1.4% fall in the latter’s CO2 emissions during 2006, which, analysts say, is down to a slowing US economy.
Jos Olivier, a senior scientist at the agency who compiled the figures, said: “There will still be some uncertainty about the exact numbers, but this is the best and most up to date estimate available. China relies very heavily on coal and all of the recent trends show their emissions going up very quickly.”
China’s emissions were 2% below those of the US in 2005.
The new figures include only CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes.
They exclude other sources of CO2 such as aviation and shipping as well as deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.
Dr Olivier said it was difficult to find reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from developing countries. But he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from the top spot. “Since China passed the US by 8% [last year] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions,” he said.
To work out the emissions figures, he used data issued by the oil company BP earlier this month on the consumption of oil, gas and coal across the world during 2006, as well as information on cement production published by the US Geological Survey.
Cement production, which requires huge amounts of energy, accounts for about 4% of global CO2 production from fuel use. China’s cement industry, which produces about 44% of world supply, contributes almost 9% of Chinese CO2 emissions.
The announcement came as negotiations to produce a climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012 are delicately poised. The US refused to ratify Kyoto partly because it made no demands on China, and a major sticking point of the new negotiations has been finding a way to include both countries, as well as other rapidly developing economies such as India and Brazil. Tony Blair believes the best approach is to develop national markets to cap and trade carbon, which could then be linked.
Earlier this month, China unveiled its first national plan on climate change after two years of preparation by 17 government ministries.
Rather than setting a direct target for the reduction or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions, it aims to reduce energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product by 20% by 2010 and to increase the share of renewable energy to some 10% as well as to cover roughly 20% of the country’s land with forest.
But it stressed that technology and costs are big barriers to achieving energy efficiency. What China needs, said a government spokesman, is international cooperation in helping it move toward a low-carbon economy.
Chinese industries have been hesitant to embrace unproven clean coal technologies which are still in their infancy in developed countries.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
The Warming Globe and Us
It’s More Than CO2
by Dan Brook and Richard H. Schwartz / May 1st, 2007
Dissident Voice
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/05/the-warming-globe-and-us/
…but let’s remember that this still represents about a quarter of the US emissions, per capita.
This will take the pressure off BushCo. They’ll be busy pointing fingers.
Thank you, PJD, for offering some perspective on this matter. That the U.S. regularly trashes China over the slightest blink is frustrating enough, but that the UK continues its an on-going campaign to denegrate China and the Chinese at every turn is a sad reflection on the UK’s sorry social ineptitude. Sure, China has problems, including those centered on the environment, but as Shane tells us, the real problems lie much closer to home.
It’s a shame that we continue to destroy (via combustion) the carbon skelton that nature has taken millions of years to build, just to produce very expensive electricity. While doing this we add more CO2 to the atmosphere than the oceans can absorb in 500 years.
Inexpensive (cheap) electricity can be made simply by harvesting the (free) Convective Available Potential Energy the sun creates each day in the troposphere, or the waste heat thrown away by our factories and power plants.
How can people from any nation, including China, build a plant to do that?
See www.vortexengine.ca You can then kiss GW good-bye.
It’s a shame that we continue to destroy (via combustion) the carbon skelton that nature has taken millions of years to build, just to produce very “expensive” electricity. Coal mining destroys the surface of the planet, while burning it add more CO2 to the atmosphere than the oceans can absorb in 500 years.
Inexpensive (cheap, non-polluting) electricity can be made simply by harvesting the (free) Convective Available Potential Energy the sun creates each day in the troposphere, or the waste heat thrown away by our factories and power plants.
How can people from any nation, including China, build a plant to do that?
See www.vortexengine.ca If we convert to this technology to generate power, we wil be able to kiss “good-bye” to the problem of global warming.
The burning of coal not only dumps CO2. It spews mercury and other chemicals too numerous to list.
State of the art technology should be required on all U.S. power plants quickly then as a requirement for trade with China they should be required to do likewise.
Energy impact of all products should be on the package.
Click on this website: http://money.com/2006/08/01/technology/towerofpower0802.biz2/
China and Australia are currently investing hundreds of millions of dollars to build Towers of Power. Each of the giagantic structures, higher than the Sears Tower, will produce enough electricity for over 100,000 homes and do so with a combination of solar and wind power. NO more fossil fuels or atomic power necessary.
Gore/Gravel/Greens/2008
Instead of spending $1 Trillion ($1000 Billions) on the war in Iraq, that money could have been used to develop new technologies for clean energy.
While we in the west should be quick to point out instances of “China bashing”, and as PJD and Sangze mentioned, if we do a per capita comparison of environmental impact the glutinous Americans are far outdoing the Chinese. However, this being said we should not hesitate to point out ineptitude and outright corruption in the Communist run Chinese government. The western model of “development” being pushed for by the CCP really just amounts to the average Chinese family judging their success in terms of a private car, multiple A/C’s, and various other appliances. And the way in which the housing problem is being solved in China’s urban centers is ridiculuous if not appaling. New developments pop up everywhere an inch of land is available, but without thought for sustainability or green planning. In fact in Beijing I noticed that many of the new highrises are empty, as the average person cannot afford it. And in the countryside the move is towards attracting corporate investments by offering low prices on land to build factories (land basically stolen from the farmers) and the promise of cheap labor. These factories are destroying the local ecosystems, and making safe and sustainable farming a thing of the past.
The US should only accept imports of goods (aka cheap junk) from countries who meet its own standards of production. The only real cure for the rampant consumerism occurring in the US is higher prices. When McDonalds is able to put a plastic toy inside every kids’meal, you know that goods are way too cheap.
China’s per capita carbon output is much lower than ours, however, this is not an excuse for inaction. Although we (the US) score very poorly in terms of wastefulness, we are doing better than many countries in terms of lower population growth. As far as the planet is concerned, per capita output of carbon is irrelevant; only total output matters.
At least power plants in the US are subject to some kind of environmental regulation, albeit inadequate. If China adds two new filthy coal fired power plants each week, the rest of the world’s efforts (woefully inadequate) will be in vain. About 130 new plants are in various stages of development across the US. THis too is unacceptable. If we keep burning coal, we will ruin any chances of a stable climate.
National Geographic May or June 2007 has a good story on China’s growth. It shows workers hauling concrete for $.40 cents/hour to build million dollar homes.
From comments on this forum, third world countries are being bombarded with pro-consumer rhetoric. So while we think we are making progress in the developed countries; capitalism is already at work recruiting new consumers.
The Brits got oh so concerned about democracy in Hong Kong just before handing the baton to China; needless to say, democratic rights hardly figured during British rule. Similarly, we now see the West reacting with horror when China overtakes the US as the world’s principal polluter. But countries like Canada and the US are actually FAR worse polluters than China on a per capita basis. The West must help China curb its pollution. More hypocritical talk is not needed.
Of course, when it comes to industry in today’s globalized world, a country isn’t a country. China’s top trade partner (after Japan) is the US, and then Europe.
So we really need to look at China as the off-shoring of Western pollution, as well as manufacturing. In other words, a certain portion of their pollution is OUR pollution.
I guess my point of view was to truthfull or something, it seems weird that my logic could not remain to be read and all these other views are now expressed, oh well so much for free ideas on the net.