backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 150 comment(s) - last by JonnyDough.. on Aug 23 at 10:27 PM


China's smog problem was very apparent in the weeks leading up to 2008 Bejing Olympics. But are the U.S. and others to blame for part of this smog?  (Source: AP)
Carnegie Mellon University releases controversial study placing the blame for a third of China's emissions on U.S., international community

China, the world's most populous nation, is a rich and diverse melting pot which is expected to one day be the world's largest economy.  Burdened by the environmental costs of rapid expandsion fueled by coal power, China leads the world in carbon emissions and emissions of many other airborne pollutants.  The air quality is so bad that often major cities are blanketed by a thick smog that is enough to trigger asthma attacks and breathing problems in those not prepared with masks.

With such problems, few questioned recent reports from NASA, which placed the blame for 15 percent of the air pollution over the U.S. on China, blown across the Pacific by the jets stream.  While the critical report certainly seems accurate, a new report from Carnegie Mellon puts this picture in a new light and shifts the blame away from China.

According to the report, much of China's chronic air pollution problems are not the fault of domestic endeavors, but rather it places culpability on international corporations that have outsourced their production to China.  According to the report, 1.7 billion metric tons of carbon or 33 percent of its emissions are the result of producing exports to sell abroad.

In total, six percent of China's pollution, according the study, can be attributed to the U.S. as 18 percent of Chinese exports head to the U.S.  This amount adds up to a sizable 300 million tons of carbon.  Such conclusions are controversial, but some say they illustrate that the U.S. should not be so quick to blame China for international climate problems.

The "export emissions" are expected to grow as well.  China, like the U.S., is unfettered by having committed to global air quality pacts such as the Kyoto Treaty.  Thus it is literally free to pump as much pollution into the air as it wants. 

This report and others are causing some to call for changes in the way greenhouse gases are measured, particularly when considering national and international legislation.  They say only domestic production should count against a nation, and export production should be distributed to other countries' metrics proportional to their percentage of outsourcing to the nation.  Furthermore, some say companies should not merely look at current carbon emissions, but should rather focus on carbon emissions by products, over the entire product lifetime.

Christopher L. Weber led the team from Carnegie Mellon and worked with colleagues Glen P. Peters of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Dabo Guan of the University of Cambridge and Klaus Hubacek of the University of Leeds in the analysis.  He states, "We found that in 2005, fully one-third of China's greenhouse gas emissions were due to production of exports. This proportion has risen quickly, from 12 percent in 1987 and only 21 percent in 2002."

While he says China is responsible for fixing this problem, in part, he says the international community, including the U.S., also bears responsibility.  He states, "It is clear that urgent improvements are needed, especially in China's electricity sector.  Installing more renewable power and overcoming the financial and technological hurdles involved with new technologies such as carbon sequestration should be the first priority of both China and its export partners."

Whether China will follow his advice remains uncertain.  While China has vowed to squelch all its carbon pollution within a couple decades and is adopting alternative energy sources, its emissions continue to soar yearly, just like its economic growth.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

crackpots
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 9:44:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
much of China's chronic air pollution problems are not the fault of domestic endeavors, but rather it places culpability on international corporations that have outsourced their production to China.

Wow, so now the US is responsible for China's pollution because we are supplying their 1.3B people with jobs?

What a freaking joke. Whoever came up with the idea for this report is a crackpot. These people should also be blaming illegals on for part of the US pollution then.




RE: crackpots
By someguy123 on 8/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: crackpots
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 1:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
That doesn't work the way you think it will. If a corporation were to abide by domestic environmental standards when outsourcing, it wouldn't magically raise the environmental standards in China.

The stuff the company produced would cost more because it's either produced domestically, or the outsourced factory has to install extra tooling to meet the environmental standards. A Chinese company that doesn't care about environmental standards could manufacture the same stuff for cheaper. The public has shown it's almost always going to buy the cheaper item regardless of what environmental standards were followed in its manufactured.

So what will happen if your idea is implemented is 1) manufacturing still winds up in China, 2) your country's corporation loses market share to a Chinese corporation, and 3) China still doesn't have stricter environmental standards.

What could work is if a country could place tariffs on imported products manufactured with lesser environmental standards than if it had been manufactured domestically. Unfortunately, I believe the WTO has declared this to be illegal.

Without that, you're pretty much left with what we've been doing. Develop deep economic ties with China, then try to apply political-economic pressure to get them to clean up their act.


RE: crackpots
By SiN on 8/21/2008 6:38:01 AM , Rating: 2
Your right on the button there, except the WTO is a world organisation for coporations. They'd be hurting themselves if they didn't allow corps to outsource.


RE: crackpots
By kkwst2 on 8/21/2008 7:40:10 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, that's one of the first things you learn in economics. Regulations rarely have the desired intent, and that taxing the undesired behavior generally is a better strategy.

Unfortunately, those creating our environmental policies don't seem to get that.


RE: crackpots
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/21/2008 11:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
"Unfortunately, those creating our environmental policies don't seem to get that."

Oh they get it, clear as a bell. That's because the one's they will be taxing run, head up, or create the well funded lobbyist group to stop the taxes from being created. Funny, they may spend more in creating the lobbyist group and running the group then the taxes would cost.


RE: crackpots
By Ammohunt on 8/21/2008 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 4
Watch out! this same logic would make you responsible for the carbon emissions of the lawn mower owned by the neighbor kid you pay to mow your lawn.

Never ceases to amaze me how stupid people have become.


RE: crackpots
By Solandri on 8/21/2008 1:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh. Why the downmods? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less true.


RE: crackpots
By aurareturn on 8/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 10:40:41 PM , Rating: 5
> "The article is saying that we're in a way, outsourcing our pollution to China "

Stuff and nonsense. The US exports some $1,920 billion worth of goods and services each year. China exports significantly less, around $1,210 billion.

The goods we manufacture here for sale overseas are counted against us. Counting those made overseas for use here is nothing but a double-count bookkeeping scam.


RE: crackpots
By lennylim on 8/20/2008 11:35:10 PM , Rating: 4
Citation, please. Also a breakdown of the exports would be extremely helpful.


RE: crackpots
By NullSubroutine on 8/21/2008 12:04:03 AM , Rating: 5
He lumped goods and services together, which can be done mathmatically, but it is a red herring. The article mentions out sourcing production to China which in turns produces pollution. Unless I am mistaken but much of the "services" we export is not production and very well can't produce pollution like production can.

I do however, find that it is rather asinine to blame someone buying goods for the pollution the product they buy, without some way to see "x product produces x amount of pollution" label or fact site.

And if I am not mistaken we have a trade deficit with China, but I do not recall if that only counts goods or if it counts services as well.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 12:39:49 AM , Rating: 5
No red herring. First of all, services can and do create pollution, sometimes vast amounts, as the services of a wildcatting team attest.

Second of all, barring services, the US is still the largest manufacturing nation in the world, larger than China or anyone else. Much of those goods are sold overseas. This report counts against us goods we manufacture for sale overseas, yet goods made by others are likewise counted? China makes a toy for the US, and its our pollution. We make a Jumbo Jet for China, and its ours as well? It's utter nonsense.

Even worse is the fact that counting the acts of one nation against another goes entirely against basic principles of personal responsibility. In general, China chooses to use very dirty means of productions. That's their choice, and their responsibility. Not ours.

As I said, the report is nothing but a bookkeeping scam, made to advance a political viewpoint.


RE: crackpots
By Nefiorim on 8/21/2008 1:19:49 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
In general, China chooses to use very dirty means of productions. That's their choice, and their responsibility. Not ours.


Yet we (the consumer in general) choose to buy products made in China, regardless of how it's made.

With all the much needed bad press about child labour and people boycotting corporations involved in such practices, is it really that hard to do so to polluting corporations as well?

Your comment comes dangerously close to "the end justifies all means" and choosing to stick your head in the sand regarding those means. That's a more and more common mindset nowadays and it isn't helping the world in general one bit.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 1:42:11 AM , Rating: 1
> "is it really that hard to do so to polluting corporations as well?"

Anyone who believes boycotting would help the Chinese needs their head screwed on more tightly. For hundreds of years, the average Chinese has been doomed to a nasty, brutal agragrian life in the fields, unable to afford even the most basic essentials of a modern life. That's just now starting to change, thanks to foreign trade.

Just 50 years ago, Chinese were starving to death by the tens of millions. Just 30 years ago, the average income for a family was only a few hundred dollars a year, and even something as simple as toothpaste was a luxury most passed by. Do you really want to return them to that life?

Does China have a problem with pollution at present? Yes, but they're improving quickly. It's part of experiencing an industrial revolution. And without a doubt, China will clean up much faster than Europe or America did.

For anyone concerned with human health and happiness, boycotting companies that do business with China is an act so barbarous as to be criminal. The solution won't be found in such pudding-headed acts. As China builds wealth and prosperity, it will soon be able to afford things like modern pollution controls and regulations. In fact, it already is implementing many such....and their cleanup is being financed with their profits from foreign trade.


RE: crackpots
By sld on 8/21/2008 2:34:58 AM , Rating: 3
They were starving to death 50 years ago because of Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward (an industrial revolution corrupted by Communist thinking), not because of natural disasters that affected agricultural production or a boom in births.


RE: crackpots
By Parhel on 8/21/2008 11:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone who believes boycotting would help the Chinese needs their head screwed on more tightly.


It might not directly help the individual Chinese family, but it would certainly make our pro-democracy, anti-communist, human rights stance that we take with the rest of the planet a lot more believable.

quote:
Just 50 years ago, Chinese were starving to death by the tens of millions.


Chinese families aren't even allowed the most basic of human rights, the right to reproduce freely without government interference.

That said, I don't advocate a boycott of China. It just ticks me off to think we are helping to fund their government.


RE: crackpots
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 11:07:02 AM , Rating: 3
> "It might not directly help the individual Chinese family, but it would certainly make our pro-democracy, anti-communist, human rights stance "

What an utterly terrifying statement. You don't care if your actions hurt or help, as long as we make a point?