Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiChina Alone Could Bring World to Brink of Climate Calamity, Claims US Official
Business as usual in China would lead to 2.7C rise by 2050 even if all other countries slash emissions, says energy assistant
China must be far more ambitious in tackling climate change if the international community wants to prevent calamitous levels of global warming, a senior US official told counterparts in Beijing today.
![[A worker at a Chinese cement factory. Cement is in demand in China, but produces 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions. (Photograph: /Reuters)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/china_cementfactory.jpg "china_cementfactory.jpg")
David
Sandalow, assistant secretary of state for energy, said the
continuation of business as usual in China would result in a 2.7C rise
in global temperatures by 2050 even if every other country slashed
greenhouse gas emissions by 80%.
"China can and will need to do much more if the world is going to have any hope of containing climate change," said Sandalow, who is in Beijing as part of a high-level negotiating team that aims to find common ground ahead of the crucial Copenhagen summit at the end of this year.
No effective deal will be possible without the US and China, which together account for almost half of the planet's carbon emissions.
Since Barack Obama entered the White House, hopes for a closer working relationship on climate change have surged along with a softening of rhetoric, but the official negotiating positions of the two sides remain far apart.
Before arriving for this week's talks, Todd Stern, the head of the US delegation, said China and other developing nations are not doing enough and "need to take significant national actions that they commit to, internationally, that they quantify."
China's position paper says the US and other nations that industrialised earlier should cut emissions by 40% between 1990 and 2020, as well as paying 1% of their GDP to help poorer nations deal with the consequences and causes of climate change.
But behind the scenes, there is scope for compromise on the transfer of clean-carbon technologies by the US and a commitment by China to scale back its emissions relative to economic growth.
In the coming weeks, the government in Beijing is expected to boost its climate credentials with a massive investment in wind, solar, nuclear and other forms of renewable energy.
Sandalow said China deserves credit for the effort it has already made, but he warned that there was mistrust on both sides that should not be allowed to derail the negotiating process.
Last week China's state-controlled Xinhua News Agency said the US position made it difficult to be optimistic about the prospects for a deal in Copenhagen.
"The key to getting negotiation results will be that the few developed countries do not shift blame on others and reduce emissions first," it said.
No details of this week's talks have been made public, but the Chinese Foreign Ministry described the meetings between Stern and deputy prime minister, Li Keqiang as constructive.
The sides agreed to "push forward the Copenhagen climate change conference to yield positive results," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.
Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, the Chinese government aims to move towards a low-carbon economy in its next five year plan, starting from 2011.
"We must incorporate addressing climate change and reducing the intensity of carbon dioxide emissions into national economic and social development plans," said the summary of a meeting on energy and climate change issues chaired by Premier Wen Jiabao last Friday, according to the central government website.
But even with the shift to renewables, clean car technology and ecologically friendly urban planning, China's overall emissions are not expected to drop for many years. The most optimistic scenario suggests 2020 may be a peak, but the majority of scholars and government officials do not think carbon consumption in China will fall until at least 2030.
12 Comments so far
Show AllThis strategy is as old as the hills. Look the world over, find a worse example, and then excuse your own problems because there an example of some place that is worse.
It is the same one used by our war and torture supporters.
"Well we are not as bad as nazi Germany..How dare you compare us" and then it business as usual.
Instead of looking the world over for BEST examples in order to improve our behaviour, we look the world over for the Worst examples so that there no reason to change.
Under such an enviroment we are all headed for the toilet and when it flushed it wont really matter what piece of crap is the last to go down.
The U.S. has no business lecturing China on emissions. Once we have made the necessary emissions cuts (and China is being pretty easy on what they are asking of us) then we can ask more from them. Our per capita emissions are much larger than theirs.
Nanoo
Thought it was on CD that I read in the past of a big city, millions, where all the traffic lights were solar power in China. Haven't heard of anything like that in the US.
Doesn't make any sense the way trade issues and transportation of goods is good for the environment. It is good for some corporate balance sheet however.
Last year or the one before I watched a doco, and in it they happened to ask a large Chinese factory owner about emissions and so on.
His reply was that since China as a whole has become the defacto 'factory of the world', they should be exempt from it all because of that fact or else the world won't able to function as it is.
The doco said that attitude was rife in China.
actually -- in many ways -- despite the fact that China WILL clearly adhere to its priority:
Economic development - and not sacrifice it for the sake of being the "main nation responsible FOR" fixing the pollution and global warming --
and while china is , naturally enough, demanding concessions and even CORRECTIONS from the VERY NATION -- namely the USA - and other western nations -- that HAVE POSITIONED THE ENTIRE GLOBE
into THIS ABYSS of climate change...
(namely: china is pointing out: "why should WE , the developing nations, that have been Forced to follow the RACE of "development" by the imposition of global economic system imposed by washington and capitalists for generations be MADE TO PAY and COMPENSATE for what the USA DROVE THE ENTIRE WORLD into committing: namely -- driving the planet into this condition?")
while china is holding out for what IT sees as the responsibilities of the Western nations , particularly the USA - in CORRECTING their own part - by , according to china - the USA bringing DOWN ITS pollution levels to BEFORE 1970...
China is ALSO ALREADY ahead of the USA on a national scale in promoting anti-pollution and energy renewal programs.
for example:
china is AHEAD of the USA in refurbishing its own factories to use technologies developed in china for "REUSABLE ELECTRICITY".....
and TAXING cars that are high polluters and giving TAX CUT incentives and government subsidies to LOW -polluting Cars....
does the USA ACTUALLY MATCH THAT?.
for every industrail pollution-quantity that china produces -- how many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS REQUIRE
several TIMES MORE ENERGY CONSUMPTION leading to POLLUTION to maintain THEIR lifestyles
in comparison to the same amount of Chinese Citizens?
why doesn't the usa address THAT?
oh wait -- that's UNAMERICAN..it's a matter of "choice and personal freedom"......
how many americans take a bath everyday with HOT WATER using electricity produced by polluting factories compared to china's citizens who likely would continue to do WITHOUT hot water - or compared to germans who have for many years used better home architecture to conserve energy , use BETTER technology to heat the home and water
in order to take a bath?
OR = considering that the USA has been the main HOLDOUT in the Kyoto Accord because ITS corporations don';t want to spend on better technology to conserve energy because of the profit motive --
is it just that the USA now tries to put china on the spot because china happens to keep developing , holds the USA's debt, but ALSO is NEEDED by the USA to help continue to FINANCE US DEBT before the next collapse
while US corporations and lifestyles attempt to "recover" the losing ground of :"prosperity" -- and -- the one that has to PAY FOR THE GRACE PERIOD "towards the next recovery" by the USA --
is china and developing countries?.
that is like having china - in addition TO FINANCING America's DEBT - also SUPPORT the USA's OWN UNwillingness to CORRECT what IT should have corrected long ago - to the levels of PRE_1970 economics.
Teddy,
Reasonable comments, however, might I suggest; eliminate the CAPS! They make your comments more difficult to read, not easier, are a bit insulting - as most of us here are intelligent enough to decipher meaning by ourselves without CAPS for emphasis (that is if your writing is cogent) - and, finally, they are just plain annoying.
The occasional cap for emphasis is pretty understandable. It's just that you seem to have perfected a technique for jumping back and forth with alarming frequency, every few words or so. I only say this to you because I would prefer to actually be able to read and enjoy your post without feeling like I'm trying to reel in a Spanish Mackerel!
Cheers.
As true as the warnings about China might be, it is pretty pathetic coming from the USA. A phrase with the words, "pot" "kettle" and "black" springs to mind. Remind me, which country refused to sign, much less implement, the Kyoto accords? Which country, rather than strengthening, weakened standards on water and air quality? Which country has dragged its feet on higher MPG standards for vehicles? Which country is definitely NOT LEADING the world in alternative energy development or implementation? Before we lecture China, we need to be the example. I would also point out that China is set to leap frog the automobile internal combustion engine model with the manufacturing of electric cars (Build Your Dreams). What have we got? The Volt, one model, set to roll off the assembly lines in two years; and that's if they can get the bugs ironed out....
It should now be clear to all that a Paradigm Shift on how electricity is produced is needed to save the planet from catastrophic Global Warming!!
Continued use of coal is not an option, nor is new nuclear capacity, which is far too expensive!
Concentrating Solar, PV, and Wind Farms are local and take too long to develop!
The only widely available source of energy to both the developed and undeveloped countries of the world is "stored solar" in the form of 1) Convective Available Potential Energy, CAPE, and 2) warm seawater.
The technology to capture this stored solar energy is here, using the upper troposphere as the heat sink to complete the thermodynamic power cycle. It is the Atmospheric Vortex Engine. http://vortexengine.ca
Why are we still waiting to develop its potential????
Wow... I'm listening to MSNBC and this nut case Republican woman Heidi Harris is pro a boycott of Chrysler. Why? Because they are "socialist cars". What a piece of shit.
' Then Chris M. asks her what about the people who loose their jobs if the company has to go into liquidation... She says "oh, let them adapt" Sounds like "let them eat cake". Yeah, they're just gonna go right out and grab another job. How to feed their kids and pay mortgage til...
Then another point Chhris says something about the gov running the companies and she says"well, the gov doesn't run anything well....
Wow, lady, get a brain!!!! So the fact that the CEO's of these companies let them run into the ground proves the private sector knows how to run business?
I had a really bad day at work
Found out that the funding agengies that pay our non-profit
monies are purposely coming down on how we do things, making them more, yes, more beauracratic, wasting more time in the office instead of out in the field looking for work for people with disabilities. Yeah, that's what I do , I am an Employment Advisor for people with disabilities. Well, I had a discussion with someone who knows and yes, they want agencies who 'can't handle it" to go under,. They only want a few agencies that are big and can handle doing many different kinds of services to succeed.
Mean while they are trying to put people to work who have normally been in what is called a "day program". These are not my regular clients. These are people who are very disabled in many ways, mentally retarded and mentally ill, or physically disabled and mentally ill, etc. People who are very dependent who have behavior programs in which they cannot be out of "line of sight", for any reason from shoplifting when in the community to actually not knowing where they are sometimes. Don't get me wrong. I think it would be great to have any one working who can possibly do so, including all these people. But EMPLOYERS WON'T HIRE THEM... especially withingn the time frame we have to get them hired. Employers, are extremely stingy. They'll say "oh, I can't carve a job for someone, it's not in our budget.' this is coorporate bull.. Transportation would be an for some. Only a few could learn a bus schedule and then be aware enough to use it to get to work. They do not know how to take care of their money. Some of my other clients don't eithre but they are independent enough to try and work. I say try because...Wow, I'm really gong on
What I meant to say was,LET'S BOYCOTT THE OIL COMPANIES!!!
LET'S BOYBOTT ELECTRICITY
LET'S BOY COTT ANYTHING THAT CREATES C02;
Sorry for all the caps..I mean if people really do go ahead with this boy cott that Heidi Harris is proposing, just to help cause or prove that Obama is wrong... then we need to make our point that if we all just stoppppp everything, then climate change will (hopefully not too late ) be solved....
thank you, initiate, for the glimpse into your world...my hope ebbs and rises, but my dream would be a world where individuals are much more connected to the planet for their survival, as opposed to dependent upon a store and a deed...if such a world were to come about, where any and all individuals understood their connectedness to the natural world, and adjusted their impact accordingly, and religiously, I would hope that individuals like those you describe would find compassionate others willing to share their lives out of the goodness of their hearts...I would also hope that the different skills necessary to interact with the natural world might not be so confusing to any, including those upon whose behalf you struggle...I have no idea how we will get there, but my gut always returns to replacing 'non-garden' space with growing food anywhere and everywhere possible...I hate to suggest something as trite as divorcing oneself from television, but use of time becomes a critical factor when contemplating any significant change in behavior, and much time is wasted on television...life is really not so hard...man has made it that way by dominating and dividing up 'ownership' of the land, eliminating any sense of group responsibility for the planet, forcing the use of money for survival, and allowing for all kinds of money-and-land-based evil, including the ultimate destruction of the very planet that gives us life...
Now, I'm going on...
If the world's governments can't reach a consensus in time, perhaps the world's citizens can...the problem we're facing isn't a dying economy, it's a dying planet due to our economy...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...all the changes on the list...local community governance and enforcement...personal rights and responsibilities restored...no more electricity or industry...no more jobs but keeping food growing all over, and keeping the place clean and happy...watershed perspective on environmental issues...philosophies centered on knowledge and preservation of the natural world, greater understanding regarding natural, consensual sexual urges, and celebratory indulgence in marijuana, and in singing and dancing and playing music...the planet is more than ready to work with us, once we stop working against her...
As the U.S. sits on its thumbs with regard to Global Weirding, it can still manage to free a finger to point at China. I wonder which finger? Hypocrites!!!
Terran
One can only hope that the Chinese are actually serious about their next five year plan in regards to transitioning to a low carbon economy, as the Chinese adherence to their own five year plans is spotty at best.
The Chinese mistrust of corporate America's putative mouthpiece, the US government, is well founded though. The whole situation is beyond depressing.