backtop

Blog: Science China Becomes World's Top CO2 Emitter
Michael Asher (Blog) - June 21, 2007 9:24 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 200 comment(s) - last by Screwballl.. on Jul 12 at 1:20 PM

Coal mine fires in Baijigou and Urumqi, which have burned for more than 100 years, are visible from space. It's estimated that Chinese coal fires alone release 360 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. (Source: NASA)
Should we worry about China's growing CO2 emissions?

In an announcement guaranteed to change the face of the climate debate, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Office released figures showing China is now the world's top emitter of CO2. It was also revealed that China's emissions are now growing six times faster than U.S. levels, and the nation is building two new power plants each and every week.

Officials were quick to point fingers elsewhere. The UK's top climate change official, John Ashton -- who has spent years blaming Western nations for emissions -- says there's "no point" in blaming China. Greenpeace director John Saueven went further, saying ultimate blame for this lay not with China, but with those Western nations who buy its cheap products.

The Kyoto Treaty was roundly criticized for excluding China and other developing nations from emissions limits. EU nations signed, but then went on to increase its emissions twice as fast as the United States. Germany even went so far as to exempt its entire coal industry from Kyoto entirely. Non-EU member Canada signed as well, but since then has also increased emissions faster than the States.

But is this a cause for concern? All this occurs amid increasing controversy over carbon dioxide's possible role, if any, in global warming. Some research would indicate global warming has essentially stopped since 1998. Further research shows that CO2 increases in the earth's past were actually the result of higher temperatures, not vice versa. And new data shows cosmic ray-influenced cloud cover may be responsible the earth's temperature changes.

Environmentalist and author Professor David Bellamy calls CO2 not a pollutant, but "the most important airborne fertilizer" we have. In the earth's history, higher CO2 levels led to an explosion of plant life and a rich, diverse biosphere.  CO2 has never been a problem in the past; why should it be now?

Given all this, should we be worrying about China's new role as the world's top emitter -- or applauding it?

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
another climate myth from Masher
By jmn2519 on 6/21/2007 10:22:35 AM , Rating: 3
The biodiversity myth has been debunked by newscientist.

Here's the text:
According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that's because it is.

CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect, boosting growth by as much as a third. Higher temperatures can boost growth even further. Plants also lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter, so higher CO2 can decrease water loss in plants as they do not need to open these pores as much.

But it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.

While these experiments typically have found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water. (See also Climate change warning over food production.)

Actual yields do always not rise as much as overall growth, as the ratio of seeds to overall biomass tends to fall. The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account.
Levelling off

Some have suggested that the increase in plant growth due to CO2 will be so great that it soaks up much of the extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, significantly slowing climate change. But the levelling-off effect means that plants will not simply soak up ever more CO2. Furthermore, studies of past climate suggest that as the planet warms, the land and oceans will start emitting more CO2 and other greenhouse gases than they absorb.

Another complicating factor is ground level ozone due to air pollution, which damages plants. This is expected to rise in many regions over the coming decades and could reduce or even negate the beneficial effects of higher CO2.

As for food crops, the factors are more complex. The crops most widely used in the world for food in many cases depend on particular combinations of soil type, climate, moisture, weather patterns and the infrastructure of equipment, experience and distribution systems. If the climate warms so much that crops no longer thrive in their traditional settings, farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may not. Rich farmers and countries will be able to adapt more easily than poorer ones.

Predicting the world's overall changes in food production in response to elevated CO2 is virtually impossible. Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may greatly exceed the gains.
Biodiversity loss

Even if plant growth does rise overall, there could be a decline in biodiversity. Species that thrive on higher CO2 will drive others to extinction. In the long run, this might limit the resiliency of some ecosystems.

In addition, fertilisation is just one of carbon dioxide's effects. Increased CO2 causes acidification of water, especially in the oceans. Recent research has shown that the expected doubling of CO2 concentrations could inhibit the development of some calcium-shelled organisms, including phytoplankton, which are at the base of a large and complex marine ecosystem (see Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem). That may also result in significant loss of biodiversity, possibly including important food species.




By James Holden on 6/21/2007 10:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
Make them sign Kyoto? Oh wait, look how well that's turned out.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 11:06:30 AM , Rating: 2
While CO2 levels will promote new growth and sequestering, trees are still being clearcut far faster than they are being replaced. Which leaves one less path for CO2 to be sequestered.

China is also producing a lot of the solar panels that will be used in the coming years. Hopefully some of the new low-CO2 technology will find a home there.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:13:03 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
trees are still being clearcut far faster than they are being replaced
Not in the US. Our percentage of forest cover today is higher than it was 100 years ago, due most to the reclamation of farmland.

In any case, its not clear that trees reduce CO2 levels at all. They do while growing. But then they release it all back when they die. Its now thought that the carbon footprint of an 'old growth' forest is basically zero-- neither adding or subtracting any.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 3
You may be correct about trees being cut in the US, but around the globe (and we're discussing a global phenomenon) trees are being clearcut faster than they are being replaced.

quote:
In any case, its not clear that trees reduce CO2 levels at all. They do while growing. But then they release it all back when they die. Its now thought that the carbon footprint of an 'old growth' forest is basically zero-- neither adding or subtracting any.


Interesting. Maybe you should do some research on this subject. Do you know where coal comes from? It's mostly lignin biomass from trees that never completely decomposed. That's one way CO2 is sequestered and part of the reason why CO2 levels decreased from early in earth's history.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 11:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confident I've done more research on the subject than you. Coal is indeed sequestered carbon. But it takes million of years to form, and the percentage of the original biomass that actually converts to coal is extremely tiny.

Tossing out the word "coal" to try and prove that planting trees will have any effect on CO2 levels anytime in the next 10,000 years is just silly.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Rovemelt on 6/21/2007 12:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Based on your statements here, I'm confident you haven't done more research than I on the subject of organic structures in coal.

If you plant a tree, it can sequester tons of CO2 in just 100 years time. Yes, it takes a long time to become coal. However, it's still sequestered carbon while it's becoming coal. A tree, living or dead and partly decomposing, still has taken a net amount of CO2 out of the atmosphere. That CO2 that the tree used to grow can be put back into the atmosphere by completely decomposing the tree (which may or may not happen depending on the environment) or burn it completely to ash. Generally speaking, the cellulostic components of the plant or tree are decomposed first. The lignin-like aromatic structures are generally most resistant to biotic decomposition and typically contribute the most, by weight to the aromatic component of coal.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TomZ on 6/21/2007 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 3
It amazes me how smart people reach such wrong conclusions, even with all the facts in front of them.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/21/2007 12:29:06 PM , Rating: 3
Now you're just being ridiculous. The great masses of coal formed on the planet were primarily from swamp and oceanic biomass, where being submerged greatly facilitated sequestration. Not from old growth forest.

Yes a tree locks up carbon when its growing. But when it dies, it falls down and rots, and releases it back. Depending on conditions, it might release 100% of it. If conditions are just right, some 0.1% may be sequestered permanently.

Go into any forest in the US. Some of them contain tens of billions of trees. By your figures, over the past 100 years alone, they've sequestered a few tons per tree. Where's all that carbon at? Dig down in the ground and measure. You won't find anything but tiny amounts.

Some of those forests have been growing for hundreds of thousands of years. And yet you won't find coal or permanent carbon deposits under them. Long-term carbon sequestration by trees is not only extremely slow, but it affects only a trivial percentage of the carbon in them.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ratwar on 6/22/2007 3:28:08 AM , Rating: 3
Well, don't write your thesis on these theories. You see, when a tree dies, a clearing forms, allowing young trees to grow (I'm kinda tempted to break out into a chorus of 'Circle of Life' here...). These trees lock up Carbon, so the dead tree doesn't actually release any net Carbon into the atmosphere, unless new trees are unable to grow in the location. This means that forests do provide a sink, which by locking in the Carbon, keeps it from entering the atmosphere and thus increasing CO2 levels. Yay for Environmental Engineering!

Of course, sinks are only a temporary solution, and in the long run, we'll need to decrease our CO2 production rate (Or dump iron into the Ocean, which could wreck that ecosystem, and by the same note, the fishing industry). Even if CO2 isn't the source of Global Warming (or Man-Bear-Pig for that matter), changing the composition of the atmosphere WILL cause changes. Obviously, these changes may be good or bad in the long run (some would even say that Global Warming might be a good thing in the long run), but why play Russian Roulette? Especially when changes (whether bad or good) will have high initial costs.


By therealnickdanger on 6/22/2007 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 3
I just want to chime in and say how much I love the DT comments section. So much good info!


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/22/2007 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the dead tree doesn't actually release any net Carbon into the atmosphere, unless new trees are unable to grow in the location
Did you read the posts before this? This is just what I said. In the stable situation of an old growth forest, the total carbon footprint is zero. Old trees are dying and releasing carbon; new trees are consuming it. The forest is not sinking any additional carbon. And (as another poster mentioned) forests in high latitudes are believed to actually increase global warming, as they absorb more sunlight. If you thhink you're going to plant a tree and reduce global warming you're wrong.

In the very long run, plants do sink CO2, especially submerged plant life in swamps and the ocean. In fact they've been able to change the composition of the atmosphere from several thousand ppm CO2 down to a few hundred. Had this process continued unchecked long enough, they would have eventually brought it down to near zero, effectively killing all the plant and animal life on the planet. Yay for natural environmental engineering eh?

Through most of history CO2 was much higher than it is now. There was no runaway warming or any other bad effects. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Methane is 20 times worse, water vapor 40 times worse. At the current rate CO2 is increasing, we have a hundred thousand years before it even gets back to where it once was.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By Ratwar on 6/22/2007 11:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you thhink you're going to plant a tree and reduce global warming you're wrong.


As you've said yourself, growing trees take up carbon, therefore, planting a tree will remove Carbon from the atmosphere and place it into the biosphere. Old grown forest do not reduce CO2 concentration, but planting a tree in a field does reduce the amount of Carbon in the air.

Yes, CO2 concentration has changed before, but so has the earth's climate. Just because it has been at higher concentrations than it is now doesn't mean that high concentrations are good for us. The black death (Yay for hugely bias example!) was naturally occurring.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By greenchasch on 6/22/2007 11:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
trees take up carbon, therefore, planting a tree will remove Carbon from the atmosphere
Until that tree dies, then it releases it all back. Therefore not reducing global warming at all.

You also ignored this bit. If you plant that tree outside the tropics, the amount of sunlight it absorbs is a much bigger factor than any CO2 change. It slightly raises global warming, exactly the opposite effect you say you want.

But then, some people just love trees; they don't need logical reasons to plant them, right?

quote:
Just because it has been at higher concentrations than it is now doesn't mean that high concentrations are good for us.
Likewise, it doesn't mean those concentrations are bad for us either. Changing CO2 doesn't look like it'll affect us much either way. It might make things slightly better, it might make them slightly worse. Either way we have much bigger problems to worry about.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By LogicallyGenius on 6/23/2007 11:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
If dead wood can be burnt and releases Carbon compounds then from where did they go in the wood.

These evil people will tomorrow say burning wood dont release CO2. I hope someone kills such people


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By TheGreek on 6/26/2007 4:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope someone kills such people

Another shining example of the kind of reasonable debate that occurs amoung the MAsherians. No extremist remarks found here. MAsher's contributions just bring out the best in people.


RE: another climate myth from Masher
By hubajube on 6/26/2007 7:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose your purpose here is to discredit masher, huh? That way, we'll all follow the "party line" blindly instead of weighing the the facts presented and making our own decisions from them.

You'll say next that I am blindly following masher and you are here to "set us free" so to speak.

If you truly wish to free our minds, present your case and leave it for us to figure out on our own. In reality, that's all any of us can do.


<