Comments on: The Story of the Week (if true): China wants to freeze emissions at 2005 levels http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:42:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: tidal http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/#comment-6870 tidal Thu, 22 Nov 2007 16:28:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/#comment-6870 Just to be clear on the metrics... if China were to increase it's GDP by 10%/yr for 5 years AND reduce energy consumption by 20% per unit GDP, then it's GDP would grow by ~61%, but energy consumption would grow by ~ 28%, not the 40% you indicate. (E.g. 1 * 1.1^5 * .8 = 1.288). And, yes, he does seem to be conflating energy, energy intensity and carbon emissions in his statements, but it is at least possible that he means that they expect/hope carbon emissions to fall even faster than energy/GDP. I agree that this would be very hopeful. IF, and that is a big if, he means that national emissions would be held at 2005 levels, it would suggest that China would be freezing per capita CO2e emissions @ ~ 4 tonnes. And then some dialogue on contraction and convergence, and likely cap & trade implications would ensue. On the other hand, it is hard to see how he can make this pledge. Their emissions by late-2007 have already soared past the 2005 levels, and their super-charged economy is akin to a bicycle... to keep it from crashing, you need to keep pedalling... so this would be quite extraordinary if he really means capping their emissions amidst trying to sustain that economic growth trajectory... Just to be clear on the metrics… if China were to increase it’s GDP by 10%/yr for 5 years AND reduce energy consumption by 20% per unit GDP, then it’s GDP would grow by ~61%, but energy consumption would grow by ~ 28%, not the 40% you indicate. (E.g. 1 * 1.1^5 * .8 = 1.288).

And, yes, he does seem to be conflating energy, energy intensity and carbon emissions in his statements, but it is at least possible that he means that they expect/hope carbon emissions to fall even faster than energy/GDP.

I agree that this would be very hopeful. IF, and that is a big if, he means that national emissions would be held at 2005 levels, it would suggest that China would be freezing per capita CO2e emissions @ ~ 4 tonnes. And then some dialogue on contraction and convergence, and likely cap & trade implications would ensue.

On the other hand, it is hard to see how he can make this pledge. Their emissions by late-2007 have already soared past the 2005 levels, and their super-charged economy is akin to a bicycle… to keep it from crashing, you need to keep pedalling… so this would be quite extraordinary if he really means capping their emissions amidst trying to sustain that economic growth trajectory…

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/#comment-6871 Joe Thu, 22 Nov 2007 20:27:27 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/#comment-6871 Tidal: Yes, 29%, not 40%. Duh! Thanks! Happy Turkey Day! Tidal: Yes, 29%, not 40%. Duh! Thanks! Happy Turkey Day!

]]> By: jcwinnie http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/#comment-6872 jcwinnie Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:33:16 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/#comment-6872 <a href="http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/20/white-house-thanksgiving-turkeys-delivered-by-flex-fuel-ford-runn/" rel="nofollow"></a> O.K., George, it's your turn. George? GEORGE?

O.K., George, it’s your turn. George? GEORGE?

]]> By: Jay Alt http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/#comment-6873 Jay Alt Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:11:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/11/22/china-carbon-dioxide-emission-freeze-emissions/#comment-6873 The Chinese have adopted Luntz language and Bush beliefs and wish to negotiate "energy intensity" and not emissions. Ala Christopher Horner of the CEI and his misinformed book. And their offers doesn't even match the useless goals touted by Bush & Howard at the APEC summit. http://203.127.220.67/etc/medialib/apec_media_library/downloads/news_uploads/2007aelm.Par.0001.File.tmp/07_aelm_ClimateChangeEnergySec.pdf from page 3 - "APEC <i>Action</i> Agenda highlight the importance of improving energy efficiency by working towards achieving an APEC-wide regional aspirational goal of a reduction in energy intensity of at least 25 per cent by 2030 (with 2005 as the base year); " The Chinese have adopted Luntz language and Bush beliefs and wish to negotiate “energy intensity” and not emissions. Ala Christopher Horner of the CEI and his misinformed book. And their offers doesn’t even match the useless goals touted by Bush & Howard at the APEC summit.

http://203.127.220.67/ etc/ medialib/ apec_media_library/ downloads/ news_uploads/ 2007aelm.Par.0001.File.tmp/ 07_aelm_ClimateChangeEnergySec.pdf

from page 3 -
“APEC Action Agenda

highlight the importance of improving energy efficiency by working towards
achieving an APEC-wide regional aspirational goal of a reduction in energy intensity
of at least 25 per cent by 2030 (with 2005 as the base year); “

]]>