Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
West Blamed for Rapid Increase in China's CO2
The full extent of the west's responsibility for Chinese emissions of greenhouse gases has been revealed by a new study. The report shows that half of the recent rise in China's carbon dioxide pollution is caused by the manufacturing of goods for other countries - particularly developed nations such as the UK.
Cyclists pass thick pollution from a factory in Yutian, China in 2006. A new report shows that half of the recent rise in China's carbon dioxide pollution is caused by the manufacturing of goods for other countries - particularly developed nations such as the UK. (AFP/File/Peter Parks) Last year, China officially overtook the US as the world's biggest CO2 emitter. But the new research shows that about a third of all Chinese carbon emissions are the result of producing goods for export.
The research, due to be published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters, underlines "offshored emissions" as a key unresolved issue in the run up to this year's crucial Copenhagen summit, at which world leaders will attempt to thrash out a deal to replace the Kyoto protocol.
Developing countries are under pressure to commit to binding emissions cuts in Copenhagen. But China is resistant, partly because it does not accept responsibility for the emissions involved in producing goods for foreign markets.
Under Kyoto, emissions are allocated to the country where they are produced. By these rules, the UK can claim to have reduced emissions by about 18% since 1990 - more than sufficient to meet its Kyoto target.
But research published last year by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) suggests that, once imports, exports and international transport are accounted for, the real change for the UK has been a rise in emissions of more than 20%.
China, as the world's biggest export manufacturer, is key to explaining this kind of discrepancy. According to Glen Peters, one of the authors of the new report at Oslo's Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, about 9% of total Chinese emissions are the result of manufacturing goods for the US, and 6% are from producing goods for Europe.
Academics and campaigners increasingly say responsibility for these emissions lies with the consumer countries.
Dieter Helm, professor of economics at Oxford University, said "focusing on consumption rather than production of emissions is the only intellectually and ethically sound solution". "We've simply outsourced our production," he added."
By contrast, the Department for Energy and Climate Change (Decc), argues that these "embedded emissions" in Chinese-produced goods are not the UK's."The UK calculates and reports its emissions according to the internationally agreed criteria set out by the UN," it says.
However, the Decc admitted to the Guardian that "the footprint associated with the UK's consumption has risen".
Even if world leaders did agree a deal based on consumption rather than production of CO2, it is unclear how national figures would be calculated.
Jonathon Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, said: "Ultimately, the only place to register emissions is in the country of origin - in this case, China. Otherwise, the whole global accounting system for greenhouse gases will be undermined by the complexity of double-accounting."
The difficulty of measuring exported emissions is reflected in the fact that the new research focuses on the years 2002 to 2005. Relevant trade data is not yet available for subsequent years.
However, Dieter Helm believes these challenges can be overcome with political will. "It's complicated but there are ways of taking consumption into account, such as a border tax on carbon transfer," he said.
- Posted in
19 Comments so far
Show AllFor China to say "it does not accept responsibility for the emissions involved in producing goods for foreign markets" is ridiculous, since they profit from that production. This is classic economic "externalization" of environmental costs, which is just what got us into this mess in the first place. China shares responsibility for pollution from which they profit.
Similarly, nations consuming Chinese products certainly share responsibility, since consumption drives production. So guess what? We're all in this together, and we're all going down together. This finger-pointing is pure distraction.
The basics are: water, food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care. Soon enough, consumer cultures will be faced with the struggle to obtain the basics instead of comparing ipods to crackberries. Think about getting used to it.
A. Enviornmental laws and regulations are a luxuary of developed and rich nations.
B. Till there is scientific proof that there is man made global warming (and no, split opinion, computer models, incomplete reports do not constitute scientific proof) then few people will be interested.
C. Though standards of living and excess (thankfully) will drop, it won't be to basics or "back to the land."
D. The enviornmental community would be well advised to not step between Americans (or any other nationality) and their jobs.
Good morning, Thomas!
A. To say environmental laws are a luxury of developed nation is to reinforce capitalism as an "externalization machine" (phrase from the book THE CORPORATION, by Joel Bakan) that passes on real costs wherever and whenever it can. On the other side of the coin, as an occupational physician for whom I once worked said regarding third world production: "It's hard to worry about what's piped out of the back of the factory when you're still cutting hands off inside the factory." Nevertheless, my basic reply is that ignoring environmental costs is foolhardy.
B. I look at the global ecological system more holistically, and it is showing signs of collapse. The climate is changing, human ecological footprints are expanding, species are dying, fish stocks are plummeting, desertification is increasing, rates of change across many parameters are accelerating. Some say that we are in a global extinction event, and I tend to agree. "(F)ew people will be interested"? Seems to me people are VERY interested!
C. You've caught my pessimism in full bloom here. With a billion or more people in dire poverty (living on $1/day or less), many don't even have the basics. I can't say developed nations will fall to that level in 50 or 100 years, but I can't say we won't. I'm not a total catastrophist, really, but I would like people to reconsider "the basics" as a way to wean them from unconditional acceptance of excess. I agree that "standards of excess (nice phrase) will drop," and that is good. How far will they drop? Who can say? Your prediction is as good as mine (and mine fluctuates with my level of pessimism).
D. The environmental community has stepped between Americans and their jobs many times (think Spotted owls and salmon harvests), and it can get ugly for sure. Nevertheless, I don't fully understand your warning. Should we cut the tops of Appalachian mountains to preserve jobs? Should we deregulate fish harvests to preserve jobs? Does conservation (the more trendy term is "stewardship") have to be an adversarial process? Help me out here.
Let's hash through this a little and find out where we agree to disagree.
Cheers.
Good morning to you too sir.
(A)"To say environmental laws are a luxury of developed nation is to reinforce capitalism as an "externalization machine",(A2)"Nevertheless, my basic reply is that ignoring environmental costs is foolhardy."
A1. Never the less its a basic truth.
A2. True, but which enviornmental costs? And who designates which ones are important?
(B)
B1. "The climate is changing"....its alweays changing.
B2. "species are dying" Species are always dying...the question is should every one be saved? Does saving them tilt the ecological balance the wrong way?
B3. human ecological footprints are expanding....over population
B4. "Seems to me people are VERY interested!" Interested in the enviornment yes, and even there they are beginning to see where the rhetoric comes from and how some don't practise what they preach, global warming, not much.
C. "I can't say developed nations will fall to that level in 50 or 100 years, but I can't say we won't."
I can assure you that won't happen. Simple human nature will stop that.
D. I need to consider this a bit more...reply coming.....
This A, B, C, D thing is going to rapidly confuse me! This is also a very hard topic to discuss in short bursts, so forgive me if I confuse through condensation (but not condescension, I hope!).
A. Regarding A, it's true that developed nations have environmental laws because they can afford to (i.e., there is sufficient affluence to support environmental activists), but is it really a "luxury" to protect essential habitat, preserve agricultural soil integrity, or protect water, air and soil when failing to do reduces productivity for numerous reasons? I think environmental stewardship is an essential as opposed to a luxury, and less developed countries will learn this at their peril. The diminishing availability of fresh, clean drinking water in third world countries is a prime example.
B1. Yes, the climate is always changing. I am not a climate expert (I am a biologist), so I tend to defer to the majority of climate experts who contend that warming is really taking place. You and I may have to agree to disagree on this one.
B2. Yes, species all die eventually. A quote from BIOLOGY, 7th Ed. by Campbell and Reece (standard college biology textbook): "Extinction is a natural phenomenon that has been occurring almost since life first evolved; it is the current RATE of extinction that underlies the biodiversity crisis. Because we can only estimate the number of species currently existing, we cannot determine the actual rate of species loss or the real magnitude of the biodiversity crisis. We do know for certain that the rate of species extinction is high and that it largely results from an escalating rate of ecosystem degradation by a single species--Homo sapiens. Simply put, humans are threatening Earth's biodiversity."
We don't know which species to save because we never know if any species is a "keystone" species for an ecosystem. The rationale for preserving biodiversity is that it preserves genetic diversity, which is the fundamental source for adaptation to environmental changes (such as climate change).
I can't think of any examples where saving a species tilts the environmental balance the wrong way (but I'm glad you recognize the concept of environmental balance as valid). Introduced or nonnative species are probably a bigger threat to the balance than the loss of a single species.
B3. The human footprint expands with the growing population, yes, but also with the rising standards of living in developing countries (all those new cars in China, for example). It's a double whammy.
B4. Distinguishing rhetoric from reality... always the trick in the age of spin...
C. What the heck! I'll take your reassurance!
D. Look forward to your thoughts.
Hey! My son just came over so I'm signing off for a while. Catch you later....
FastEddie75
Regarding A, yes that is exactly what it is in many cases, a luxury. There has to be seperation of enviornmental concerns like global warming theory from preserveing agricultural soil integrity, or protect water, air and soil which are scientifically proven problems. "The diminishing availability of fresh, clean drinking water in third world countries is a prime example." Mostly due to overpopulation and migration in certain areas because of war or illegal immigration.
And once you seperate the concerns, then you have to seperaste the special interests in each. So each point is somewhat complex and must be considered seperately for clarities sake I'd say. I seem to remember you live in California? That would be one place to use for illustrative purposes.
B1. Lets put it aside and we'll just disagree because the majority don't support yes or no on this. The world's tempreture has actually been cooling the last 4 years, no warming the last 100 years some yahoo's claim. I sure don't know about the last 100 year claim. The Ozone hole is measurably smaller. Ice melting on one cap, expanding on another. No one knows for sure.
B2. "I can't think of any examples where saving a species tilts the environmental balance the wrong way (but I'm glad you recognize the concept of environmental balance as valid). Introduced or nonnative species are probably a bigger threat to the balance than the loss of a single species."
I can't either. Enviornmental balance is certainly important. But who wants to live in a fog of fumes!
B3. "The human footprint expands with the growing population, yes, but also with the rising standards of living in developing countries (all those new cars in China, for example). It's a double whammy."
I think of it as a triple whammy. This expansion so far has included only the 2-3 hundred million in the cities. What happens when the other billion decide they want a car?
C. What the heck! I'll take your reassurance!
Just don't take it to the bank...(no pun intended)
I have had two false starts replying here this evening. My brain is fried. I think I'll try again in the morning...
Nuts. Every time I start a reply I get toward the 1,000 word limit and still haven't made a cogent point. Guess I'll just let it slide for now. My apologies--you've earned a better response.
No apologies needed. Sometimes the moment passes. It will come again!
D. "The environmental community has stepped between Americans and their jobs many times (think Spotted owls and salmon harvests), and it can get ugly for sure. Nevertheless, I don't fully understand your warning. Should we cut the tops of Appalachian mountains to preserve jobs? Should we deregulate fish harvests to preserve jobs? Does conservation (the more trendy term is "stewardship") have to be an adversarial process? Help me out here."
"The environmental community has stepped between Americans and their jobs many times (think Spotted owls and salmon harvests), and it can get ugly for sure."
Yes, it got a little ugly and these were small confrontations. Consider it this way, a similar example....some here keep calling for riots in the streets, want to push the average American to do what they believe he should do, no matter if he agrees or not, simply because that is their choice and they want to force it on everyone.
They don't seem to understand people would push back, they won't accept that riot on their street. And the more they are pushed the greater the blowback when they get tired of being pushed. When people find out where money is being spent on "enviornmental" concerns like the (Sand Mouse) rather than bringing back manufacturing plants, rather than changing laws to help their family make a living, they won't take too kindly to it. I'm not sure I explained this properly, may be a bad example.....(reading it later, I think it is) Lets see what you think, I won't deletes it.
"Should we cut the tops of Appalachian mountains to preserve jobs?"
No. The coal can be obtained in better ways at a higher cost of course. The problem arises when you have folks saying stop mining coal. Or coal is just bad, get rid of it. The miners and their families (and communities) don't understand this as rhetoric (as near as I can tell), they actually believe these "enviornmentalists" may stop coal mining in a few years. Its absurd to anyomne that knows anything about power generation, but they take a lot of things literally.
"Should we deregulate fish harvests to preserve jobs?" Nope.....mostly.
"Does conservation (the more trendy term is "stewardship") have to be an adversarial process?"
It doesn't have to be, but I think it will probably be that way. Many enviornmentalists are bullies. Especially among the elites and their wannabes's that have 0 to lose.
in any case lets address one point at a time or I'll get confused....my simple mind need's a simple format.
FastEddie75 is right - China must accept the emissions on its books - not pass them on. At the same time, consumers must start paying attention to their own ecological as well as carbon footprint - western footprints per capita are huge, compared to those in many countries.
One thing that is often ignored is the disproportionately large footprints of the rich - not just in the west, but everywhere. After reading the book "How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth" by Hervé Kempf, it seems clear to me that the only way to effect any real change is by forcing the rich (I don't know...thru taxation?) to cut down or pay for their consumption - because, for centuries, whatever the rich and aristocrats have done, somehow manages to make it down the line - think about it.
We used to bring slaves to this country (USA) to take advantage of their cheap labor. Now we export our factories to poor countries for a similar reason: very inexpensive labor and few regulations. This way, we can provide inexpensive products for American consumers, and transfer some of the pollution our consumption creates to other countries. Given lax environmental and labor laws abroad, U.S. companies save money and increase their competitiveness in the global market, resulting in economic rewards for shareholders. And of course, we're helping those poor people raise their standard of living by giving them jobs. But what will happen to our cheap products when they demand to get paid as we do? It's in our best interest to keep them poor. Ah, capitalism and the competitive market. It betrays U.S. workers by abandoning them. It takes advantage of poor people, weak environmental laws, and cheap natural resources, all for individual profit. The system only cares about one thing, and it's not what's best for the environment or the majority of the people. Capitalism, as currently practiced, is great for a small percentage of people, but at a growing expense to our communities, our environment, other life, and our future.
New technology will save us, some believe. Don't hold your breath! Technology can never compensate for Earthly limits. Instead, expect our continued growth to bring more harm than good. We can make a choice to stop our growth, live more lightly upon the Earth and share more equally with one another, or compete our way to a self-destructive end.
Individual efforts to consume less will not have a significant impact on our growth problems. Changes in our laws and social policies are needed to discourage growth in population and high consumption. It will take many people speaking out against growth, demanding change from our elected officials to reduce our combined impact upon the planet. Until then, our problems - on all levels - will get worse. We're growing too big for our own good - locally and globally.
Instead of growing bigger, let's learn to take better care of the people who live here and the land we occupy, and support local business for local needs. Let's place an emphasis on quality, not quantity. At this point in human evolution and development, 'more' is not going to be better: for us, for the environment, or for the future of the human race.
PatrickB
"Capitalism, as currently practiced, is great for a small percentage of people"
I'm glad you added that. What we have now is not Capitalism with a capitol C, its small c capitalism for the benefit of the few as you point out.
"We used to bring slaves to this country (USA) to take advantage of their cheap labor"
I would remind you that we are still bringing in "slave" labor, we just call them illegal aliens now. Amd many are treated worse than any slave was in that period of our history. The exploitation of these people under the guise of "humanity" is worse than slavery in some ways.
It's time to buy local and boycott Made in China.
For over a year I've been putting back on the shelf anything from China. Of course that doesn't leave much else.
Pollution entropy wants to kill off our overpopulation that is standing in the way of diverse, sustainable ecosystems. Nature gets what it wants.
The US needs to take the lead in reducing GHG emissions. The stimulus plan has the beginnings of Obama's program. Once we show some real progress, it would be time to start certifying imports against OUR standards. Not only carbon footprint, but wages, child labor, pollution other than GHGs, safety...
As the customer, we have the right to audit how our stuff is made and reject it as necessary. It will also help level the playing field for American companies and labor. If the WTO calls it unjustified protectionism - screw them. But fist we have to clean our own house.
Appalachia can't stand anymore of this kind of progress and prosperity. We are being bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America. Wise County, Virginia coal is shipped to China to power their Empire yet here in Wise County, Virginia the schools are so old and outdated they can't even power up the latest technology our kids deserve to compete with kids from China. We are loosing our landscape, environment and health, the trade off is so we can go to walmart and buy cheap toxic crap regulated by China to sell to the USA. There are less jobs in Wise County because now all they have to do is blow the mountain to smithereens, gouge the coal out and fill in the valleys and streams. It's pure insanity. http://www.wisecountyissues.com
tmullins
Since you are on the spot, could you tell us how people really feel there about mining at all. Would they be happy to see coal mining cease? Or would they prefer mining to be done as usual rather than strip mining? What do the folks there really want in other words?
Thanks