China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter

[BERIGAN]

China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter

John Vidal and David Adam

Tuesday June 19, 2007

Guardian Unlimited

Cyclists pass a factory in Yutian in China's north-west Hebei province. Photograph: Peter Parks/AFP

China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.

The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China's emissions had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, for several years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year.

Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China's recorded emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m tonnes.

Jos Olivier, a senior scientist at the government agency who compiled the figures, said: "There will still be some uncertainty about the exact numbers, but this is the best and most up to date estimate available. China relies very heavily on coal and all of the recent trends show their emissions going up very quickly." China's emissions were 2% below those of the US in 2005. Per head of population, China's pollution remains relatively low - about a quarter of that in the US and half that of the UK.

The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.

Dr Olivier said it was hard to find up to date and reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from countries in the developing world. But he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from top spot. "Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions."

To work out the emissions figures, Dr Oliver used data issued by the oil company BP earlier this month on the consumption of oil, gas and coal across the world during 2006, as well as information on cement production published by the US Geological Survey. Cement production, which requires huge amounts of energy, accounts for about 4% of global CO2 production from fuel use and industrial sources. China's cement industry, which has rapidly expanded in recent years and now produces about 44% of world supply, contributes almost 9% of the country's CO2 emissions. Dr Olivier calculated carbon dioxide emissions from each country's use of oil, gas and coal using UN conversion factors. China's surge beyond the US was helped by a 1.4% fall in the latter's CO2 emissions during 2006, which analysts say is down to a slowing US economy.

The announcement comes as international negotiations to produce a new climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012 are delicately poised. The US refused to ratify Kyoto partly because it made no demands on China, and one major sticking point of the new negotiations has been finding a way to include both nations, as well as other rapidly developing economies such as India and Brazil. Tony Blair believes the best approach is to develop national markets to cap and trade carbon, which could then be linked.

Earlier this month, China unveiled its first national plan on climate change after two years of preparation by 17 government ministries. Rather than setting a direct target for the reduction or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions, it now aims to reduce energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 20% by 2010 and to increase the share of renewable energy to some 10%, as well as to cover roughly 20% of the nation's land with forest.

But it stressed that technology and costs are major barriers to achieving energy efficiency in China, and that it will be hard to alter the nation's dependency on coal in the short term. What China needs, said a government spokesman, is international cooperation in helping China move toward a low-carbon economy. Chinese industries have been hesitant to embrace unproven clean coal and carbon capture technologies that are still in their infancy in developed countries.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...ed=networkfront

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

It has long been apparent that the poorer countries of the world wish to have standards of living not greatly different from those of the richer ones. And it has also been forecasted that they will most likely follow a similar course in order to catch up. And it has also been seen that they prove most resistant to agreeing to cut their energy consumption.

This is not hard to understand.

It's hard to do anything about it, however.

MG

[Chuck Nessa]

Hooray!!!! We aren't #1 anymore.

[connoisseur series500]

Pollution emissions have been a long time indicator of economic strength. Towards the end of the 19th century, Britain still led the world in coal consumption, even ahead of the US (If I correctly remember my figures from Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.")

There is the issue of pollution controls but there is also the issue of a very large and dynamic economy.

[Chuck Nessa]

Pollution emissions have been a long time indicator of economic strength. Towards the end of the 19th century, Britain still led the world in coal consumption, even ahead of the US (If I correctly remember my figures from Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.")

There is the issue of pollution controls but there is also the issue of a very large and dynamic economy.

And that's what's wrong with our system.

[Guy Berger]

Pollution emissions have been a long time indicator of economic strength. Towards the end of the 19th century, Britain still led the world in coal consumption, even ahead of the US (If I correctly remember my figures from Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.")

What do you mean by "economic strength"?

Guy

[connoisseur series500]

Pollution emissions have been a long time indicator of economic strength. Towards the end of the 19th century, Britain still led the world in coal consumption, even ahead of the US (If I correctly remember my figures from Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.")

What do you mean by "economic strength"?

Guy

Consumption and production as a sign of industrial strength.

[RDK]

Pollution emissions have been a long time indicator of economic strength. Towards the end of the 19th century, Britain still led the world in coal consumption, even ahead of the US (If I correctly remember my figures from Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.")

There is the issue of pollution controls but there is also the issue of a very large and dynamic economy.

And that's what's wrong with our system.

It's bad that we have a large and dynamic economy?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Pollution emissions have been a long time indicator of economic strength. Towards the end of the 19th century, Britain still led the world in coal consumption, even ahead of the US (If I correctly remember my figures from Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.")

What do you mean by "economic strength"?

Guy

Consumption and production as a sign of industrial strength.

That's not strength; that's size.

To me, strength would equate with resilience - the ability to cope with problems. I don't think too many western economies have that sort of ability, because of income inequality. Size helps, insofar as it takes a bigger problem to cause an upset.

MG

[Guy Berger]

Pollution emissions have been a long time indicator of economic strength. Towards the end of the 19th century, Britain still led the world in coal consumption, even ahead of the US (If I correctly remember my figures from Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.")

What do you mean by "economic strength"?

Guy

Consumption and production as a sign of industrial strength.

1) Since agriculture and services can be important sectors of economy, "industrial strength" and "economic strength" are not the same thing.

2) Since poorer economies tend to use dirtier technologies, they also tend to have much higher emissions/GDP ratios.

3) India and China have huge populations, and obviously that's going to make their emissions large. If their populations were 1/10th as large, we wouldn't be having this conversation. (Nobody is starting threads about the Luxembourg's economic strength.)

Guy

[connoisseur series500]

Yes, I mean economic size rather than economic strength.

My point is that the pollution is now the unmistakeable sign that China is becoming the largest economy. It's an important indicator of economic size. No moral judgement was being expressed here. I was just stating some facts.

[Jazzmoose]

1) Since agriculture and services can be important sectors of economy, "industrial strength" and "economic strength" are not the same thing.

While you are correct to a degree, I don't think it's as big of a degree as you think. The British thought "services" could replace manufacturing, as did other major economic powers of the past. When they reached that stage, they were already fading. As are we.

[Guy Berger]

1) Since agriculture and services can be important sectors of economy, "industrial strength" and "economic strength" are not the same thing.

While you are correct to a degree, I don't think it's as big of a degree as you think. The British thought "services" could replace manufacturing, as did other major economic powers of the past. When they reached that stage, they were already fading. As are we.

Not sure what you are talking about -- Britain's per capita GDP is now higher than it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Guy

ps From Eurostat, Britain's GDP per capita in terms of 1995 Euros (?):

1957a00 6800

1967a00 8600

1977a00 10600

1987a00 13000

1997a00 15800

2007a00 19900

Edited June 21, 2007 by Guy

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

1) Since agriculture and services can be important sectors of economy, "industrial strength" and "economic strength" are not the same thing.

While you are correct to a degree, I don't think it's as big of a degree as you think. The British thought "services" could replace manufacturing, as did other major economic powers of the past. When they reached that stage, they were already fading. As are we.

I never did - I always argued that what people really wanted to buy were things, not life insurance (obviously a record collector ). But the Government's real aim at the time was focused on destroying the trade unions; so it was helpful for this policy that huge chunks of manufacturing industry were "helped" to shut down by a "fixed" exchange rate and extremely tight money, with interest rates so high that most manufacturing return rates on investment couldn't cut it compared with the returns on low investment financial services (and property).

MG

Edited June 21, 2007 by The Magnificent Goldberg

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

1) Since agriculture and services can be important sectors of economy, "industrial strength" and "economic strength" are not the same thing.

While you are correct to a degree, I don't think it's as big of a degree as you think. The British thought "services" could replace manufacturing, as did other major economic powers of the past. When they reached that stage, they were already fading. As are we.

Not sure what you are talking about -- Britain's per capita GDP is now higher than it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Guy

But Britain has been slipping farther and farther down the league table. Since about the 1870s, I think.

MG

[Guy Berger]

Not sure what you are talking about -- Britain's per capita GDP is now higher than it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Guy

But Britain has been slipping farther and farther down the league table. Since about the 1870s, I think.

MG

What if you had told an Englishman in 1870 that Ireland* would be a substantially wealthier country than Great Britain 140 years later?

Guy

*The service sector takes up 49% of Ireland's economy.

[connoisseur series500]

1) Since agriculture and services can be important sectors of economy, "industrial strength" and "economic strength" are not the same thing.

While you are correct to a degree, I don't think it's as big of a degree as you think. The British thought "services" could replace manufacturing, as did other major economic powers of the past. When they reached that stage, they were already fading. As are we.

Not sure what you are talking about -- Britain's per capita GDP is now higher than it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Guy

But Britain has been slipping farther and farther down the league table. Since about the 1870s, I think.

MG

By "league" do you mean European league? If so, then that stat is virtually meaningless in that Britain had the world's largest economy in 1870. Only one way to go from there, baby...and it's down!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Not sure what you are talking about -- Britain's per capita GDP is now higher than it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Guy

But Britain has been slipping farther and farther down the league table. Since about the 1870s, I think.

MG

What if you had told an Englishman in 1870 that Ireland* would be a substantially wealthier country than Great Britain 140 years later?

Guy

You'd have got the same reaction as in 1960

*The service sector takes up 49% of Ireland's economy.

In Britain, it's 76.2%. Mfg is 14.4%. (of GVA)

(Nyah)

MG

Edited June 21, 2007 by The Magnificent Goldberg

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

1) Since agriculture and services can be important sectors of economy, "industrial strength" and "economic strength" are not the same thing.

While you are correct to a degree, I don't think it's as big of a degree as you think. The British thought "services" could replace manufacturing, as did other major economic powers of the past. When they reached that stage, they were already fading. As are we.

Not sure what you are talking about -- Britain's per capita GDP is now higher than it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

Guy

But Britain has been slipping farther and farther down the league table. Since about the 1870s, I think.

MG

By "league" do you mean European league? If so, then that stat is virtually meaningless in that Britain had the world's largest economy in 1870. Only one way to go from there, baby...and it's down!

Precisely!

(Actually, Britain hasn't been doing TOO badly in the last decade or so, compared to the G8 or whatever (I forget how many in the numbers I last looked at). But the overall trend since WWII has been down.)

MG

[Jazzmoose]

...Britain had the world's largest economy in 1870. Only one way to go from there, baby...and it's down!

That was my point.

[Guy Berger]

...Britain had the world's largest economy in 1870. Only one way to go from there, baby...and it's down!

That was my point.

Well, it's a very underwhelming (and incorrect) one. Though I'm too lazy to dig through the historical data, I'm willing to bet that its fall from the #1 spot predates the peak of manufacturing's share in the British economy. Also, most of the countries currently ahead of Britain in the rankings have a very high services/GDP ratio.

I'm also not sure why a tripling of British GDP per capita over the past 50 years counts as an "economic decline".

Guy

Edited June 22, 2007 by Guy

[connoisseur series500]

It's very encouraging if you are saying that countries whose economies are service-dominated can do well. It would imply that America has a future. Right now, here in the Midwest, all we see is economic decline owing to our industrial decline.

I don't know whether Britain's decline predated it's industrial decline. I would guess that industry was only part of the story. Britain's economic strength in the 1870s lay in its trade. It was taking in all kinds of commodities from its colonies and trading manufactured goods. It was cooking on all cylindars so to speak, as the economy wasn't reliant on a single aspect. It dominated in industry, trade and finance. Wars have played a large role in economic shifts too. Countries which were entering war really pumped up their production. America started to become a major factor around WW1.

[Jazzmoose]

...Britain had the world's largest economy in 1870. Only one way to go from there, baby...and it's down!

That was my point.

Well, it's a very underwhelming (and incorrect) one. Though I'm too lazy to dig through the historical data, I'm willing to bet that its fall from the #1 spot predates the peak of manufacturing's share in the British economy. Also, most of the countries currently ahead of Britain in the rankings have a very high services/GDP ratio.

I'm also not sure why a tripling of British GDP per capita over the past 50 years counts as an "economic decline".

Guy

First of all, fifty years ago, Great Britian has already fallen from it's number one position in the world, so I'm not sure what relevance any increase over the past fifty years has to that point. What I'm talking about is "top dog" status: the number one economic powerhouse in the world. Right now it's us, but as we turn more to 'services' rather than 'manufacturing', we are beginning our slow slide from the top of the heap.

Secondly, I'm not saying that there is causation in the rixe of services vs. manufacturing in the decline of the top dog's relative strength. It could very well be an indicator rather than the cause.

Third, as for your bet, I would be more than happy to take it. Britian's share of the world's manufacturing production stood at 31.8% in 1870, and steadily shrunk until 1910 when it reached 14.7%. Britain still had it's financial services of course, and the pound still reigned supreme, but soon enough the dollar took over there as well.

[Guy Berger]

It's very encouraging if you are saying that countries whose economies are service-dominated can do well. It would imply that America has a future. Right now, here in the Midwest, all we see is economic decline owing to our industrial decline.

Top 10 economies in terms of GDP per capita (PPP adjusted) / service sector as % of economy

1. Luxembourg: $80,471 / 86%

2. Ireland: $44,087 / 49%

3. Norway: $43,574 / 56.3%

4. United States: $43,444 / 78.6%

5. Iceland: $40,277 / ?

6. Switzerland: $37,369 / 64.5%

7. Denmark: $36.549 / 76%

8. Austria: $36,031 / 70.9%

9. Canada: $35,494 / 71.3%

10. Netherlands: $35,078 / 79%

I don't know whether Britain's decline predated it's industrial decline. I would guess that industry was only part of the story. Britain's economic strength in the 1870s lay in its trade. It was taking in all kinds of commodities from its colonies and trading manufactured goods. It was cooking on all cylindars so to speak, as the economy wasn't reliant on a single aspect. It dominated in industry, trade and finance. Wars have played a large role in economic shifts too. Countries which were entering war really pumped up their production. America started to become a major factor around WW1.

At the time (mid-19th century) agriculture was still quite unproductive. Hence, the fact that Britain had gotten a head start on industrialization made a big difference.

Let's also keep in mind that Britain was a MUCH poorer country in 1870 than it is today, despite being the wealthiest in the world at the time. It was "economically strong" simply because everybody else was so ridiculously poor.

Guy

[Jazzmoose]

Let's also keep in mind that Britain was a MUCH poorer country in 1870 than it is today, despite being the wealthiest in the world at the time. It was "economically strong" simply because everybody else was so ridiculously poor.

Well, if that's the attitude you're going to take, let's switch to comparing Bonds and Aaron...