Yesterday, I pointed out this article, which quoted a Chinese official as saying that country’s CO2 emissions will peak in 2050.
Now we have news of a new report (“2050 China Energy and C02 Emissions Report”) from within China that says:
“As soon as possible, study and draft relative and (then) absolute targets to cap the total volume of carbon dioxide emissions,” says the preface of the report, obtained by Reuters.
“Establishing and acting on quantified targets and corresponding policies to address climate change in the medium to long-term is already a matter of great urgency.”
The “2050 China Energy and C02 Emissions Report” proposes that, with the right policies, emissions growth could slow by 2020, with levels peaking around 2030.
If China can reach these goals, by 2050 its carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel “could fall to the same emissions levels as in 2005 or even lower,” the report says.
With the right policies China’s CO2 emissions “could” peak by 2030, and decline by 2050 to 2005 levels? Is that enough, according to current science? Not even close.
Using the endlessly repeated “80% reduction in world emissions by 2050″ guideline, the scenario described above translates to China single-handedly putting the world over its limit.
US CO2 emissions were roughly 6.0 billion metric tons of CO2/year in 2006. (See Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990 – 2007 [large PDF], Table ES-2.)
China’s CO2 emissions from just energy use in 2006 were 6.0 billion metric tons, and in 2005 they were 5.4 billion metric tons. China’s total CO2 emissions are slightly higher, as they’re widely reported to be just ahead of US total CO2 emissions. For the sake of simplification, consider them equal to US emissions in 2006, 6.0 billion metric tons, and ignore the “energy use only”/all sources distinction.
This says that in 2006, world CO2 emissions were 20% US, 20% China, 60% rest of world.
If you follow David Archer’s (apparent) example in his book The Long Thaw, as I did in writing about The CO2 Countdown Clock, and assume the 80% reduction is against a base of 2000, we then have:
World emissions declining to 4.8 billion metric tons/year (20% of 24), while China’s CO2 emissions decline to only 5.4 billion metric tons/year, leaving us with the rest of the world having to emit a net negative 0.6 billion metric tons/year.
If ou think 2005 should be the baseline year instead of 2000, then we have world emissions at 5.7 billion metric tons/year, still over China’s 2005 level.
If you insist on being old school and sticking to the original 1990 baseline, which seems to have been quietly shelved, for reasons only apparent to me in most cynical moments, then the world has to get down to a mere 4.3 billion metric tons/year (20% of 21.563 billion metric tons/year), leaving the rest of the world 1.1 billion metric tons/year over budget thanks to China.
Once again, I have to stress that this is an “area under the curve” issue, where we care about the total emissions over time, not just getting under some particular limbo stick in 2050. The “80% by 2050″ guideline, using whatever baseline year you choose, normally assumes a continual decline in world emissions from now until 2050. If China’s emissions continue to rise slightly until 2030 and then decline, that “extra” CO2 emitted between now and 2030 has to be accounted for somewhere else in the global emissions budget. Either the 2050 goal has to include even deeper cuts than 80%, or emissions post-2050 have to decline to zero even quicker than is currently assumed (the year 2100).
In short, if this is the best that China can do (peak in 2030 and decline to 2005 levels by 2050), we’re cooked, because The CO2 Countdown Clock is ticking, and our planet’s climate doesn’t care who emits the CO2 or exactly when (thanks to CO2′s long atmospheric lifetime).
Just wondering–anyone here still think that politics and international relations are less interesting than the hard science aspects of climate chaos?
A very nice article Lou. I think this will just be what China, politically, can commit to for the time being. Just like the US’s anemic (inadequate) climate change bill that’s trying to get from the house to the senate, China’s position will just be good for indicating that the ship is turning in the right direction (like ours) from an emissions standpoint.
Seems like we’re going to have to wait 5-10 years for real crisis events to occur and hope (best case scenario) what’s not politically possible now becomes possible then and then hope we have time to do it all. Then we can hope for emissions reductions actions on a global basis that might realistically keep us from handing control over to one of the many feedbacks that is lurking for us.
I think one of the things that keeps hitting me in the face on all this, is that at any point over the next 50 + years, we (any of the big players) can blow it for eveyone. China or the US doesn’t commit to emissions reductions over the next year or two and its game over. And that kind of option to loose control of things seems to be sitting there, throughout this process in perpetuity – at least for our lives.
But to get through this, we’re going to have to do the right thing consistently, basically every time from here on out – hit the right number on the roulette wheel every time from here on out for 50 years over and over again. e.g. a committment to emissions reductions now from all the big guys over the next couple of years, re-commitments to realistic (to solve the problem) emissions reductions in 5-15 years, making those emissions reductions happen in a world that’s coming apart as it dries out or has less oil etc., implement geo-engineering schemes to give us enough time to get our houses in order without making things worse by some unanticipated side effect…). Seems quite crazy to expect to be able to do that on a global basis, doesn’t it?
This is a heck of a test of us as a species, that we’ve made for ourselves.
I share your view on both what China’s up to (a mix of the expectations game, internal politics, and negotiating tactics) as well as how little “wiggle room” the whole world has. All it will take is one truly bad turn of events (like some knuckle dragging caveman being elected or overthrowing an existing government) for us to be in deep trouble.
I keep imagining leaders of various countries having confidential meetings with their science experts and being told just how precarious the situation is, and the news having the needed impact. Maybe I’m being ridiculously optimistic, but I believe that there’s quite a gap between what countries say about CC and what they know, and it won’t be as bad as it now looks.