Apologies for the long title.
I have just read through the recent piece by William Chandler of the Carnegie Endowment entitled Memo to Copenhagen: Commentary is Misinformed—China’s Commitment is Significant, and left to believe that someone drank a little too much carbon punch at the COP15 preparty.
Typically someone I agree with, Chandler goes off on a very interesting trajectory that basically looks to prove that the recent announcements from China are actually a HUGE step for China. Interesting, because through his analysis he uses so many examples of how they have made big changes over the last few years, that he essentially has shown that this is nothing more than the next step.
.. but first, let’s put some context into this.
China has, through their announcement, said that they look to cut emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45% by the year 2020. For some, this has been called by a HUGE step, and a much needed step forward for China. Others disagree. They say that China is essentially trying to pass off current plans as something new.. a regift.
Regardless, and honestly this is why I refrained from commenting when I heard the news, this announcement will in no way reduce China’s carbon footprint to the levels that everyone seems to think we need to be at before the world implodes (assuming you believe that 450ppm is the number). Not one atom. China will, unless the GDP of this country stops growing , continue to produce the same amount for more “Carbon” in 2020 in absolute terms.
Why I say absolute is that in real terms, it is possible that China cracks the carbon sequestration nut or my friends at GIGA have a few of their climate positive buildings online… which would in effect reduce the overall number.
But, back to the article at hand.
To support his assertions, Chandler uses some very interesting anecdotal evidence:
#1: “Criticism of the Chinese goal stems in part from the fact that it allows Chinese per capita emissions to continue to grow. The Chinese government argues that China is a developing country where energy services are low and hundreds of millions of people continue to lead hardscrabble lives. Today, Americans produce four times more carbon dioxide per person than the Chinese”
Can someone, ANYONE, please point him to the fact that this statistic, perhaps the most widely abused Chinese statistic in the entire debate, does not really reflect the footprint of the average city dweller in say Shanghai, Chengdu, or Tianjin.. and that while there are 900 million farmers who are largely off the grid and doing their best to skew the data, by 2020, about 400 million of those farmers have plans to join us city folk in a hugely carbon intensive lifestyle.
In short.. it is time to dump this statistic, and any analysis tied to it because, just like the urban / rural income gap, there is a very very wide margin between urban / rural footprints.
#2: “No developing country in economic history—other than post-Mao China—has cut its energy-related greenhouse gas emissions growth so deeply for so long.”
My answer to that: No country in the last 30 years had to. China is the first because it is the only, and while I agree that it is doing far better than many countries, it still doesn’t deserve the carbon free cookie
#3: Even though Chinese consumers use far less energy in their homes and cars, China’s energy and carbon intensity is comparatively high because its factories are relatively inefficient and its economy has a high share of heavy industry.
This is sure to change in the next 15 years as China plans to move 400 MILLION more people to the cities by 2020,and while industry will get more efficient, those gains will be lost through the costs of urbanization. Anyone happen to see the news today that China clocked a 100% y-o-y growth in auto sales?
#4: China once before did achieve a high rate of energy (and carbon) intensity reduction over a long period of time. In the 1980s and 1990s, post-Mao China was exceptionally wasteful in energy use, as were all centrally planned economies.
Anyone been in the eye of a hurricane? It’s like a break from reality.. everything is fine and lovely until the moment Mother Nature decides that she is not finished. To try and tie 1980s emissions cuts to what needs to be done is just not the right approach. China’s problems are much more serious now
#5: The current energy intensity policy (which the author of this paper has supported) can legitimately be described as severe, even draconian. The policy imposes hundreds of detailed industrial efficiency standards to a degree unparalleled in any other country in the world. The policy has forced closure of tens of thousands of factories, power plants, and production lines that failed to meet the standards.
An interesting anecdote to show that their recent announcement is somehow a HUGE deal. China is taking steps, and guess what.. they are going to be draconian. That is why things ARE changing for the positive.
With that, I am in complete agreement with Chandler on a number of fronts related to the fact that China really needs to work for an agreement in Copenhagen, and that failing to do so would be a huge let down.. but it would not be the end of the world any more than having a binding agreement would ensure real action on the part of the various signatories.
In fact, while Chandler states on several occasions that China needs to sign up to COP15 or risk climate change, I would say that it is too late. That, regardless of what happens in Copenhagen, China’s climate has already changed and the size of the problems are sadly growing (think water). Copenhagen is, and should continue to be seen, as an event that will ut pressure on parties to own up to the problems we face, but it is going to take a lot more than signing on the dotted line to fix the environmental issues that China faces. It is going to take real talent, time, technology, money, and commitment to do so.
So, while the US and China battle it out in Copenhagen, I will gladly be on the receiving end of 36 research papers and presentations from my students. Papers that are the product of 3 months of study on the issues that China faces, and after spending the last semester seeing these 200 future leaders dive into their topics, I find myself downright giddy with excitement.
Because at the end of the day, I know that they are going to have real solutions to real problems, and while maybe not tomorrow, they will at some point be in a position to implement those solutions.