Thursday 26 April 2007

China Set to Become World's Largest Polluter By November

A leading environmental economist has predicted that China will become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases by November. Previous estimates indicated that China would overtake the US by 2009 or 2010, but the rise and rise of the Chinese economy and its dependence on carbon emmissions threaten to bring the date forward to the latter half of this year.

China's participation in multilateral processes on climate change has long been a point of contention among analysts with some claiming Beijing's public commitments to emissions reduction are nothing short of disingenuous. Moreover, despite being a party to the Kyoto protocol, as a developing country China has no formal target for emission reductions.

Dr Faith Birol, from the Intenational Energy Agency asserts that within 25 years China will "double the CO2 emissions which will come from all the OECD countries put together - the whole US, plus Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand" .

If China is serious about combating climate change, it will need to fundamentally reform its bureaucratic and economic structures. Last year, the Environment Minister claimed that despite the emergence of tough new laws designed to clamp down on polluting industries, businesses simply bribed local officials to issue compliance certificates.

At least on face value however, the Chinese appear to be serious about changing their image especially in the preparation for next year's Olympics. I remember watching a government advetisement on Beijing Television last year, which called for Beijing's citizens to take public transport at least one day a week in the name of a 'green Beijing'. Beijing is abundant with rumours the government will close down factories around the city for months before the summer olympics and ban all traffic from entering the city throughout the duration of the games.
Sources: The Guardian

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you think it'd be permissible for China to say 'Nah, we ain't gonna do nothing, because it may damage our economy'?
I fear that Howard has set a very dangerous precedent indeed.

The Sinophile said...

Very much so. Although there was a Chinese government report released some months ago that put the economic costs of envionmental degradation at something like $20 billion AUD (I think that's a consevative estimate).

People have to wake up to the fact that the unchecked effects of climate change will have MASSIVE economic consequences. The economic dangers of inaction are huge...

Anonymous said...

We need a new economic paradigm. 'Growth' is intrinsically unsustainable. Like we discussed ad (Moresby's) nauseam a few weeks ago, what's required is a new revolution to fundamentally change from being 'growth' based to 'sustainability' based.
Do you think humanity and globalisation is way too far along the road for that to happen? I think the key areas of population, agriculture and environment (under business-as-usual) will eventually drive us to breaking point, and it will necessarily be messy.

Cooper said...

Aidan, Howards stance definitely doesn't help the situation. I think it's a stretch to say Howard would have any influence over them though, but you're right in that people like Howard need to see the change that has occured:

"They are still used to thinking of greenness as being "counter" and "alternative" -- they don't understand that 21st-century green is and must be about everything -- the works. Sustainability is comprehensive. That which is not sustainable doesn't go on."-from the link at bottom.

It's worth noting the (supposed) richest man in China, Shi Zhengrong, is in the business of solar cells. So, contrary to what Howard or whoever may think, it's not (or it shouldn't be, at least)
socialist environmentalists vs market-based polluters.

Green is a booming industry!

I really think this can't be ignored: the dot-green future of economic growth.

As you say Laurie, the economic consequences of inaction are far worse than any perceived threat to coal industries, so we can only hope people wake up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2007/03/02/AR2007030202043.html

Anonymous said...

Hey, your compromising my pseudonymy!

I agree, except I think Australia's position can only really be either academic or symbolic. As the only developed nation apart from the US not to subscribe to reality as symbolised by Kyoto, we have established ourselves as the outsider on the issue.
Australia's involvement will not have huge environmental effects, but we do have excellent research facilities in this country that will inevitably contribute (and would have already if not for the government's gradual ceasing to fund research that isn't immediately commercially viable - which also directly affects my work!) and the social impacts of our involvement would be large - relative to our population, economy, etc.

viagra online said...

that picture of China from space is something to watch carefully and admire!

viagra online said...

that picture of China from space is something to watch carefully and admire!

cialis said...

Hello, I do not agree with the previous commentator - not so simple