China Is On Track To Beat Its Peak-Emissions Pledge (arstechnica.com) 128
A new study led by Haikun Wang, Xi Lu, and Yu Deng examines the relationship between economic growth and emissions to project that China's should peak in the early 2020s. Ars Technica reports: The analysis uses data from 50 Chinese cities for a representative sampling of the factors at work across the country. The cities combine to account for about 35% of national emissions, 30% of the population, and 50% of total gross domestic product (GDP). These cities vary widely, from types of industry to affluence to sources of power on the local grid. But the researchers see evidence that these metropolises follow an economic relationship known as the environmental Kuznets curve -- emissions per capita stops increasing once a certain GDP per capita is reached. The idea is basically that dirty growth eventually provides the resources to switch to cleaner options.
After adjusting for things like location (whether a city's electricity is supplied mainly by coal or by nuclear and renewables) and the population density of cities of different sizes, the researchers calculated that emissions reach a peak when per-capita emissions hit about 10 tons of CO2 per year. That happens at an average per-capita GDP of US$21,000. When China signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, it was at an average of about 7.5 tons of CO2 per person per year and a per-capita GDP of $13,500. Based on World Bank economic projections, the researchers calculate China should hit $21,000 -- and so peak emissions -- between 2021 and 2025. That would equate to peak national emissions of 13-16 billion tons of CO2 per year, compared to emissions of roughly 10 billion tons of CO2 in 2015. (For context, the United States is emitting around 5.5 billion tons of CO2 each year with a little less than a quarter of China's population.)
After adjusting for things like location (whether a city's electricity is supplied mainly by coal or by nuclear and renewables) and the population density of cities of different sizes, the researchers calculated that emissions reach a peak when per-capita emissions hit about 10 tons of CO2 per year. That happens at an average per-capita GDP of US$21,000. When China signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, it was at an average of about 7.5 tons of CO2 per person per year and a per-capita GDP of $13,500. Based on World Bank economic projections, the researchers calculate China should hit $21,000 -- and so peak emissions -- between 2021 and 2025. That would equate to peak national emissions of 13-16 billion tons of CO2 per year, compared to emissions of roughly 10 billion tons of CO2 in 2015. (For context, the United States is emitting around 5.5 billion tons of CO2 each year with a little less than a quarter of China's population.)
Building their coal plants offshore - LOLZ (Score:4, Insightful)
China is building enormous coal plants globally to keep the pollution off their shores.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29... [npr.org]
Re:Building their coal plants offshore - LOLZ (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't ghost anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China is building enormous coal plants globally to keep the pollution off their shores.
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29... [npr.org]
That is not what your linked article says. To quote some relevant parts:
They are building energy projects for developing nations, largely as part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.
And when the author of the article expresses similar concerns as you:
Chinese officials were ready to answer such concerns at their Belt and Road Forum. "We're not intending to transfer pollution to other countries," said Chen Wenling, chief economist at the China Center for International Economic Exchanges in Beijing. "We're trying to create development opportunities."
If you like me never heard of this project it's about investing in infrastructure, mainly in developing countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Building their coal plants offshore - LOLZ (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also about soft power and what amounts to economic capture of their client states. Invest in a huge amount of modern infrastructure with loans that are mathematically impossible to pay back, grease the palms of the usually-corrupt government officers to slide the deal through, and when the locals don't (can't) pay up, pull down the temporary sign that had their names on it and reveal the permanent one underneath that says CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY.
The Chinese are making a credible second attempt at colonizing sub-Saharan Africa. Unlike European rule, they are not only unabashedly and nakedly racist, but they also don't care about the opinions of others and can effectively control information to prevent groundswells of discontent. They are gaining access to a huge amount of arable land and mineral resources that they do not have in their own borders, building out an international power base to project political and military capability, and basically taking poor nations captive in the process.
They are playing a 400-year game to become the dominant culture and political force on this planet, and we in America, the only remaining superpower that can stop them from creating an endless global techno-panopticon terror state built on Han racial supremacy notions, are busy arguing about 900 genders and microaggressions.
Our children will have their preferred pronouns and Medicare for All. Their children will have social credit scores documented in Simplified Chinese, and mandatory Huawei cameras in their living rooms.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And you know what? I applaud them for this nefarious plan.
Our "not-racist" ways have not done much to lift sub-saharan Africa out of poverty (both in terms of finances and mental faculties) it only made them dependent on our money and help.
If the Chinese actually develop these parts and give Africans incentive to work and better themselves, because the oh-so-racist Chinese won't have any qualms letting them know that they have to measure up then I say good for everyone!
Whether the United States dominate the
Re: Building their coal plants offshore - LOLZ (Score:1)
Black people will suck them dry of all finances. So much so, many Chinese in Africa are leaving as they've been marginalized. Dude, black people kill blacks! They give zero fucks about anyone else that's not them, including the Chinese.
When will the planet learn?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of sub-Saharan Africa is around the level of the development of the US and western Europe mid-last century. Those countries have come a long way, very fast.
The way they did that was by attracting foreign investment to build infrastructure and kick start domestic development. Much like what China is doing now.
Re: (Score:2)
Every other developed nation got "Medicare For All" 50 years ago, so I'm not sure we can say with certainty that our children will have it. I have seen a few cameras in living rooms, but they're from Apple or Amazon, and they were happily purchased by a willing idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike European rule, they are not only unabashedly and nakedly racist
We Europeans were unabashedly and nakedly racist when we were colonising Africa too.
The key difference is that the Chinese are not simply rolling in with military might, considering it their duty to "civilise" the "savages". They are investing in Africa in partnership with Africans. Of course it's fair to be concerned about the viability of the loans and the soft power that China gains from it, but to compare it to what Europeans did is ludicrous.
we in America, the only remaining superpower that can stop them
No. Europe is a superpower too, at least economically. We mig
We're in it with them (Score:2)
As for the rank and file consumer, 60-80% live paycheck to paycheck (depending on if you count $400 in the bank as "not paycheck to paycheck"). They're not going to be thinking about freedom long term. If you want them too then you need stuff like Medicare for All. It takes the pressure off and lets people think about something other than survival. China get
Re: (Score:1)
It's pretty obviously you're probably white, and therefore don't even know what racism is, and never really personally experienced it before, therefore must have some idealistic romantic idea about what Europeans were doing in Africa.
Despite me not knowing your personal history, geography, or economical status I'll just assume that you are white because you said something I disagree with. Now let me judge you on your skin color.
Did I miss anything there?
Re: (Score:1)
China will learn quickly that this isn't "soft power". Expecting payback on development loans isn't how you play this game.
The west is good at soft power. You make 'loans' and look the other way when they don't get paid back. Come back a decade later and a more developed country is happy to let you build a military base because they remember the last interaction ended in prosperity.
And military bases are more development. Money in local coffers with lots of economic activity.
And now the western stat
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike European rule, they are not only unabashedly and nakedly racist, but they also don't care about the opinions of others and can effectively control information to prevent groundswells of discontent.
Should be modded Funny.
Hilarious in fact.
Re: (Score:1)
-
Significantly Large New Emissions From Banned CFCs Traced To China, Say Scientists (bbc.com)
-----------
https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/05/23/0648259/significantly-large-new-emissions-from-banned-cfcs-traced-to-china-say-scientists
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you must be reading impared. "So why is it also building hundreds of coal-fired power plants in other countries?"
China is building massive amounts of coal plants offshore. Doesn't matter what 'Chinese officials' said, they are outsourcing their polluting
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. You can do fun things with per-capita statistics like that to get a number that looks impressive but hides a more mundane reality. For example, the country with the #1 number of Nobel laureates per-capita is Iceland. The total is 1 Nobel laureate, of course - any small country that has a Nobel laureate would immediately jump to the top of the list; it doesn't actually say anything.
China's pollution per capita is reflective of the vast number of people who consume little industrial output, and thu
Re: (Score:1)
Until the Communist gov was removed and people could see what was really going on.
Even the CIA listened to what the East German gov said it was doing without bothering to verify what was done.
The CIA failed to understand it was still the same old Trabant on the roads in the 1980's..
Car production is going up... of the Trabant.
Communist nations are good at saying they are doing new things.
The coal keeps getting prod
Meanwhile in 2018 (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile in 2018 China had the most CO2 emissions growth in 6 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you want to peak in the 2020's, the best strategy is to grow as fast as you can in the years leading up to that.
Re: (Score:2)
OP's comment isn't as silly as it may seem, the Kuznets curve (which the authors builds it prediction on) predicts growth in pollutants slowing down before it turns.
Looking at the linked wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] the whole science behind the Kuznets curve looks shaky in the general case and even more so in the case of the environment. Although the wiki page probably needs some updating, I wonder if this isn't one of those ideas that seem obvious in the common sense way, but hasn't really
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Meanwhile in 2018 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's sort of like how I've heard people complaining about Iceland's per-capita CO2 emissions. Which have nothing to do with high consumption of industrial goods in Iceland or have made choices to produce dirty power, but rather that our three biggest industries are tourism (fed by trans-oceanic air travel), alumium (we feed the smelters clean power, but the smelting process inherently evolves CO2 at the electrodes) and fishing (an energy-intensive activity).
We're not the consumers of this air travel, alumium, and fish, but the emissions are credited to us. National emissions figures often give the implication that they're due to the consumption of people in said country, when in practice they're often about what is made in that country for people elsewhere. For example, there's only 1450 people who work in the (foreign owned) alumium smelters here, but they make up about a third of our total emissions. What should we do - kick them out? That would just shift the emissions elsewhere (wherever they built instead), and worsen them due other countries not having as clean of power as we do.
China is in the same sort of situation. They're the "world's factory". They're making all of these goods for export - e.g. not as a result of local people's consumption habits - but the CO2 from the factories gets credited to them, making it look like it is due to their consumption habits.
Re: (Score:3)
And also BTW, USA may be taking too much heat, for example if Iceland imports USA beef, those emissions are on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If you buy an iPhone, you're responsible for the emissions footprint of that iPhone, not the country of manufacture.
No, it's a partnership between everyone involved. Designer, manufacturer, distributor, retailer if any, and customer each have their own share of the blame, as well of the governments of all nations the product or its supplies originates from, travels through, or winds up in. Some people would very much like alternatives, but either they don't exist, or they aren't affordable.
Re: (Score:2)
No alternatives to an iphone?
We're not talking about iPhones, so that was stupid.
No affordable alternatives, LOL.
Yes, they have to be credible alternatives, so that was stupid.
It's always the end consumer. Businesses wouldn't do it if no one was buying it. They would go broke, problem solved. It can only ever be consumers.
Businesses buy legislation, which they can afford, while we can't, so you're just stupid.
Go away, stupid.
Great News for Australia & USA (Score:4, Funny)
If China can cut their emissions then we can keep pumping out the carbon, no worries.
Re: (Score:1)
The difference being China is still partially a developing country. Europe is largely shifting towards renewable energy. The US have a president trying to promote a dirty energy form that isn't economically viable even with large subsides...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes and yes, no but I don't think he or his policies are based on logic. Now how about you stop trying to change the subject?
Re: (Score:2)
If only Slashdot supported emoticons you could have added a skull and bones or something...
Re: (Score:2)
WRONG. (Score:1)
They don't eat CO2, they breathe it in. And, like water, they need some, but they are getting more than they need, so your tired old denier trope as a troll is really, REALLY lame.
Re: (Score:3)
More specifically, they're resource limited (nutrients, water, sunlight, etc). You can increase many greenhouse crop growth rates with increased CO2 concentrations, but only when you're giving them the sort of ideal nutrient, water, and sunlight regimes that aren't found in nature. Limiting factors depend on species and location, but rarely is CO2 the limiter.
For example, in oceans the limiting factor is usually iron; most of the planet's ocean area is relatively dead. You can make the oceans bloom bright
Re: (Score:2)
Right now we're having problems with blooms of toxic algae. How do we avoid feeding the bad algae along with the good? They produce inconveniently persistent toxins.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't. Coastal blooms are an entirely different beast. The coasts are already generally rich in phytoplankton because coastal waters tend to be nutrient-rich to begin with; adding even more nutrients turbocharges them, and if it happens to raise concentrations of hazardous species to dangerous levels (easily done when your rivers are discharging fertilizer runoff en masse), then you have a toxic algal bloom. But the deep sea is a nutrient desert; unless you're deliberately trying to, you're not going
China is notorious for fudging the numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to hide carbon emissions. Satellites can see pollution and measure the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. People on the ground can take measurements to verify claims.
Sounds like we need to develop a satellite that can see fish.
Re: (Score:2)
Lies, damn lies and statistics. (Score:5, Interesting)
The analysis uses data from 50 Chinese cities for a representative sampling of the factors at work across the country.
This is a great way for China to tout how well they are doing. However, China has a history of "telling the truth" on par with the current US president. NASA has multiple [nasa.gov] eyes in the sky [nasa.gov] whizzing around the planet taking measurements and I would bet the farm that satellite data exposes this "representative sampling" as a fraud (as it has done so in the past).
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just have a look at current measurements. [windy.com] I encourage you to zoom out and reflect on where you'd like to live on this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you like it or not, Donald J. Trump is the best POTUS since Ronald Reagan.
Best if you're a racist conservacuck [cnn.com], you mean?
Reverse (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)