China has now nominated cutting its carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020 as a quantitative aim. Given the growth in the economy this will not see emissions peak for some time, probably not for two decades as we discussed in this post.
Dr Tony Haymet, Director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in an interview with the 7.30 Report, siad there were no climate denialists in China and their scientists were very concerned with the melting of ice caps and glaciers, which was proceeding apace. China, he said, would be affected more than most by climate change and their scientists knew that.
This is in addition to commitments of 30% by South Korea and Brazil by 37-39% plus an 80% reduction of deforestation in the Amazon.
The first link above also includes this statement:
India, the world’s fifth-biggest greenhouse gas emitter, has proposed a similar policy to link emissions to growth in gross domestic product
The flow of pledges has cheered Yvo de Boer, head of the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), leading him to think that “Copenhagen next month will be a turning point in the world’s climate change policy”.
Even Russia, generally considered recalcitrant, has indicated that it is ready to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 25 percent, if other countries do the same.
It seems the Russians have changed their tone warning of catastrophic consequences.
Meanwhile the poor nations have said they will not accept failure at Copenhagen.
In Canada things are a bit strange, but the Canadian Parliament passed a motion urging the minority conservative government to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels.
to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020, leading to a 60-70 percent reduction from 2006 levels by 2050. Still, based on 1990 levels, the Canadian carbon reductions would only amount to a mere 3 percent
Along with the US’ commitment effectively to 5% down from 1990 levels, Australia is straining every nerve to join the also-rans.
I believe Abbott and Minchin recommended to Turnbull yesterday that the CPRS should be sent of to a senate committee and come back to the parliament in February, when we know more about what will be achieved in Copenhagen. There is just a possibility that our mission might learn a bit. Seems rational to me, it’s just that the Government say that if the CPRS isn’t passed this year the deal on the table doesn’t hold. This raises the spectre of the double dissolution and it makes you wonder how much of the Government strategy is politics and how much about the future of the planet.
But that depends on what the real game plan is. Tony Kevin reminded us the other day that at Poznan last year we preached fine words in the formal sessions, but all the while our reps were undermining the whole process in the corridors.
I’ll be interested to see how the denialist camp reacts to this. I guess the Chinese government has finally had to do something about the level of air and water pollution.
Assuming average 8% GDP growth over that period, that still equates to a doubling of emissions over 2005 levels by 2020.
A big cheers to China, if Australia and the US are too spineless to lead the way on emissions reductions, it’s good to see someone is.
Glenn, it’s not exactly courageous on China’s part.
I’m with Robert in not being overly enthusiastic about the Chinese statement, but I guess that given their policy which has put growth above all other considerations it shows some appreciation that the environment needs some attention.
It still leaves their strategic approach to economic development and competitiveness very much in place.
Not much, but a (cautious) step in the right direction, I suppose – and makes rather a nonsense of the denialist thesis that “Australia shouldn’t go it alone”
– even the US is proposing similar sorts of cuts.
Slightly offtopic, but watching the CPRS debate in the Senate, surprisingly enough Penny Wong made an interesting point in response to questions from Christine Milne.
Milne wanted to know whether changing the gateway targets would require yet more compensation for polluters because of loss of asset values. Wong’s reply – in addition to arguing that anything outside the gateways is highly unlikely – was that because the compensation is supplied in the form of permits, the permits would become more valuable if the supply is further constrained and therefore no additional compensation would be required.
Nick Minchin would say this proves global warming is a Communist Party plot .
Yes, more nails in both the ALP and Liberal positions: ALP, the CPRS just aint good enough – Libs, there’s absolutely no international cover for your demented denialist faction. You’re walking nude on the world stage.
A reduction in intensity is not the same as a reduction in volume, especially given the expected growth rate for china. In a similar way a reduction in the rate of deforestation still means less trees not more. Frankly both bits of news are equally depressing. The msm must think the public is stupid, the only thing we can hope for is the denialists are right.
Dubai looks like an interesting little reminder that the GFC has still got some life left in it.
But given the common but differentiated responsibility principles David, its still pretty big from China – and substantial from Brazil.
Point is: Pressure’s on. There’s no “look over there, they arent playing ball” outs for Australia. This is partly what the LNP hardcore faction strategy was relying on.
If they actually stick to this I think it’s a lot better than anything we’re offering. Firstly I doubt China will grow at 8% all the way out to 2020. China’s growth is exceptional, but we saw amazing growth from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – all slowed as they got closer to living standards in the developed world.
Secondly, even at 8% growth it will leave them producing much, much less carbon per head than us. Considering our starting point Australia looks like going to Copenhagen with substantially the lowest offer of any major country.
Lefty E, on a scale, the chinese position is probably more meaningful than anything Oz is offering. And in the world context a whole lot more significant so I accept your point, esp with regard to the neanderthals in the liberal camp.
feral s, I take your point about Chinese growth inevitably slowing. Tony Kevin said the other day that China is now a third urbanised and in the next couple of decades will become two-thirds urbanised. This gives them a great opportunity to plan a low carbon society.
In this sense they’ll be streets ahead of us.
May not be much of a target but at least it’s quantitative.
Even this morning, Senate opponents of the ETS were still trotting out the “wait until after Kobenhaven, wait for the US, wait for our major trading partners China and India….”
While the target is clearly much less that one would want it is better than Australia is offering and off a lower per capita base.
This is where top ups through a clean development type mechanism could serve to ratchet uop the target. Unlike Australia, the Chinese aren’t predisposed against nuclear power and if we could switch a substantial portion of their intended coal upgrades to Gen 111 nuclear (thorium) then everyone is a winner. Australia has about 20% of the worlds Th-232 RARs.
Best of all, once a cookie cutter design was out there, we could bring these proliferation-resistant low hazmat plants here, cheap and ready to go. The anti-uranium people would not know what to say, because it would be something else entirely.
Assuming 2007 populations, China would have to REDUCE its CURRENT emissions from burning fossil fuels by about 65% to meet the world per capita target required for a 50% drop in world 1990 emissions. (Compared with a 92.5% reduction by Australia.)
The Chinese figures don’t take account of net energy exports so what is actually required will be less than this.
India is already about 30% below the emissions levels required.
Re: nuclear, Fran, we’re hearing a lot about cookie-cutters, but I’m still waiting to see the cookies.
Honestly, can we have one thread about this issue without nuclear being wheeled out? There are a few people around here that are starting to sound like they are on the take, with the way they run out the same old memes.
I couldn’t give a hoot one way or the other about nuclear power, but I hate what the mining of uranium is doing and will do to my state, its fragile ecosystems and even more fragile communities. The relentlessness of the pro-nuclear people here is just plain tedious, we’ve heard it already, we know the places to go to get measured discussion about the pros and cons of nuclear.
That’s up there with Ahmadinejad’s “There are no gays in Iran”.
Furious said …
Thorium is not uranium.
Fran, that’s rather disingenuous. I don’t recall you ever being anything less than enthusiastic to the point of zealotry about nuclear, regardless of whether the fuel source is uranium or thorium.
“Australia has about 20% of the worlds Th-232 RARs.”
You don’t say? Will it need to be mined?
Furious balancing, in this context I think nuclear really is a big deal (as distinct from the Australian context).
Unlike Australia, China is building a massive amount of new electrical capacity right now, and will do so regardless of what efficiency measures are adopted.
Unlike Australia, China is building nuclear reactors right now.
Unlike Australia, pollution from coal-fired power stations is killing orders of magnitude more people than Chernobyl ever did or will.
Given all that, encouraging China to build more nuclear power stations and fewer coal-fired ones is a massive win for the global environment, the local environment in China, and the health of the Chinese people. Heck, it might also be a net win for the Australian environment – have you had a look at the environmental damage coal mining does?
Furious B observed:
I prefer th-232 as a fuel for reasons I’ve outlined elsewhere, but even a fairly unremarkable 90’s Gen11 LWR is still preferable to the latest coal or gas plant, because, self-evidently, it pollutes less and what pollution it does produce is more easily managed. Of course, the longer term goal would be to establish IFRs which pollute least of all because they take existing hazmat and use that as their fuel. For those who oppose uranium mining, this ought to be an attractive option. Every KwH of power from an IFR reduces the volume of hazmat, and draws down the most weaponizable actinides.
As to whether th-232 has to be mined, you should know that its essentailly a non-merchantable waste product from zirconium and titanium recovery.
Here’s what the Australian government says:
For anyone wanting to read more about Thorium at entry level …
thorium
Note the cost of coal to health in the here and now …
Yes, Robert, I understand all that, I read this blog regularly as well as other sites that discuss the issue, my comments are directed at the repetitive way it is raised EVERY time in ANY discussion about the CPRS and often in the Australian context. It has become mantra-like from Fran and I think we are all familiar with her stance on the issue by now.
And yes, I have driven past Leigh Creek, to get to the mound spring areas further north, I know about the destructiveness of coal mining, of mining in general. Yes.
BTW: I’ve also witnessed some incredibly successful post-mining landscape restoration, but the extent of the damage from mining and associated industries in northern South Australia is mind-blowing to me, and I’m sorry if it sounds parochial, but I can’t just simply turn off my feelings about it for a greater good, that [nuclear or not] looks likes falling quite a bit short of achieveing the kind of environmental outcomes that you use to justify the destruction in the first place. I’m not sure if I’m making much sense with this, but really what I see is a both coal stations and nuclear stations being built at a rate of knots, it’s not either/or, it’s BOTH. So to present it as an argument that uranium will be an environmental win for the Australian landscape just seems naive to me.
Robert Merkel @23: “Unlike Australia, pollution from coal-fired power stations is killing orders of magnitude more people than Chernobyl ever did or will.”
Aren’t you comparing the plural with the singular? Hazards from many stations versus hazard from one? Check out how many nuke plants would be needed, and make a fairer comparison please.
Elise …
the way to do the calculation is to total up the output from coal, gas, nuclear and distribute morbidity or life years lost across that figure.
When you do you will find that morbidity from nuclear is a mere blip compared to the others.
@28, you don’t say Fran?
And before Bhopal, there were no major fatalities from that process either?
Which proves that the process is sound?
Umm, guys, have you read what they actually said?
This is an energy efficiency measure which might well cut pollution (a very good thing) while doing absolutely nothing, nada, zip for reducing CO2 emissions. Just as in the Indian government white paper, the PRC correctly and officially states CO2 has zero impact on climate.
And it’s still cooling too.
Reducing energy use per unit of economic growth means they want to follow countries like Australia and the USA in making their production of goods and services more efficient: it’s a productivity improvement.
Oh, and it’s internal. Nobody outside the PRC government is allowed to actually check their official figures. Which will be a state secret.
If you think this supports the total BS of the discredited AGW hypothesis, you still think the CRU has scientific credibility. The question is; just how gullible are you to swallow a line from beijing?
MarkL
Canberra
Obvious troll is obvious