The joint announcements of new emission policies and energy targets by China and the USA last year set the scene for the next and some say crucial, if not final, round of UN FCCC climate talks in Paris later this year- COP 21.
Following on from
its earlier announcement of a target of cutting emissions from existing power
plants by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030, the USA’s proposals was for an at least
26% overall emission cut by 2025, and maybe 28%. That was matched by China’s commitment
to stabilise emissions by around 2030.
These new policies raised hopes that the rest of world might now adopt
progressive policies. Chinese President Xi JinPing
said ‘we agreed to make sure that international climate change negotiations
will reach an agreement in Paris’. Though
it had not yet set a specific target, he said China would seek to cap its
emissions by 2030 and would make ‘best
efforts to peak early’. To that end,
a new target was set of getting 20% of China’s energy from non fossil sources
by 2030, up from around 13% now, with renewables dominating.
However some saw
the Chinese commitment as minimal, given that it was now a major emitter: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/12/climatechange-china-usa-kemp-idUKL6N0T22IU20141112
Indeed some US Republicans felt that China was being let off the hook, while
the US made punishing commitments: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-congressional-leaders-denounce-us-china-deal-on-climate-change/2014/11/12/ff2b84e0-6a8d-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html
Moreover, 2030 is
some way off, and some worried that this commitment would require little more
than what would happen anyway, as fossil reserves depleted and non fossil
options expanded: https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/clinton-well-gore-went-to-kyoto-obama-went-to-beijing That is very unclear: China’s economy is
still expanding fast (7% p.a), so it will have to take positive action- and it
is pushing renewables very hard.
Indeed it leads the world. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2639170/china_leads_the_world_in_green_energy_despite_us_senate_leader_do_nothing_claims.html
And, although it
will clearly have its work cut out to hold emissions down, politically the new
climate policy is surely it’s a step forward for China, especially given its worries about global
imbalance issues and the view that the historically heavy polluters, who so far
have benefited from be able to pollute without constraint, should bear the brunt
of the responsibility for reducing emission now and for helping other to do
so: www.businessinsider.com/afp-china-insists-wealthy-countries-should-improve-emission-targets-2014-9
Those issues
haven’t gone away and resurfaced at the COP 20 UN gathering in Peru last
December: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/12/02/us-climatechange-lima-emissions-idUKKCN0JG2LQ20141202.
And while some in the West welcomed
the Chinese-US moves, there were some views from outsiders that were
less favorable.
The Indian Down
to Earth environmental
lobby organisation argued that the US-Chinese accord was in fact a stitch up –
it was too limited and left the rest of the world out.
Its editorial focused on ‘carbon per capita’, which, while perhaps reflecting a
degree of social equity, of course favours China with its huge population, and
disguises the fact that it absolute emission are, and will still be, higher
than any other country. But even on that basis the deal is seen as unfair. The
editorial suggested that the deal
meant that ‘the US and China have
agreed to “equalise” their emissions by 2030. Both countries would have “equal”
per capita emissions in 2030. The US would reduce emissions marginally from its
current 18 tonnes per capita and China would increase from its current
seven-eight tonnes. Both the polluters would converge at 12-14 tonnes per
person per year. This is when the planet can effectively absorb and naturally
cleanse emissions not more than two tonnes per person per year.’
So it's ‘contract and converge’ on a per capita basis, but without a low enough carbon target. Moreover, the editorial continues, perhaps a little disingenuously, the deal in effect lays claim to a large share of global future emission rights: ‘the cake is carved up in such a manner that each country would occupy equal atmospheric space by 2030. We know that countries have a cumulative share of emissions in the atmosphere. The US-China deal makes it clear that both the countries individually get 16 per cent of the atmospheric space by 2030. The problem is that the occupier gets it all. This deal has defined equity as good for the US and China, but bad for the planet. At this level of emissions, the world will definitely cross the 2°C mark and go towards 4-5°C, unless India, Brazil, South Africa and all the rest of the emerging world stop their emissions right now.’
Well yes, it does inevitably put pressure on others to come up with plans and ideally better plans, so to a degree it is unfair, expecting poorer countries to do more than rich countries. The Editorial concludes ‘it is not in our interest to believe that the US-China deal is good for the world. It sets the world on a dangerous path where all countries will want their right to pollute. It is in our interest to demand that the US and China must reduce emissions at the scale and pace needed to ensure that the world stays below the danger mark. It is in our interest to demand that we will all accept limits, but based on equity’. www.downtoearth.org.in/content/us-china-climate-deal-maker-or-breaker
India of course also has a large population, and although its economy is not yet expanding on the same scale as China, it is moving ahead and so are its emission. But it seems reluctant to limit expansion of coal use, and, though it is now pushing renewables hard (with a 170GW by 2022, 15% target), it's also pushing nuclear hard. A mixed bag
What about Europe? The EU has set a new target of a 40% cut in emissions by 2030, far more than either the USA or China. So it might be seen as a more equitable effort, although that was conditional on other countries also setting high targets. Some may, others wont- notably Australia, which is in the process of abandoning most of its climate policies. With COP 21 coming up soon in Paris, we will no doubt get to see what happens. Russia and Canada have offered to make 30% cuts by 2030, Japan 26%.
What’s the bottom line? The
US policy is helpful (though opposed by the right), the EU commitment is
welcome (though opposed by some member states) and China is making changes (if
only slowly). But the problem is significant. China had previously committed to cutting its carbon
intensity i.e. CO2 /GNP, by 40-45% by 2020, compared to 2005 levels (a 29% cut
had already been achieved), but that would still have allowed for continued
growth in absolute emissions- which will rise to very high levels. Reuters was told that emissions were likely to
peak at around 11bn tonnes CO2 equivalent, up from 7-9.5bn t CO2e now, by 2030.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/09/china-climatechange-idUKL4N0OQ0WB20140609 But even if they are stabilised at that
level, as is now proposed, and then reduced a bit, they will still be way ahead
of the emissions from all other countries. It’s good to see some progress, with China’s emissions apparently
falling (by 5%) in the first four months of 2015, but there is a long way to
go. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/05/14/china-coal-consumption-drops-further-carbon-emissions-set-to-fall-by-equivalent-of-uk-total-in-one-year
That
certainly seems to be the message from the weak target recently agreed by the
G7 group of industrial countries, to try to phase out fossil fuel use globally
by the end of the century…Let’s hope COP 21 can do a bit better.
