But, but, but, China....

[Bob Wallace]

Some people love to argue that it would do no good to clean up the US/wherever grid because China is not going to do anything to curb their GHG emissions.  Let me chop and quote the parts about China from a Renewable Economy piece....

 

Just one week after Beijing confirmed plans to phase out the use of coal and close coal-fired power plants by 2020, the head of China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) has suggested that the country might begin implementation of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).chinawind

... an RPS for China could include specific quota’s for power or capacity from the country’s utilities, purchase specifications for the grid companies, and renewable use by end customers, according to Deutsche Bank.

... China’s National Development and Reform Commission announced the creation of a committee of experts to oversee expanding the existing seven ETS pilot programs into a unified national program.

....

“China is showing increasing evidence of long term sustainable plans for multi-year solar installs, and we view (NEAhead) Wu Xinxiong’s statement as solid evidence of the country’s increasing commitment to solar and wind,” Deutsche analyst Vishal Shah said in a research note.

Already, the country has a goal of 15 per cent renewable generation by 2020 (echoing the European 20/20 renewables goals). In 2012, Chinese companies invested $65 billion in renewable energy projects, a 20 per cent improvement on 2011 numbers, and they plan to spend $473 billion on clean energy investments between 2011 and 2015, according to the country’s most recent Five-Year Plan.

Shah says that implementation of an RPS in China would strongly encourage ongoing solar installations and we see benefit to vertically integrated Chinese manufacturers and installers, as well as spurring development of “even larger scale projects for the companies most well positioned in the country.”


http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/china-looks-to-renewables-target-as-australia-looks-to-hobble-ret-76234

BTW, China now leads the world in wind generation and installed 10 GW of solar in 2013.  That's about the same amount of solar that the US has installed - over all years.  In 2014 China is on track to install another 13 to  14 GW of solar.

[Sigmetnow]

Here is a lengthy article on Secretary of State John Kerry's recent visit to China, discussing the country's evolving environmental issues.

The final reason for hope, paradoxically, is China's relentless demand for energy. China is in the midst of a profound economic and social transformation, trying to reinvent itself from an economy based on selling cheap goods overseas to an economy based on selling quality consumer goods at home, while keeping growth rates high and cutting dependence on fossil fuels. Energy demand is expected to double by 2030, and at that pace, there is not enough oil, coal and gas in the world to keep their economy humming. So China's ongoing energy security depends on the nation developing alternative energy sources in a big way. "We need more of everything," says Peggy Liu, a sustainability leader who works across China. "Wind, solar, a modernized grid. We need to leapfrog over the past and into a clean-energy future."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/china-the-climate-and-the-fate-of-the-planet-20140915

[Bob Wallace]

China seems on route to peak coal by 2016 and a decline thereafter.

For China’s electricity system, 2014 is a clear turning point. Having seen a consistent 8% compound annual growth in thermal coal demand since 2000, thermal coal demand in China has slowed to 4% pa over 2012-2013 and has clearly hit a plateau in 2014. The Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) forecasts an absolute peak in China’s thermal coal demand by 2016, with a gradual decline thereafter.

In the last twelve months, China has installed 29.2GW of new hydro electricity, a 20% expansion of total hydro installations across China in a single year. And China has commissioned another 15GW of wind farms, taking total installs up 21.7% year-on-year to 84GW in total (net connections to the grid). IEEFA estimates China has also commissioned 13.1GW of new solar installations in the last year, lifting China’s total solar installations by 80.5% in a single year.

A 16% increase in Coal-Fired Power Plant Efficiency over a Decade: Figure 2 details the gains made in the thermal efficiency of coal-fired power stations across China in the last decade. The amount of coal required to generate a kilowatt hour of electricity has fallen by 16% from 378g/kWh in 2003 to 317g/kWh in the first half of 2014. Any plan to curb low quality coal that is high in ash content and sulphur could accelerate this trend.

IEEFA forecasts that by 2020, coal-fired power generation production will fall below 60% of China’s total, down from 79% in 2012, 77% in 2013 and our forecast of only 73% in 2014. Given the size of the installed electricity system in China, this is a staggering rate of diversification away from coal.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/move-peak-coal-china-48548

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked reference (see also the two associated attached images) China's present and future growth will have a large impact on the GHG budget:

http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/14/files/GCP_budget_2014_v1.0_lowres.pdf

See also:

P. Friedlingstein, R. M. Andrew, J. Rogelj, G. P. Peters, J. G. Canadell, R. Knutti, G. Luderer, M. R. Raupach, M. Schaeffer, D. P. van Vuuren, & C. Le Quéré, (2014), "Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2248

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2248.html


Abstract: "Efforts to limit climate change below a given temperature level require that global emissions of CO2 cumulated over time remain below a limited quota. This quota varies depending on the temperature level, the desired probability of staying below this level and the contributions of other gases. In spite of this restriction, global emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and cement production have continued to grow by 2.5% per year on average over the past decade. Two thirds of the CO2 emission quota consistent with a 2 °C temperature limit has already been used, and the total quota will likely be exhausted in a further 30 years at the 2014 emissions rates. We show that CO2 emissions track the high end of the latest generation of emissions scenarios, due to lower than anticipated carbon intensity improvements of emerging economies and higher global gross domestic product growth. In the absence of more stringent mitigation, these trends are set to continue and further reduce the remaining quota until the onset of a potential new climate agreement in 2020. Breaking current emission trends in the short term is key to retaining credible climate targets within a rapidly diminishing emission quota."

[Bob Wallace]

If China continued to grow their GHG emissions as they have in the past then the world would be in a world of trouble.

The Chinese government has repeatedly stated that they are going to act responsibly and bring down GHG emissions.

We are seeing what appears to be a slowing, even plateauing of coal use.

[AbruptSLR]

Coal-fired power plants (which I believe that China will cut-back on in order to reduce air pollution) are not the only source of Chinese GHG emissions.

The first linked article and associated extracts indicate that that China's plan to build 50 new coal to gas projects will increase CO₂ emissions (compared to coal fired power plants), will increase radiative forcing by a reduction of reflected solar radiation associated with aerosols (produced by current coal-fired power plants), while still producing large amount of NOX that will still damage the health of local Chinese (it seems difficult to imagine a worse policy from a climate change, and a public health, point of view):

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/newsdesk/energy/news/china%E2%80%99s-planned-coal-gas-emit-over-1-billion-tons-co2

Extract: "There could be 50 coal-to-gas projects operational within the next decade, producing 225 billion cubic metres of synthetic natural gas [SNG] per year, if all of the planned ones go ahead, according to comprehensive new research by Greenpeace China.
These 50 would emit around 1.087 billion tons of CO2 per year if they are developed, according to the new analysis. To put this in perspective, it is around one eighth of China’s CO2 emissions in 2011 (8.71 billion tons), and much more than the CO2 cuts from coal control measures by 2020 (655 million tons).
….
But researchers at Tsinghua University have warned (Report on China’s Low-carbon Development, 2014 [in Chinese]) that the coal-to-gas technology may not effectively lower the emission of air pollutants such as NOx  - the main contributor to China’s smog problem."

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/asia/greenpeace-says-chinas-energy-plans-exacerbate-climate-change.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0



The second linked article indicates that the increasing use of refrigeration (particularly in China) is a major source of concern with regards to anthropogenic GHG emissions (and could account for up to 50% of GHG emissions by 2050 if not adequately regulated [I am sure that China says that they will regulate these super greenhouse gas refrigerants; however, we will need to see how effective any regulations are that they decide to implement):

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/magazine/what-do-chinese-dumplings-have-to-do-with-global-warming.html?_r=0

Extracts: "Calculating the climate-change impact of an expanded Chinese cold chain is extremely complicated. Artificial refrigeration contributes to global greenhouse-gas emissions in two main ways. First, generating the power (whether it be electricity for warehouses or diesel fuel for trucks) that fuels the heat-exchange process, which is at the heart of any cooling system, accounts for about 80 percent of refrigeration’s global-warming impact (measured in tons of CO2) and currently consumes nearly a sixth of global electricity usage.
But the other problem is the refrigerants themselves: the chemicals that are evaporated and condensed by the compressors in order to remove heat and thus produce cold. Some of that refrigerant leaks into the atmosphere as a gas — either a little (roughly 2 percent a year from the most up-to-date domestic refrigerators) or a lot (on average, 15 percent from commercial refrigerated warehouses). In addition, different refrigeration systems use different refrigerants, some of which, like ammonia, have a negligible global-warming impact. But others, like the hydrofluorocarbons that are popular in China, are known as “supergreenhouse gases,” because they are thousands of times more warming than CO2. If current trends in refrigerant usage were to continue, experts project that hydrofluorocarbons would be responsible for nearly half of all global greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050."

[AbruptSLR]

We also need to be concerned about China's plan to use hydrofracking to develop their recoverable shale gas, which are the largest reserves in the world and which are estimated to be 70% larger than the reserves in America.  While the following linked article indicates that China will not meet there ambitious plans to develop 60 billion to 100 billion cubic meters of shale gas by 2020, they will develop 30 billion cubic meters by then, and in the meantime they have contracted to get gas from Russia which will encourage the EU to develop more shale gas to off-set their reduced import (sent to China) from Russia.  Also, with Chinese ingenuity they will likely over-come their technical challenges to develop shale gas after 2020; and due to methane leaks shale gas can have a larger Global Warming Potential, GWP, than coal-fired power plants.

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21614187-china-drastically-reduces-its-ambitions-be-big-shale-gas-producer-shale-game

Extract: "In 2012 China’s main planning agency, the National Development and Reform Commission, declared that the country would produce 60 billion-100 billion cubic metres of shale gas a year in 2020. It needed those forecasts to be accurate.

They weren’t. Wu Xinxiong, the director of China’s National Energy Administration, recently predicted that only 30 billion cubic metres a year will come on stream by 2020. That would barely meet 1% of China’s energy needs now, let alone in 2020.

This is profoundly disappointing. With more than 30 trillion cubic metres of recoverable shale gas, China has the largest reserves in the world, almost 70% more than in America, home of the shale-gas revolution. It is also a setback to the country’s efforts to reduce pollution. Dirty coal now makes up about 70% of energy consumption and, despite fast growth in renewable energy, gas is the only cleanish energy source that could displace enough coal to rein in carbon emissions quickly."

[AbruptSLR]

Not to express undue concern about the effectiveness of China's actual plans to reduce GHG emissions in the coming decades.  The following linked article questions whether China's plans will actually result in any reduction in CO2 emissions before 2030 (not to mention methane and HFC emissions):

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2014/0923/Missing-in-action-at-UN-climate-summit-world-s-top-polluter

Furthermore, as China's air pollution is a significant negative feedback factor, as they clean-up their air (say due to reduced use of coal-fired power plants), we can expect mean global temperatures to rise more rapidly.

[wili]

China Says It Will Peak Emissions ‘As Early As Possible'

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/24/3571380/summit-china-peak-emissions/

When it was his turn to speak, Zhang told the United Nations gathering that China will “try” to achieve a peak in its carbon emissions “as early as possible.” He did not provide further information on the timeline for that peak. He also pledged to provide $6 million for efforts by the U.N. to promote South-South cooperation on climate change among developing countries.

“As a responsible major developing country, China will make an even greater effort to address climate change and take on international responsibilities that are commensurate with our national conditions,” said Zhang.

After Zhang’s announcement, China’s top climate official, Xie Zhenhua, said China would see a 45 percent drop in carbon emissions intensity — carbon emissions per unit of GDP — by 2020 based on 2005 levels.

Thoughts?

[Bob Wallace]

Thoughts?

China will peak out on coal use and then drop use.  China will move to renewables.

China will first have to slow coal use (which seems to be happening), then stop increasing, and then cut.  We'll likely see peak by ~2016 with gradual and then accelerating decline as we approach 2020.

That's what I think will happen.  China's government is not run by climate change deniers as are some other countries.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that China's CO₂ emissions are expected to grow by at least 33% from 2015 to 2020, and that is not considering how much its CH4 and HFC emissions will increase.  Therefore, I believe it will be several decades before China's GHG emissions peak:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/global-co2-emissions-will-be-over-40.html

Extract: "China has pledged to reduce its carbon emission intensity, namely emissions per unit of GDP, by 40 percent to 45 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level. It will also aim to bring the proportion of non-fossil fuels to about 15 percent of its total primary energy consumption. By the end of last year, China had reduced carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 28.56 percent from 2005, which was equivalent to saving the world 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, Xie said.

NBF - China is targeting to reduce emissions per unit of GDP by 12-17%. If China increases GDP by 7% per year then GDP would increase by 50% from 2015 to 2020. Achieving 17% reduction would still mean 33% more emissions or about 4 billion tons of carbon or 14.7 billion tons of CO2. CO2 weighs 3.67 time more than carbon."

[Bob Wallace]

If you wish to believe that China will not get its GHG emissions under control until several decades from now then you have to take the position that the Chinese government is lying to the world.

You're free to believe that, of course.  And there's no way to prove you right or wrong except with the passage of time.

[AbruptSLR]

When it was his turn to speak, Zhang told the United Nations gathering that China will “try” to achieve a peak in its carbon emissions “as early as possible.” He did not provide further information on the timeline for that peak. He also pledged to provide $6 million for efforts by the U.N. to promote South-South cooperation on climate change among developing countries.

“As a responsible major developing country, China will make an even greater effort to address climate change and take on international responsibilities that are commensurate with our national conditions,” said Zhang.

After Zhang’s announcement, China’s top climate official, Xie Zhenhua, said China would see a 45 percent drop in carbon emissions intensity — carbon emissions per unit of GDP — by 2020 based on 2005 levels.

Nothing that I posted disputes what China's representatives say in the quote above; therefore, I have most certainly have not said that China is lying to the world.  I agreed that China is cutting back on new coal-fired power plants, but they are increasing their dependence on fossil fuels over-all.

[Sigmetnow]

The severe drought in China is affecting coal and gas production.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/drought-worsens-chinas-long-term-water-crisis-n210736

[Sigmetnow]

"We are doing it for our own sake."

Andrew Freedman on the Chinese emissions statement.
http://mashable.com/2014/09/23/china-carbon-emissions-climate-summit/

[AbruptSLR]

"We are doing it for our own sake."

Andrew Freedman on the Chinese emissions statement.
http://mashable.com/2014/09/23/china-carbon-emissions-climate-summit/

A quote from that article is:
"Xie said China recognizes that it needs to act based on its own best interests due to climate change impacts and air pollution hazards it is already experiencing."

However, I would like to note that there is a significant difference between reducing air pollution and reducing radiative forcing, because air pollution is a negative feedback mechanism, and thus accelerating the cleaning-up of Chinese air pollution will actually accelerate global warming.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that it is likely that Russia will soon become a major supplier of natural gas to China (see extract below).  The methane leaks from such pipeline deals will mean that GHG radiative forcing will not decrease, but air pollution in China will be decreased, which will accelerate global warming:

http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/russia-uses-its-natural-gas-to-play-the-china-card-again/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Extract: "Ahead of a key meeting of global leaders in Beijing, Russian officials say that negotiations are heating up with China for a possible second major energy deal this year. If signed, the pact would authorize a new pipeline that could double the amount of natural gas Russia is scheduled to export to China and elevate Russia into a major supplier there."

[Bob Wallace]

Should we automatically assume leaky pipes?

In the US, and I assume other places, we have a very leaky NG distribution system but that's old pipes that haven't been maintained properly.

[AbruptSLR]

Bob,

You make a valid point that I do not have a crystal ball, and thus I cannot say how much leakage there will, or will not, be for these new gas developments.  Furthermore, I do not know how much of any such leakage would be assigned to Russia during its drilling and collecting activities, and how much leakage would be assigned to China during the transport and distribution activities.  But I am sure that developing new fossil fuel development will mean that peak for China's (and Russia's) GHG emissions (not just leakage but also using/burning methane) will be delayed by such new developments.

Best,
ASLR

[Bob Wallace]

China uses a lot of coal for heating and a fair amount for cooking.  If leaks are minimized and the NG used to replace coal then that's a net gain.

And if the NG is used as a fill-in for wind and solar, allowing more coal generation to be closed that's a larger net gain.

Moving from coal to NG is not the permanent fix we would want but any cuts in emissions help.

[AbruptSLR]

When the Tropomi (see extract below) is launched in early 2016 (not in 2014 as cited below); we will be able to measure methane leaks on Earth from the Sentinel-4/5 satellite.  Then we will be able know how much methane China (and other nations) is (are) leaking into the atmosphere, as right now my guess is no better than your guess:


http://www.tropomi.eu/TROPOMI/Home.html

Extract: "The TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) is a spaceborne nadir viewing spectrometer with bands in the ultraviolet, the visible, the near infrared and the shortwave infrared. TROPOMI is the payload for the ESA/GMES Sentinel 5 Precursor mission, planned for launch in 2014 with 7 years design lifetime. The objective of the mission is to provide high-quality and timely information on the global atmospheric composition for climate and air quality applications. TROPOMI will make daily global observations of key atmospheric constituents, including ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, formaldehyde and aerosol properties. The Sentinel-5 Precursor mission will extent the current data records from OMI (Ozone Monitoring Instrument) on NASA EOS Aura and SCIAMACHY (SCanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for Atmospheric CartograpHY) on ESA Envisat and is the link between the current scientific missions and the operational Sentinel-4/-5 missions.

TROPOMI is an initiative from the Netherlands and is developed in cooperation with ESA. KNMI is the Principal Investigator institute for TROPOMI and SRON is the co-PI institute. The Netherlands Space Office (NSO) manages the TROPOMI project in the Netherlands."


See also
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/satellites-and-simulations-track-missing-methane

[Bob Wallace]

In response to a number of policy measures, such as the G20 committing to progressively phase down HFCs and the European Union effectively banning R134a under the MAC Directive, the industry is developing new mobile air conditioning (MAC) systems designed to use low-GWP (global warming potential) refrigerants.
 
Johanna Gloël of GIZ Proklima presented research findings that demonstrate that under a wide range of Chinese climate conditions, environmentally friendly MAC systems using natural refrigerants, particularly R744, proved more energy efficient than synthetic refrigerant alternatives. With the implementation of natural refrigerants in MAC systems, GHG emissions could be reduced by 30% in China.

http://www.r744.com/news/view/5722


Anyone knowledgeable about refrigerants?  Can a 30% reduction in GHG be accurate?  Or is this 30% of non-CO2 GHG or something else?

Sounds like a fairly simple fix. 

[AbruptSLR]

China uses a lot of coal for heating and a fair amount for cooking.  If leaks are minimized and the NG used to replace coal then that's a net gain.

And if the NG is used as a fill-in for wind and solar, allowing more coal generation to be closed that's a larger net gain.

Moving from coal to NG is not the permanent fix we would want but any cuts in emissions help.

The attached plot provides the number of years before switching from coal to natural gas results in any net gains, as a function of natural gas leaks.  By the time that we realize any net gains mean global temperature rise will likely have already exceeded the 2 degrees C tipping point.

[Bob Wallace]

We know we can control and almost eliminate leaks at the well.  That's been determined via independent research.  Which means that we could stop well leaks very quickly if we decided to do so.

Most of the leakage seems to be from the old, often worn out distribution system that carries NG to our houses and commercial buildings.

Take a look at the leaks in one part of Boston...



That's a problem separate from using NG as a fill-in for renewables.

BTW, following the deadly explosion that happened in the San Francisco area a couple years back PG&E gas been testing and repairing their system.  We need to lean on all gas suppliers to do the same.

[AbruptSLR]

Bob,

As neither one of us controls what either the Chinese, or Russia, are going to do to control methane leaks during drilling, collection, distribution and use; I think that we will have to agree to disagree on what leakage rates will actually occur as China increases its use of natural gas (both imported and increasingly from fracking).

Best,
ASLR

[ccgwebmaster]

As neither one of us controls what either the Chinese, or Russia, are going to do to control methane leaks during drilling, collection, distribution and use; I think that we will have to agree to disagree on what leakage rates will actually occur as China increases its use of natural gas (both imported and increasingly from fracking).

In any event just because something can be done is a very long away from meaning it will be done, even in more affluent nations. If the cost to fix the leaks is greater than the value of wasted gas - there is no economic incentive to do so. You can legislate to force the action (in theory, little progress on this in decades from governments in the wider sense), but then costs are passed onto the consumer and you pinch the economy somewhere else (presuming it's a must have resource that people will prefer to other more discretionary choices).

We could be drowning in solutions, and still die of thirst, that's the sad truth here.

[Bob Wallace]

I think both the US and China will move fairly quickly to control NG leaks at wells. 

I expect the EPA to release some new regs on NG after we get past the November election.  I think PBO intends to do everything he can to fight climate change within the powers he has.  Using the EPA is one thing that he,  I think, can do.  Better we had legislation but I don't see any chance of that getting through Congress in the next couple of years.

I think the Chinese leaders do take climate change seriously and are doing a balancing act, keeping their slowing economy as healthy as possible while lowering GHG emissions.  Clamping down on leaks is a win-win.  As far as I know China doesn't have the old, worn out distribution the US is dealing with.  They can clamp down and save gas.

I have no opinions as to what Russia might do. I put Russia in almost the category of North Korea.

[AbruptSLR]

Bob,

I am not totally sure if the following information fully matches your "But, but, but China ..." theme for this thread, but I have frequently read that China feels entitled to continue polluting unless the rich Western Countries financially reimburse them for the value of the GHGs emitted by the First World since the industrial revolution.  However, the attached image from the Ruddiman video (see the link in Reply #328 of the "Selected Forcing" thread in the Antarctic folder, see: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,41.300.html ), shows that the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (primarily associated with deforestation and agriculture) from about 7,000 yrs ago to the industrial revolution is about the twice anthropogenic CO2 burden in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.  As Chinese society developed earlier than the rich Western Countries, they have a larger portion of this pre-industrial CO2 burden (which influences mean global temperature more than recent emissions); however, I doubt that China will shoulder its responsibility for this early CO2 burden and will continue to feel entitled to maintain high GHG emissions until their per capita wealth more closely matches the First World per capita.

Best,
ASLR

[Bob Wallace]

Personally I don't find a lot of value in attributing the present situation to past offenders.

We're all in this mess together and each needs to do all they can to stop GHG emissions.

Every government finds itself in the tricky position of keeping their economy going while cutting GHG.  (That is, every government that is interested in doing its share.  There are exceptions such as Australia.)

From what I can tell the Chinese government is working on cutting their emissions.  They won't be the first to start reducing CO2 emissions, some European countries and the US have already started downward, but I doubt they will be the last to peak and start dropping.

[viddaloo]

Bob,

as I've pointed out earlier, I very much doubt they will be the first to do so. Your method of gathering evidence seems to be a bit simplistic or reductionistic. Eg. you figures for co2 cuts in America are figures from energy industry in America only. Not US co2 emissions.

[Bob Wallace]

Of course China won't be the first to cut CO2.  I clearly stated that other countries have already begun cutting.
--


Here is total CO2 emissions for the US and a sector breakout.



Here's is US CO2 emissons per capita from the World Bank.  Along with China and Russia data.



Your charge was incorrect.

[Laurent]

U.S. carbon emissions tick higher; Obama tells U.N.: ‘We have to do more’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/us-carbon-emissions-tick-higher-obama-tells-un-we-have-to-do-more/2014/09/26/827f770e-45b1-11e4-b47c-f5889e061e5f_story.html

It is really unfair if we do not add to one nation emission the part that is produce abroad, in the case of France, I am pretty sure that 70% of our goods are produce in China...so we should add that to our emissions.

[AbruptSLR]

Of course China won't be the first to cut CO2.  I clearly stated that other countries have already begun cutting.


Here is total CO2 emissions for the US and a sector breakout.

Bob,

By citing out of date information you come across as actively trying to paint a rosier picture of our current situation than we are current in.  Certainly the US CO2 emissions dropped temporarily after the 2008 financial meltdown and the growth of fracking; however, the two attached plots from the link that Laurent provided indicates that now that the US unemployment rate is dropping the US CO2 emissions from January to June 2014 are up.  It may well be premature to say that US GHG emissions (including CH4) have peaked (particularly if the economy regains its footing and people focus on jobs).

See also:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/monthly-energy-review-for-september-2014/1344/

[Bob Wallace]

My point was to illustrated that US emissions have fallen since 2005.  Your graph confirms my point.



And was making that point because of this charge -

" Your method of gathering evidence seems to be a bit simplistic or reductionistic. Eg. you figures for co2 cuts in America are figures from energy industry in America only. Not US co2 emissions."

Now, let's look at your graph and my 'total CO2' graph.  2005 peak.  2008 is down.  One might attribute that to the recession but, in fact, the recession started very late in 2008 and the big crash was mostly in early 2009.  One would have to look carefully to tease out the effect of the recession.  Offhand labeling would not be valid.

CO2 is down in 2009.  That could easily be mostly recession.

CO2 moves up a small amount in 2010.  Recovery?

CO2 moves down a small amount in 2011.  Now, how far do we go trying to explain modest changes in CO2 levels to the recession?  Things were better in 2011 than in 2010.  If recovery is the CO2 driver then why the downturn?

CO2 moves further down in 2012.  We're more recovered.  Time to put recession/recovery explanations to bed, they don't seem to be explanatory with the exception of 2009.  You can't claim rising CO2 levels are caused by recovery when you've got falling CO2 levels in other recovery years.

[ccgwebmaster]

CO2 moves further down in 2012.  We're more recovered.  Time to put recession/recovery explanations to bed, they don't seem to be explanatory with the exception of 2009.  You can't claim rising CO2 levels are caused by recovery when you've got falling CO2 levels in other recovery years.

You have a pretty damn rosy idea of what recovery is apparently. You can have GDP growth of up to 2% without creating any jobs at all. Wealth and disposable income (drivers of consumption) are still severely impacted, with no meaningful recovery in the years you're quoting it for the majority of people. Therefore it's perfectly plausible carbon emissions remained suppressed almost to the present time.

Furthermore, it's pretty likely energy consumption and associated emissions lead many other indicators of recession/depression, in much the same way that the Baltic Dry Index does (and many also lead on the exit, hence an uptick in emissions even before real signs of recovery are present for most people).

I think it's extremely premature to claim the US has reduced emissions by any amount independently of economic activity, and furthermore it absolutely has not started reducing emissions by any amount that the very rosy IPCC outlook says would be sufficient to stay within the very optimistic danger threshold of 2C as a "target".

Furthermore, you keep ignoring imported carbon emissions. It's all smoke and mirrors if you close down coal plants while China builds more to manufacture the stuff you import. Sure, you get to posture and blame China for the emissions and not doing more - but it's all the same in the end.

Then of course, there is the small matter of US policy, the Keystone pipeline, the rush to frack, the desire to seize claim to Arctic "resources". Nothing at all to me suggests the US is serious about cutting emissions beyond political posturing.

[Bob Wallace]

The US economy added 248000 jobs in September.

The jobless rate fell below 6%.  5% unemployment in the US is considered by economists to be full employment.

The US is using less fossil fuels per MWh of electricity and less petroleum per mile driven.

Efficiency is cutting the amount of electricity used.

[Bob Wallace]

The amount of coal used to generate electricity in China fell by nearly one-quarter in the month of August, according to new data – a blip on the global coal consumption radar that could soon become the norm, as the Chinese government commits to a 2014 target of slashing thermal coal imports and more and more major international funds join the fossil fuel divestment movement.

Deutsche Bank reported on Monday that a survey of thermal coal used in China by six major coastal electric utilities shows that consumption declined by 23 per cent YoY during the August-September period.

According to Deutsche, these utilities include three of China’s five largest state-owned utilities, serving coastal demand regions including Zhejiang, Shanghai and Guangdong, and account for annualised 2014 thermal coal consumption of 233 mt, or 11 per cent of Chinese utility demand for thermal coal.

Deutsche says the main drivers behind this reduced consumption include lower top-line power demand growth, and strong hydropower output over the course of the Chinese summer (Figures 2 and 3, above). The report says China’s high hydropower output will decline on a seasonal basis, but will likely remain above 2013 levels thanks to capacity expansions of 13GW in the first half of 2014.

“Additionally, the government mandate to reduce thermal coal imports this year by 40 mt year on year will trigger the first annual fall in China’s thermal coal imports since it became a net importer in 2009,” says the report.

“Compliance with this mandate is likely to be enhanced by the fact that the amount of import cuts have been individually assigned to the largest power utilities. According to McCloskey, power group CEOs will be held responsible for these cuts, and penalties will include reduced power generation quotas. Even a 50% implementation of the mandate would imply an 8% drop in China coal imports this year, which signals further weakness in thermal coal FOB prices into 2015, in our view.”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/china-coal-consumption-down-23-as-more-funds-dump-fossil-fuels-40314

As well, China is doing some massive spending on renewables. 

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article references a peer reviewed article stating that the boom economy in China is undoing all of the efforts that they have made to reduce CO2 emissions:

http://www.autoworldnews.com/articles/9379/20141007/chinas-efforts-to-cut-carbon-emissions-hampered-by-economic-boom.htm

[Bob Wallace]

That article assumes a continued high expansion of China's economy.  China's economic growth is slowing. 

[AbruptSLR]

That article assumes a continued high expansion of China's economy.  China's economic growth is slowing.

According to the linked article and image China's GDP on a PPP basis just past that for the US economy, so it appears more likely that you are assuming that Chinas' economic growth (on a PPP basis) is slowing down, as the numbers say otherwise:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/08/china-gdp-tops-us_n_5951374.html

[Bob Wallace]

That's not a Gross Domestic Product graph.  It's GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity.

[AbruptSLR]

PPP mean Purchasing Price Parity (as given in my original post) and PPP is what governs GHG emissions not monetary (international market place value) as PPP says what is really being consumed.  Therefore the graph that I show is the relevant graph.

[Bob Wallace]

That is what is being consumed inside the country.

[AbruptSLR]

Yes, consumption within China is what is producing the GHG that we are talking about.

[Bob Wallace]

I don't have a long term graph available.  Will have to do with two graphs and a single non-graphed data point...





And 7.4% for 2014, Q1.

[AbruptSLR]

Certainly, using monetary current prices makes China's economy look smaller (see attached comparison to the US GDP), but using monetary current prices is not relevant to how much GHG China is emitting, which is tied to purchasing price parity, PPP.

Besides that your plots show growth rates of GDP (in percents) not GDP which is still growing even when measured in monetary (current market price) terms rather than PPP.

[Bob Wallace]

I think this conversation goes back to a statement on my part that the Chinese economy was slowing down, not speeding up.  And when people talk about national economies they generally mean gross national product.

When I look at the GDP graphs I see a slowing of GDP growth.

I never made a statement about China's economy shrinking.

You seem to want to use a different measure.  That's fine, I guess, but it has nothing to do with my statement.  Or perhaps I don't understand your measurement of choice.

It's likely to take a year or two to see if China is going to  reached peak coal as many are predicting.  And it could take another year or two after that to start seeing a significant slowing, or even minor drop, of CO2 emissions.

What we will be able to see in the more immediate future is China spending a lot on renewable energy and putting a lot of emphasis on electric cars.  We may see a slowing of new coal starts, but I'm not sure that's public information.  We can probably learn a lot by watching Chinese coal production and importing which is generally public.

[Sigmetnow]

"Days of heavy smog shrouding swathes of northern China pushed pollution to more than 20 times safe levels on Friday, despite government promises to tackle environmental blight."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/10/china-pollution-levels-hit-20-times-safe-levels

[Shared Humanity]

We can probably learn a lot by watching Chinese coal production and importing which is generally public.

I agree with you Bob. This is the single most accurate metric to follow regarding coal consumption. One advantage is it captures all uses of coal, including coke production and steel manufacture. The only problem with this measure is the lag. Generally accurate measures of imports and production are slow to be reported.

Here is a breakout for coal usage in China with projections. The dramatic slowing in the growth of coal consumption for the first half of this decade suggests that China is beginning to decouple its economy from coal consumption.

When we talk about slowing growth in the China economy, we should recognize that slow growth in China means something far different than in the developed nations. In the latest quarter, growth slowed to 7.3%.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-china-economy-gdp-idUSKCN0HZ0GE20141010

Clearly coal consumption is not growing nearly as fast as the economy.

[AbruptSLR]

I think this conversation goes back to a statement on my part that the Chinese economy was slowing down, not speeding up.  And when people talk about national economies they generally mean gross national product.

When I look at the GDP graphs I see a slowing of GDP growth.

I never made a statement about China's economy shrinking.

You seem to want to use a different measure.  That's fine, I guess, but it has nothing to do with my statement.  Or perhaps I don't understand your measurement of choice.

It's likely to take a year or two to see if China is going to  reached peak coal as many are predicting.  And it could take another year or two after that to start seeing a significant slowing, or even minor drop, of CO2 emissions.

What we will be able to see in the more immediate future is China spending a lot on renewable energy and putting a lot of emphasis on electric cars.  We may see a slowing of new coal starts, but I'm not sure that's public information.  We can probably learn a lot by watching Chinese coal production and importing which is generally public.

Bob,

A monetary (or purchasing price) evaluation of GDP is a financial concept, while Purchasing Price Parity, reflects actual consumption.  This is clearly demonstrated in the first attached slide (from the following free pdf) that shows while the monetary GDP rate of growth is slowing down (the same values you have been showing), while the energy demand (reflective of PPP) is continuing to rise.

http://www.eia.gov/conference/2014/pdf/presentations/xu.pdf

Furthermore, the second attached image (from the same source) shows the energy mix supply available for China, which shows that even if fossil fuels are projected to be a declining percentage of the Chinese energy supply mix; in absolute terms (see the insert figure) the fossil fuel supply will continue to grow, resulting in GHG emissions continuing to grow.

Best,
ASLR