China targets 40-per-cent cut in carbon intensity by 2020

[muriel_volestrangler]

Source: Monsters and Critics/DPA

China on Thursday set a target of reducing its carbon intensity by at least 40 per cent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels, drawing praise from two environmental groups.


The State Council, or cabinet, announced on its website and through state media that it aimed to cut the nation's carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product by between 40 per cent and 45 per cent by 2020.

...
Greenpeace also welcomed China's announcement, calling it 'another challenge to the industrialized world' ahead of the Copenhagen talks, but it said the Chinese government 'could do more'.

'Given the urgency and magnitude of the climate change crisis, China needs stronger measures to tackle climate change,' said Yang Ailun, head of the Climate and Energy Campaign for Greenpeace China.

Read more: http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/asiapacific/news/article_1515565.php/China-targets-40-per-cent-cut-in-carbon-intensity-by-2020-Roundup

---

Notice this is carbon intensity, ie carbon emissions divided by GDP. A reduction of 40-45% over 15 years is the equivalent of a reduction of about 3.1% a year; there's a fair chance China's GDP will increase at that rate or more each year (even with the global recession factored in), so in fact this could turn out to be a small increase in greenhouse emissions. But it is something.

Q+A-What is China's "carbon intensity" target?
...
HOW CHALLENGING IS THE TARGET?

Beijing said it faces "special hardships" in meeting the goal, and Chinese experts said after a five-year energy efficiency drive further improvements would be tough.

But the current goal -- to boost energy efficiency 20 percent over the 5 years to 2010 -- has already brought even larger improvements to carbon intensity.
...
So Beijing is likely to be at least halfway to reaching its 2020 goal by the end of next year, many analysts say.
...
HOW DOES CHINA'S CURRENT CARBON INTENSITY STACK UP?

According to figures published by the United States Department of Energy, China in 2006 emitted 2.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels for every $1,000 of gross domestic product (GDP), around 15 percent lower than a decade earlier.

In comparison, the United States in 2006 emitted 0.52 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every $1,000 of GDP, while Switzerland produced 0.17 tonnes, and impoverished Chad just 0.07 tonnes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK12370

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Why, that is sooo un-Republicon." - Rush 'DraftDodger' Limbaugh (R)

"We republicons would never do anything wise or sensible like that. That kinda shit is -- and this proves it -- the sort of thing that godless, red commies do. Sneer."

- Rush 'DraftDodger' Limbaugh
(R - $30-million-a-year corporate stooge)

[endless october]

2. i don't believe them.

if we sign cap and trade, more of our jobs go there. that's the bottom line.

fuck cap and trade.

start building nuke plants, wind, and solar large scale like the interstate highway system of the 50s. do it federally. let the government run the plants and don't privatize them. pay for it by ending interventionism.

that would work and benefit everyone involved. copenhagen cap and trade won't work because it's not designed to work.

[Igel]

3. It's a good first step.

Entirely self-serving and not incredibly meaningful, of course--both the Chinese and the attention. Then again, China seldom undermines itself.

The praise is a bit cloying and comes across as insincere. From 1980 to 2005 the US did precisely what China is proposing as its great sacrifice. It's not exactly information that's trumpeted, perhaps because it was done for reasons of economics and efficiency, not because it was a political concession or the subject of a treaty. In fact, for all of that time the US was still billed--accurately--as the largest producer of CO2. Now that China has that dubious honor, the US is still #1 because the reports have shifted to saying we have the highest per capita CO2 emissions.



In fact, the increase in carbon intensity passed unnoticed, even though it's far below China's 2020 goal:

"China in 2006 emitted 2.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels for every $1,000 of gross domestic product (GDP), around 15 percent lower than a decade earlier. In comparison, the United States in 2006 emitted 0.52 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every $1,000 of GDP, while Switzerland produced 0.17 tonnes, and impoverished Chad just 0.07 tonnes."

Of course, I'm not sure that these numbers are entirely useful. If the yuan were revalued higher, for instance, that would affect exports and how GDP, and therefore productivity and carbon intensity, are expressed in US dollars.

However, what's noteworthy is that while China already set carbon intensity increases as a goal because it's just plain cost effective in the long term and better for the population, the government can milk what's already a good idea for them to get tech transfer and financial assistance for what they'd do anyway. And pressure will, no doubt, be applied to make sure this extortion attempt succeeds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Yes, I did wonder if the target is with GDP expressed in yuan

or in GDP expressed in PPP dollars, or in official exchange rate dollars.

[robcon]

5. Never gonna happen.

Nice PR, though.

[AzNick]

6. I believe it when I see it...

That day, political opponents will be set free and they will stop summary executions and torture, and will stop the dog meat trade as well.

NOT.

[JonQ]

7. If they have any intention of actually doing this

and not merely lying about it (as I suspect they are) then I imagine it will be because they are planning on replacing outdated coal plants with nuclear reactors. A sensible move that would unfortunately not be possible here (OMG you want to install nuclear bomb factories, near my children!!!!).