China’s annual greenhouse gas emissions seem to have passed the United States’. The U.S. will long remain largest cumulative contributor to global warming though.
China has overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, according to this Guardian (UK) article.
The Guardian writes:
The announcement will increase anxiety about China’s growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China’s emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world’s biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year [see previous post].
But according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 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 from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes.
If China has now passed the United States as the largest annual global warming polluter, it does nothing to absolve the United States of the moral and pragmatic responsibility to act swiftly and decisively to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions.
We in the U.S. will still be the second largest global warming polluter in the world, not exactly a comfortable position; and we will long remain the largest single contributor to climate change, as cumulative greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, not annual emissions, and we will long remain the largest cumulative emitter.
To me, China’s now larger role in global CO2 emissions simply highlights the urgency of taking a leadership position in the United States – enacting real reforms to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and do our share to solve this global crisis – so that we may turn to addressing the global community, particularly China and India, in a global solution.
Contrary to President Bush’s usual line of argument, pointing at China’s growing emissions does nothing to absolve the United States of it’s responsibility act to solve the climate crisis; rather it points to the urgent need to both enact smart domestic policies and lead a global response to this global crisis, and time is clearly running out.
As James Hansen (among other reputable climate scientists) has repeatedly warned (see here for the latest example), the Earth stands perilously close to tipping points that could send the climate crisis spinning beyond our control. For now, for better or for worse, humans and their activities are solidly in the driver’s seat of the global climate. But perhaps as little as 5 or 10 years of continued business-as-usual could push the climate crisis beyond our ability to change course – we’ll be rudely kicked out of the driver’s seat before we can turn this car around…
[Image source: The Guardian. A hat tip to Alisha Fowler at Global Climate Change blog and to Humaira Falkenberg]
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Ethanol Eco nomics…
Tom McClintock’s Citizens for the California Republic, 06-18-2007
The public policy farce that the “Green Governor” unleashed with AB 32 (the so-called “greenhouse gas” law) continues. Using their newly granted power to slash carbon dioxide emissions, the California Air Resources Board (all Schwarzenegger appointees) has mandated that every gallon of gasoline sold in California must contain at least 10 percent ethanol by 2010.
First, a few basic facts. Californians use about 15 billion gallons of gasoline a year, meaning that the new ten percent CARB edict will require about 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol. Corn is the most common ethanol-producing crop in the country, yielding about 350 gallons of ethanol fuel per acre. That means converting about 4.3 million acres of farmland to ethanol production, just to meet the California requirement. But according to the USDA, California currently has only 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of all kinds. Get the picture?
The entire purpose of this exercise is to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from California automobiles (although Californians already have the 8th lowest per capita gasoline consumption in the country). And that’s where the public policy discussion becomes farce.
As more acres are brought into agricultural production, the demand for nitrogen fertilizer will grow accordingly, which is itself produced through the use of fossil fuels. And the most likely source of new agricultural land will be converting rain forests to agriculture, although deforestation is already the second biggest man-made contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, ranking just behind internal combustion. And here’s the clincher: ethanol is produced through fermentation, by which glucose is broken down into equal parts of ethanol and – you guessed it – carbon dioxide.
Obviously, this edict will hit gasoline consumers hard: ethanol is less efficient than gasoline and it’s more expensive – meaning you’ll have to buy more gallons at the pump and pay more per gallon.
The bigger impact, though, will be at the grocery store. By radically and artificially increasing the demand for ethanol, the cost pressure on all agricultural products (including meat and dairy products that rely on grain feed) will be devastating. Earlier this year, spiraling corn prices forced up by artificially increased demand for ethanol produced riots throughout Mexico.
The CARB regulations will undoubtedly hit Californians hard – but they will hit starving third world populations even harder. Basic foodstuffs are a small portion of the family incomes in affluent nations, but they consume more than half of family earnings in third world countries.
So when the global warming alarmists predict worldwide starvation, they’re right. They’re creating it.
http://www.carepublic.com/blog.html?domain=tom_mcclintock&blog_id=136&category_id=&start=0&arcyear=&arcmonth=&curyear=&curmonth=&curday=
When China became the largest emitter of CO2 it also became the largest emitter of real pollution which is every other emission from burning coal other than CO2 (and water vapour)
Global warming is not really an issue because it ended in 2002 according to satellite temperature measurements. CO2 emissions are not really an issue because CO2 is beneficial for the environment.
The real and serious problem is pollution on a scale that has never been seen before and it is the Kyoto Accord that is responsible for this impending catastrophe. By focussing the attention only on CO2 emissions and politically excluding China from emissions controls Kyoto encouraged development without any pollution control in China.
Had the same pollution controls that the west employs been offered to China and adherence to pollution control been made as a requisite for doing business with the west, China would not have the current pollution problems, the economy would have grown just as quickly and the global temperature would still be the same.
Instead Kyoto promoters have created this pollution problem in China, wasted billions of dollars trading carbon credits and had no effect on climate.
In the poorest of countries where people have no sanitation or clean drinking water, the west has condemned these people to continued misery by imposing Kyoto restrictions and not allowing them the benefit from cheap fossil fuels that the west is developed on. The token adherence to Kyoto dictates by the west is to use only one square of designer toilet paper and then flush it away in an environmentally friendly toilet that only uses one gallon of clean drinking water
You know, this is one of those things that you think won’t happen for years to come. Then earlier this year the Guardian put out a report saying that China could surpass the US by November – and it’s only July.
It’s intriguing how we can watch the predictions roll in, which are then followed by the occurrence itself, yet by then we’re almost desensitized – “Well yeah, we knew that was going to happen.”
But does knowing that something is going to happen really make it any better? Should it not be a wakeup call that prediction after prediction on the environmental front are becoming true? And becoming true facts at a rate that we could never have imagined?
It reminds me of photographs you see and descriptions you hear of what tropical coral reefs used to look like. Even the most stunning underwater ecosystems today are no-where near what they were 50 years ago.
It’s so utterly important to keep our minds set on what we know is possible, what we know used to exist, and what we know we can recreate.
I can see green roofs of grass on every city building top. I can see three times as many trees lining major boulevards. I can smell the clean air as clean energy sources become abundant. I can hear people in meetings talking strategy about moving from being an oil company to an energy company on the leading edge of clean technology. And I know I can be excited about tomorrow, about five years from now, and about three decades from now.
Thanks for this post on China’s emissions. Let it be a reminder of our focus on energy, our priorities of regreening our spaces, and deepening our targets to cut emissions.
All together now…
Zoë
P.S.
Norm –
Satellite measurements account for temperatures in the upper layers of the hemisphere. Global warming is an issue solely focused on ground level temperatures on a global average. (2005 was the hottest year on record in terms of global average surface temperatures.)
You’re dead-on that air pollution and other contaminants are a serious issue. And pollution and greenhouse gas emissions can be two very different things.
China is required by the Kyoto Protocol to submit reports on annual emissions. Tracking will be followed by reductions for China and other major nations in the next phase of Kyoto (2012-2016 approx.) You’re perfectly correct that China’s pollution and greenhouse gas emissions need to be regulated.
It’s also key to understand that global warming is the result of a cumulative effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions building up over the years to create this blanket of CO2 that’s keeping in the heat. China has added very little to this blanket over the past 50 years, whereas the US, Russia, and other industrialized countries have added most of it.
The Kyoto Protocol has had a focus on being fair, in that the ones that caused the problem will take the first steps to do something about it. Once they begin leading the way, and using their economic strength to influence the market changes needed on an international scale, then it’s feasible for less-wealthy countries to follow.
I agree that there has been a massive waste of time –
“In the poorest of countries where people have no sanitation or clean drinking water, the west has condemned these people to continued misery by imposing Kyoto restrictions and not allowing them the benefit from cheap fossil fuels that the west is developed on. The token adherence to Kyoto dictates by the west is to use only one square of designer toilet paper and then flush it away in an environmentally friendly toilet that only uses one gallon of clean drinking water”
Kyoto actually does not restrict lesser-developed countries to not using fossil fuels, out of the acknowledgment that industrialized countries have created little other choice. This is also one of the main reasons behind why industrialize countries must take major leadership stances – because they can.
We’re clearly not where we need to be yet. And the Kyoto Protocol is clearly not perfect. But it is a framework with over 170 countries that agree.
All of us that understand this much need to push hard to make sure that cuts in emissions (and also pollution) are made in the time frame needed.
Glad to see you on ItsGettingHotInHere, Norm – Hope to hear more from you.
Take care,
Zoë
Saturday, July 14, 2007
NO on AB118
* Currently $0.51 per gallon goes to oil refiners for adding 5.6% ethanol to California gasoline. That is about $500,000,000.00 per year corporate welfare.
* AB118 may add over $1.00 per gallon to additional gasoline profits in California
* This is about the money from your pocket
* The corn ethanol waiver in the 2005 federal energy bill will lower gasoline prices, improve miles per gallon, lower oil use and improve the air.
* NO on AB118. Contact your elected officials and share your opinion
(make copies and give to your friends)
Clean Air Performance Professionals
The Farce About Ethanol…
By State Senator Tom McClintock, Free Republic, 06/28/2007
In response to my blog, “Ethanol Economics,” Former Secretary of State Bill Jones (now Chairman of Pacific Ethanol), made five key points in his piece, “The Facts About Ethanol.” Just for fun, let’s run “The Facts About Ethanol” through the old fact-checker:
“Today, ethanol is about 65 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline in the California market.” That’s only after taxpayers and consumers have kicked in a subsidy of $1.50 per gallon – or $7 billion a year paid into the pockets of ethanol producers to hide the staggering price of ethanol production. And even with the subsidy, the California Energy Commission estimates that the new CARB edict will INCREASE the price per gallon by between 4.2 and 6.5 cents – on top of the tax subsidies. Ouch.
“Allowing a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline provides a 4 percent supply increase to the marketplace at a price far below current gasoline prices.” Not only is the price far ABOVE current gasoline prices (see above) but Bill ignores the fact that ethanol produces less energy than gasoline – meaning you’ll have to buy more gallons for the same mileage.
“CARB’s recent vote reduces our reliance on oil from overseas…” Let’s walk through the numbers again. One acre of corn produces 350 gallons of ethanol; the CARB edict will require 1.5 billion gallons of ethanol, in turn requiring 4.3 million acres of corn for ethanol production. Yet California only has 11 million acres devoted to growing crops of any kind. And that, in turn, means an increasing reliance on foreign agricultural produce, shifting our energy dependence from King Abdullah to Hu Jintao.
“Further, it sends a signal to companies like ours to continue to invest in California production to help make this state energy independent.” Yes, you can sell a lot more ethanol with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. You got me there. But it also sends a signal to the market to raise prices on every product that relies upon corn for both food and grain feed – meaning skyrocketing prices for everything from corn meal to milk. Remember the tortilla riots in Mexico in January?
“Pacific Ethanol uses state-of-the-art production practices that reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 40 percent compared to conventional gasoline.” Unless Pacific Ethanol has re-written the laws of chemistry, ethanol is produced by converting glucose into two parts ethanol and two parts carbon dioxide. The chemical equation is C6H12O6 = 2C2H5OH + 2CO2. (Memo to Bill: If you’re not using this formula, you’re not producing ethanol. And if you are, you’re also producing lots of carbon dioxide. Better check.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1858095/posts
* NO on “car tax” AB118 (Nunez)
* Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP) supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline oxygen cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.
* Some folks believe corn ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit
* Ethanol uses lots of water
* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year. Chief Sherry Mehl, DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never
* A corn ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion California oil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used
* About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the “renewable fuel” CAFE credit
A Background Research Paper on Corn Ethanol
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php
Should Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger consider a $17/gallon “fee” on corn fuel ethanol use?
* Lower price for food, gas, water, beer and cleaner air… and… funds for the budget from oil profit
* Clean Air Performance Professionals
What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BAOK1087DP.DTL