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 theArchMichael on 5/27/2010 12:04:09 PM , Rating: -1
Are you suggesting we should model the US after China then?
I think you're right we should adopt all of their communist totalitarian control tactics and allow the free market to decide everything else... to keep the population in line of course.
That way we can allow our corporations to:
-> pressure the government to artifically deflate the value of the dollar to raise the value of exports. This way everything can be MADE IN THE USA, but you won't be able to afford any of it course...
-> recycle computer materials by melting them in caustic materials. As a worker, they will initially provide you those pollen air filter face masks that you use to mow the lawn, and rubber dish washing gloves... To prevent the blood oozing out of your chemical burns from contaminating the precious metals...
-> We can allow corporations to indiscriminately waste, pollute and utilize our common national resources without any kind of accountability. Electricity is gonna be so much cheaper because the electric company is converting your niece's school into a power plant. They are even going to let the school continue to conduct classes on the plant floor so they can be indoors! A child's school fees vary depending on how much experience they have cleaning "always on" diesel generators. Fees get higher for the more missing fingers the children have though... that means they make a lot of mistakes.

If we do this American companies and executives, that don't do sh-t except have meetings and make phone calls, will make WAY more money. Then we'll really be able to laugh at all those other "socialist" countries' citizens that buy our products.
Those damn socialists make me sick with their access to healthcare, and clean air, and good pay and working conditions, and proper education, and economic mobility, and solid public information and transportation infrastructure, and untainted food... the fools.


"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki