backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by leuNam.. on May 31 at 12:16 PM


While the U.S. has pledged binding emissions cuts, China, the world's largest emitter refuses to do so.  (Source: Daily Mail)

China's wild plan claims it will make even bigger cuts in the U.S. -- only it will wait a few years before cutting emissions at all. Its plan is also entirely on a "voluntary" basis.  (Source: CE Journal)
China refuses U.S. request to set definite targets, should U.S. stick to its own plan?

While it is unknown definitively whether manmade greenhouse gases are playing a role in climate change, or exactly what that role may be, many scientists and politicians support early studies which suggest a link between carbon dioxide emissions and a global warming trend.  They want the international community to band together to make drastic cuts to the global CO2budget.  The only problem is that those cuts are far from cheap; rather they may cost trillions of dollars.

The U.S. has already committed to rather stringent emissions cuts.  President Obama has pledged that the U.S. will cut cut 17 percent of its emissions by 2020 (with regards to 2005 levels), 30 percent reduction by 2025, 42 percent by 2030, and 83 percent by 2050.  

Those cuts will have a major impact on the world emissions picture, as the U.S. is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases.  However, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, China, has been reticent to commit to a solid goal of any kind, saying that it prefers to make "voluntary" commitments.

At Tsinghua University in the Chinese national capitol in Beijing on Wednesday the top U.S. climate negotiator, Todd Stern, was in talks with high level Chinese officials about adopting more binding targets.  

Stern, fresh off an grueling run at Copenhagen, spoke to reporters, stating, "With respect to the issue of transparency, I think it's hugely important and we do put a lot of emphasis on it.  Countries need to be able to see what track the world is on generally, where we are going.  The only way we can do that is if there are clear and transparent measures with respect to the inventories of greenhouse gases, what measures are being put in place by countries and so forth."

The greenhouse gas talks with China are part of a longer series of talks concerning economic cooperation and strategic cooperation, particularly on touchy issues like the recent attack by North Korean on a South Korean vessel.  When it comes to climate the U.S., for all its efforts, may be unable to convince China to adopt a binding resolution.

Beijing's emission plan is rather bizarre, and according to some, impossible.  The nation plans to allow emissions to climb for several more years before dramatically turning the corner, and by 2020 reducing emissions 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels.  So in other words, Beijing thinks it can accomplish what the U.S. is doing 
and far more in a far shorter time frame, on a voluntary basis.

Of course, what the U.S. worries about is that China won't even match the U.S. pledge by the time 2020 rolls around, because there's no binding commitment.  If China misses its target, it's no big deal -- it was voluntary in the first place.  And China has already argued in the past that it should get its chance to grow rampantly and pursue the cheapest path to expansion -- regardless of emissions -- because Western nations already had the chance to do so.  This long-standing rhetoric clashes with the nation's promises, and makes their voluntary nature all the more suspect.

Still, China and the U.S. hope to be closer to seeing eye-to-eye on the climate issue by November, when the next round of UN climate talks are held in Cancun, Mexico.  In the meantime, the U.S. has to consider its own emissions goals and how it plans to meet them.  While the issue of China is concerning to U.S. officials, surely a bigger concern is how to effectively cut the U.S.'s carbon output without doing billions in damage to the nation's economy in the process.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Not surprising
By MeesterNid on 5/27/2010 10:44:29 AM , Rating: 1
Right, or how very capitalist of them. While we're wringing our hands over how to best implement carbon credit (wow, just typing that makes we want to throw up) trading and shoot ourselves in the proverbial rear economically, they are growing their economy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be good stuarts of our land, but honestly the shrill envirotards remove all desire for me to really care that much. Plus anytime I hear "going green" or "being green" immediately pops up a mental image of idiot tax in my mind.


RE: Not surprising
By theArchMichael on 5/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Not surprising
By AnnihilatorX on 5/27/2010 12:24:48 PM , Rating: 1
Mind you America is a first world country, whereas China is a second. The reason America is miles ahead in economy was because of the industrial revolution, and peopple were polluting like there's no tomorrow.

Pollution was, and still is a fast track and a stepping stone to a clean high tech economy for less developed countries. The reason China and many other similarly developing countries are reluctant because all first world countries had their go at pollution and reaped all the benefits.


RE: Not surprising
By theArchMichael on 5/27/2010 12:45:06 PM , Rating: 2
There's two additional factors to consider here though.
-> If it's an eye for an eye then let's come up with a quantitative number for the amount of pollution that was actually generated and offset that number with a grading for level of pollution intesity (under the assumption that dumping mercury into a river is not the same as dumping the same amount of dioxins).
In 1900 the United States had about 80 million people. China now has more than 1 billion, with much resources used and good produced at much faster rates.
My point being, if China wants the leeway of being able to pollute as much as US did, I think they'll run through that pretty fast, if they have not already exceeded it.

-> China has a strong manufacturing base, tons of money (they buy our debt), a CRAZY political situation where they are allowed to manipulate their currency, a space program and access to a wealth of technologies. They are a "second world" country because of their draconian methods of controlling and exploiting their population and also their lack of oversight of the "free market" as it exists there.


RE: Not surprising
By jhb116 on 5/27/2010 6:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
Except that the went through the industrial revolution over a hundred years ago. We have learned alot since then. It wouldn't be hard for China to invest heavily in nuclear plant for power requirements and implement other measures to at least curtail growth of pollution. It will cost them far more money to say we don't care for the moment and then suddenly turn a corner. Turning that corner will cost huge $.

Your argument only makes sense for small poor 3rd world countries. China is not poor - they are a large "investor" of American debt. Although most won't admit it, China is easily in the same league as the US and EU. China is a superpower by almost all measures...


RE: Not surprising
By leuNam on 5/31/2010 12:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
your peopple looks like pineapple to me..mwhahaha


RE: Not surprising
By Pythias on 5/27/2010 5:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
I've never really understood how the whole "carbon credits" thing works.
You pay someone who "lives green" to "live green" so you can continue polluting?

Uh...

I'm not seeing any net gain for the earth here.


RE: Not surprising
By knutjb on 5/27/2010 8:52:03 PM , Rating: 4
Carbon credits are not about making the world a "greener" place it's about money. Al Gore and his green cronies have invested millions in to the Chicago Carbon Exchange CCX. Um Obama procured the CCX start up money from the Joyce Foundation, Goldman Sachs has invested in it among other like minded individuals.

The CCX, if the economic killing machine law gets passed by the Dems, will be getting a cut of every transaction in a market estimated to be worth well over a Trillion dollars, I have heard possibly as high as 10 Trillion.

In summary, greenies will feel good about themselves at your expense. Al Gore will then have more than enough money to add on to his $8 million California BEACH estate because your utility and gas bills will likely have tripled because of the Progressive CCX.

And no net gain for the environment. But the greenies will feel better about themselves and isn't that worth your standard of living equaling those hard working people in China and India? It's all about Social and Environmental Justice...


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki