China overtakes U.S. as top CO2 emitter

[seruriermarshal]

China overtakes U.S. as top CO2 emitter

By AUDRA ANG, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 20, 10:52 PM ET



BEIJING - China has overtaken the United States as the world's top producer of carbon dioxide emissions — the biggest man-made contributor to global warming — based on the latest widely accepted energy consumption data, a Dutch research group says.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to a report released Tuesday by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China overtook the U.S. in emissions of CO2 by about 7.5 percent in 2006. While China was 2 percent below the United States in 2005, voracious coal consumption and increased cement production caused the numbers to rise rapidly, the group said.

"It's an expression of their fast industrial production activities and their fast development," Jos G.J. Olivier, the agency's senior scientist who compiled the figures, said Wednesday. The agency is independent but paid by the Dutch government to advise it on environmental policy.

The study said China, which relies on coal for two-thirds of its energy needs and makes 44 percent of the world's cement, produced 6.23 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2006. In comparison, the U.S., which gets half its electricity from coal, produced 5.8 billion metric tons of CO2.

The group's analysis makes sense and had been predicted to happen by 2009 or 2010, said experts from the United Nations and the U.S. Energy Information Administration, and outside academics.

Bert Metz, a senior researcher at the Dutch agency and a leading expert on efforts to battle global warming, said the analysis was done using methods and data that "are the best currently available."

This means that "Chinese contributions to global CO2 emissions are getting more important," Metz said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

A woman in the press office of China's State Environmental Protection Agency called the report irresponsible, and said "it's impossible that China is the world's top producer of carbon dioxide emissions." The woman, who refused to give her name, said her agency and the National Development and Reform Commission were collecting evidence to refute the Dutch report.

Repeated calls to the National Development and Reform Commission, the Cabinet-level economic planning agency, rang unanswered.

Earlier figures indicated China would likely surpass the U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions as early as 2009, although other predictions said it could happen this year.

Chinese environmental officials have said that while total emissions are going up, they are still less than one quarter of those of the United States on a per capita basis. Because China's population of 1.3 billion people is more than four times that of the United States, China spews about 10,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per person, while in the United States it is nearly 42,500 pounds per person.

Olivier said there was not much chance China will now lose its lead.

"China's growth will saturate at some point," he said. But "for now, we don't see a trend (toward) this saturation yet."

Olivier said the research was based on data on fossil fuel consumption from BP PLC's Review of Energy 2007, compiled by the British oil company, and cement production data through 2006 published by the U.S. Geological Survey.

John Christensen, head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development in Denmark, said the figures did not come as a surprise.

"The Dutch agency referred to BP statistics, which is the standard reference tool. We have no reason to doubt that the numbers are right. We have no reason to doubt the methodology," Christensen said. "It's been stated many times that China will overtake the U.S. in emissions."

Other sources of carbon dioxide, such as deforestation and the flaring of gas in oil and gas production, are not included in the data. They also do not include methane from fuel production and agriculture and nitrous oxide from industry.

Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency also said the findings were not surprising, given China's economic growth of more than 9 percent annually over the past 25 years.

His agency had estimated China would overtake the U.S. before 2010; in November it sharpened the forecast to 2007 or 2008.

But the issue isn't just current emissions, but carbon dioxide stuck in the atmosphere, where it lingers for about a century trapping heat below, said Jay Apt, a professor of engineering, business and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh.

Apt and a colleague calculated the share of carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere that can be attributed to each country and determined that the United States is responsible for 27 percent, European nations contributed 20 percent and China only 8 percent.

"The planet does not respond to emissions, the planet responds to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," said Apt. "It means the U.S. will have the lion's share of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for the foreseeable future. In fact, even if China's exponential growth continues, China will not surpass the U.S. in the numbers of carbon dioxide atoms in the atmosphere, that is concentration, until at least 2050, which is too late to start anything."

The International Energy Agency's Birol said the key message from the emission figures isn't who is No. 1, but the need to slow growth in CO2 emissions. "The rest of the world with the help of China needs to find ways for China to reduce CO2 emissions," Birol said.

China has come under growing international pressure to take more forceful measures to curb releases of greenhouse gases.

This month, China unveiled its first national program to combat global warming with promises to rein in greenhouse gas production. While the program offered few new concrete targets for greenhouse gas emissions, it outlined steps the country would take to meet a previously announced goal of improving energy efficiency in 2010 by 20 percent over 2005's level.

Beijing also indicated an unwillingness to enforce mandatory emissions caps.

Ma Kai, the minister heading the National Development and Reform Commission, said economic development is a priority for China, but efforts would be made to raise awareness about global warming.

China signed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which caps the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted in industrialized countries. But because China is considered a developing country it is exempt from emission reductions — a situation often cited by the Bush administration and Australia for not accepting the treaty.

Yang Ailun of Greenpeace China called on the country to take more steps to protect the environment. "Due to the urgency of climate change, China has the responsibility to take immediate actions to reform its energy structure and curb its CO2 emissions," Yang said in a statement.

She noted that Western consumers use products made in China.

"All the West has done is export a great slice of its carbon footprint to China and make China the world's factory," she said. "This trend has kept the price of projects in the West down, but led to a climate disaster in the long term."

___

Associated Press writer Arthur Max in Amsterdam and Science Writer Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070621/ap_on_re_as/china_climate_change;_ylt=Amc2t._wuaZs9e5SHPTYF7sBxg8F

[signatory]

China already saw this "news" coming and has been using the 'we don't pollute much at all... PER CAPITA!' rethoric for a while now...

[Lazy Lob]

I would not be in the least surprised that in the near future we will see CO2 emissions labelling on all products and it will be up to the company or individual whether to buy or not.

[Nightsky]

China already saw this "news" coming and has been using the 'we don't pollute much at all... PER CAPITA!' rethoric for a while now...

which is indeed a valid argument - you don't think about asking the UK to reach Luxembourg's emission level either, do you ?

[Flagg]

I just read on the interweb that we may be ready to have a mini ice age......so no global warming...it's now going to be global cooling.

I have an idea!

If we ALL plant a couple of trees AND buy Hummer's we'll balance out global warming with the coming mini ice age.

That way we can STILL party like rockstars...wooooooo! bring on the strippers and booze!

[signatory]

which is indeed a valid argument - you don't think about asking the UK to reach Luxembourg's emission level either, do you ?

lol what a brilliant idea. Let's clean up the planet by producing a ridiculous amount of babies.

It will look good. Per capita.

[Eusebius]

lol what a brilliant idea. Let's clean up the planet by producing a ridiculous amount of babies.

It will look good. Per capita.

The argument is quite valid.

China did not somehow force their people into a population explosion to play silly environmental games with the west.

China's 1 child policy is enforced quite heavily in certain regions.

Ultimately, the west has little leverage over China. This isn't Panama or some other tiny state which can be so easily bullied. The fact that they co-operate at all on environmental issues should be something Greenpeace and other environmental groups or nations should be thankful for. A beligerent China on this issue, could be quite damaging given their economic clout and potential to pollute and buy the opinions and votes of others.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The argument is quite valid.

China did not somehow force their people into a population explosion to play silly environmental games with the west.

China's 1 child policy is enforced quite heavily in certain regions.

Ultimately, the west has little leverage over China. This isn't Panama or some other tiny state which can be so easily bullied. The fact that they co-operate at all on environmental issues should be something Greenpeace and other environmental groups or nations should be thankful for. A beligerent China on this issue, could be quite damaging given their economic clout and potential to pollute and buy the opinions and votes of others.

We could have plenty of leverage with China if we chose to. China's boom is fueled almost entirely by all of us greedy foreign investors...and who do you think actually runs all those factories pumping out the CO2, and buys all the products produced by them? We could very easily destabilize their government by simply refusing to play ball. Of course, that would require sacrifice and pain on our part, and we can't have that.

But I am glad to see this, as it proves what an utter sham Kyoto is. Rather than building a responsible electrical grid which would distribute electricity in an efficient manner, they just build separate energy plants all over the place - virtually no regulation. They seem to have plenty of money to buy a new navy, and go to the Moon -yet I'm supposed to subsidize their infrastructure? Makes perfect sense.


A woman in the press office of China's State Environmental Protection Agency called the report irresponsible, and said "it's impossible that China is the world's top producer of carbon dioxide emissions."

The woman, who refused to give her name...

Repeated calls to the National Development and Reform Commission, the Cabinet-level economic planning agency, rang unanswered...


rofl Ah, life is so simple in the worker's paradise. "Us? The world's top producer of CO2? That's unpossible!"

[Eusebius]

We could have plenty of leverage with China if we chose to. China's boom is fueled almost entirely by all of us greedy foreign investors...and who do you think actually runs all those factories pumping out the CO2, and buys all the products produced by them? We could very easily destabilize their government by simply refusing to play ball. Of course, that would require sacrifice and pain on our part, and we can't have that.


True, I should really have stipulated that the west has little leverage except for very drastic measures like severe sanctions or war which is probably not to the interest of either powers.

[MZKT]

Well, the west as largest per capita polluter has hardly any moral right to accuse china.
An average chinese family don't drive two cars, not even one, and consume several times less oil, gas and electricity.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well, the west as largest per capita polluter has hardly any moral right to accuse china.
An average chinese family don't drive two cars, not even one, and consume several times less oil, gas and electricity.

No see that doesn't work, because American workers/industry are far more productive than Chinese workers/industry, so we produce more goods/services per unit of CO2. A pound of CO2 used to produce a thousand photo-voltaic cells for an electric car is not the same as a pound of CO2 produced to manually scrape up yak vomit.

Don't like that benchmarking scheme? How about...the **** that the US produces is of a higher quality, featuring better looking women and higher production values, thus enabling us to largely stay at home and abuse ourselves vs. the fact that the Chinese have to go get in a car and manually find a hooker. This creates far more CO2 per satisfaction unit.

No?

The glaring red color the Chinese insist on painting everything over there reflects high levels of UV light, which reacts with ozone in the atmosphere, causing deadly SARS. The pleasing blue we Americans use absorbs more light, enabling smiles and ice cream.

[schwarz]

I would not be in the least surprised that in the near future we will see CO2 emissions labelling on all products and it will be up to the company or individual whether to buy or not.

Dont give them any ideas.

[Maktab]

Well, the west as largest per capita polluter has hardly any moral right to accuse china.
An average chinese family don't drive two cars, not even one, and consume several times less oil, gas and electricity.
Herein, perfectly encapsulated, is the messed up viewpoint of so many supposed environmentalists today.

If Global Warming really is the catastrophic emergency so many are making it out to be, then the 'per capita' argument would be dismissed out of hand because all that matters is *total* emissions. If mankind is spewing too much CO2 into the atmosphere, it doesn't matter whether it comes from China or America, it should stop, right?

But no. Even Kyoto, the fabled saviour of mankind, explicitly refused to hold China or any other developing nation to emissions standards despite knowing full well that China was one of the world's worst CO2 polluters. That's precisely why Bush threw it out: If your goal is to reduce total CO2 levels there's no logic in letting one of the worst polluters carry on unhindered.

Similarly, those same people screaming blue murder about how the West needs to cut back RIGHT NOW because time's running out are perfectly happy to give China and the rest of the developing world complete freedom to emit as much as they like. Let's get the US off coal and oil right now, ignoring the fact that this would make coal and oil significantly cheaper for the developing world to pump into their inefficient factories. What a sham.

Thing is, so much of current Global Warming and pro-Kyoto hysteria comes from the left, and the goal is not so much to reduce CO2 emissions as it is to 'punish' the West for its supposed ecological crimes in becoming capitalist, powerful, wealthy and safe. Thus, to save ourselves, we are told we must give up the capitalist advancements that made us healthy and rich. We must stop flying, stop driving, stop having fun and 'live in harmony with nature' (a euphemism for being f*cking poor).

Essentially, in order to solve a problem we are being told we must revert technologically, rather than invent our way out of this problem. That's about as luddite as you can get. Governments love this kind of talk though, since it means more regulation, more taxes, more personal glory and more government power. But it's no real solution or answer.

The answer, instead, is in technology. The problem is an excess of CO2, right? Then clearly we need to invent a way to sequester large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and to make our factories run cleaner. In turn, we can sell this technology (subsidise it even) to the developing world, enabling them to continue developing while polluting less. What's more, it's a solution that can be led by the private sector, perhaps with govt prizes to the most successful designs, which in turn means less government control and regulation.

It's not like this is pie-in-the-sky technology that'll never appear. Prototypes of CO2 sequestration devices already exist and the science is understood. With a sufficient funding prompt, we'd almost certainly have working CO2 sequestration long before the effects of any Kyoto-style regression are felt.

[Jackal01400]

The answer, instead, is in technology. The problem is an excess of CO2, right? Then clearly we need to invent a way to sequester large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and to make our factories run cleaner. In turn, we can sell this technology (subsidise it even) to the developing world, enabling them to continue developing while polluting less. What's more, it's a solution that can be led by the private sector, perhaps with govt prizes to the most successful designs, which in turn means less government control and regulation.

THANK YOU!!! could not agree with you more.

[Kaapeli]

If Global Warming really is the catastrophic emergency so many are making it out to be, then the 'per capita' argument would be dismissed out of hand because all that matters is *total* emissions. If mankind is spewing too much CO2 into the atmosphere, it doesn't matter whether it comes from China or America, it should stop, right?

But no. Even Kyoto, the fabled saviour of mankind, explicitly refused to hold China or any other developing nation to emissions standards despite knowing full well that China was one of the world's worst CO2 polluters. That's precisely why Bush threw it out: If your goal is to reduce total CO2 levels there's no logic in letting one of the worst polluters carry on unhindered.

These two paragraphs above contradict eachother I think. First you say it shouldn't matter who's doing all the polluting because everyone should quit doing it anyhow (or more accurately be cut to a more managable level). And they you say that USA shouldn't do anything about it because China doesn't do jack either? So does it actually matter or doesn't it?

USA shouldn't cut pollution because China won't? What's the logic in hat? If your neighbour jumps from the window you jump after him?

[MZKT]

No see that doesn't work, because American workers/industry are far more productive than Chinese workers/industry, so we produce more goods/services per unit of CO2. A pound of CO2 used to produce a thousand photo-voltaic cells for an electric car is not the same as a pound of CO2 produced to manually scrape up yak vomit.

Don't like that benchmarking scheme? How about...the **** that the US produces is of a higher quality, featuring better looking women and higher production values, thus enabling us to largely stay at home and abuse ourselves vs. the fact that the Chinese have to go get in a car and manually find a hooker. This creates far more CO2 per satisfaction unit.

No?

The glaring red color the Chinese insist on painting everything over there reflects high levels of UV light, which reacts with ozone in the atmosphere, causing deadly SARS. The pleasing blue we Americans use absorbs more light, enabling smiles and ice cream.

:)
Nice examples.
Yes, USA is more productive BUT also consumes more. Since USA has a trade account deficite it's higher productivity of US workers is more then leveled by the even higher consume. So it don't matter that US create more per CO2 since it immediatly consume it for itself and even import additional goods.

[MZKT]

Herein, perfectly encapsulated, is the messed up viewpoint of so many supposed environmentalists today.

If Global Warming really is the catastrophic emergency so many are making it out to be, then the 'per capita' argument would be dismissed out of hand because all that matters is *total* emissions. If mankind is spewing too much CO2 into the atmosphere, it doesn't matter whether it comes from China or America, it should stop, right?

It matters. Since if CO2 should be reduced, it's obvious that a country where an average citizen cause 30 CO2-units can save more then a country where citizens cause 10 CO2 units.

Or with an example: It's easier for an american to save 5 CO2 units by switching off 5 of 50 light bulbs in his house (and still have enough light with the remaining 45) then for a chinese to save 1 CO2 by switching off his only bulb and live in darkness.

[Ecchi Oni]

Most of that CO2 is generated producing junk which is then consumed by the west. On western owned factories I might add.

[sinophile]

CO2 is the least of the concerns on this issue. The Chinese need to get a firm grip on environmental and product safety issues a.s.a.p. Mercantilism is going to kill that country (After killing many outside it) if not properly managed.

[Merfeller]

It matters. Since if CO2 should be reduced, it's obvious that a country where an average citizen cause 30 CO2-units can save more then a country where citizens cause 10 CO2 units.

Or with an example: It's easier for an american to save 5 CO2 units by switching off 5 of 50 light bulbs in his house (and still have enough light with the remaining 45) then for a chinese to save 1 CO2 by switching off only bulb and live in darkness.


LOL! Do you usually turn on every light in your house at the same time? Also, how big is your house? I counted all of my light bulbs out of curiosity, and I have 14, not counting three fluorescent tubes in the garage. Come on...at least think of a better example.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

:)
Nice examples.
Yes, USA is more productive BUT also consumes more. Since USA has a trade account deficite it's higher productivity of US workers is more then leveled by the even higher consume. So it don't matter that US create more per CO2 since it immediatly consume it for itself and even import additional goods.

...uhh aren't you just confirming what others have said is the empty rhetoric of the left? That this has noting to do with CO2 emission and everything to do with penalizing us for consumption? Shouldn't they just say that?

[Lerclair]

The way I looked at it... The world actually exported their Co2 emission to China. The US being the present biggest polluter imports substantial amount of products from china, What happens should these products be manufactured in US itself.

That said, US being the biggest polluter, has no right to criticise China. Not doubt China has pollution problems, but just how was such studies done... by comparing Coal and cement production.. knowing China has a higher coal comsumption ? Half of US power comes from coal as well.

Now how about throwing Oil comsumption into the studies. The US military, which is the 4th oil comsumer in the world, should also be included. In other studies, china actually contributed 14%, while US 28% (this does not include the US military aspect).

So remember.. each time you fart or open a can of fizzy soft-drink. You emitting refined CO2 in the air.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The way I looked at it... The world actually exported their Co2 emission to China. The US being the present biggest polluter imports substantial amount of products from china, What happens should these products be manufactured in US itself.

I'd agree with that.



That said, US being the biggest polluter, has no right to criticise China. Not doubt China has pollution problems, but just how was such studies done... by comparing Coal and cement production.. knowing China has a higher coal comsumption ? Half of US power comes from coal as well.

We aren't criticizing anybody - we are criticizing the agreements that try to penalize us disproportionately, while also forcing us to subsidize nations we are exporting jobs to. Pointing out how China does business is just part of that argument.

China's lower per capita CO2 and consumption have nothing to do with superior environmental policies, but inferior social policies. They have millions living in what the West would consider abject poverty. Is that supposed to be good? Are we supposed to follow that example? The industry that they have is rapidly expanding, and doing so unencumbered by environmental laws. Sorry, but if 2nd and 3rd world nations would like to even the playing field, they're going to have to be more honest and transparent about their mechanisms for doing so. If Kyoto is about forming sound environmental policy, then let's base it on that, not use it as a grand cross-border welfare system.

[Lerclair]

We aren't criticizing anybody - we are criticizing the agreements that try to penalize us disproportionately, while also forcing us to subsidize nations we are exporting jobs to. Pointing out how China does business is just part of that argument.What aggree ment are you criticising about ? And how does US subsidize China ? You Out source to gain more profits, while prohibit high tech exports and preventing takeovers, something you have been lecturing China to do so the past 20 yrs. Asking China to buy planes, soya beans and beef, will not lower your deficit. And what has this to do with pollution ?


China's lower per capita CO2 and consumption have nothing to do with superior environmental policies, but inferior social policies. They have millions living in what the West would consider abject poverty.Precisely, the west perception. If you consider PPP, instead of per dollar comparision. Most Chinese actually have a roof over their heads, in a population four times US, but half the GDP. There are poor people in the US, who are food insecure too.


Is that supposed to be good? Are we supposed to follow that example? The industry that they have is rapidly expanding, and doing so unencumbered by environmental laws. Sorry, but if 2nd and 3rd world nations would like to even the playing field, they're going to have to be more honest and transparent about their mechanisms for doing so. If Kyoto is about forming sound environmental policy, then let's base it on that, not use it as a grand cross-border welfare system.What example are you refering to ?

What exactly are you saying.. in what way, are the mechanism not honest and transparent ? I don't believe the US has signed the Kyoto ?

If China does not exist, you would simply move those manufacturing products to other countries.. like india, vietnam etc. And this does explain the already high comsumption of OIL in US, being the highest in the world.

Diverting the blame on other countries.. is not the solution, when you're the number one pollutor. Any other words, giving yourself the the excuse that it is normal that we remain in first place, but asking others to reduce.

Two weeks ago, Bush said something like, "If China were to stop comsumption for a month, the world's pollution problem will be solved"... but It got me thinking, If US were to stop comsumption for two weeks, you get the same results. Better still, if you include the US military machinery... not only save lives, but you can cut another week of comsumption.

So why don't US do what they preach... than place the emphasis on others.

[Doublethinker]

China already saw this "news" coming and has been using the 'we don't pollute much at all... PER CAPITA!' rethoric for a while now...

Would you be so kind as to remind where to and from where has the most pollutiing types of industry been outsourced? And blaming China for having a British company build a factory and hire vietnamese workers to work within its borders isn't really intellectually honest?

[Maktab]

These two paragraphs above contradict eachother I think. First you say it shouldn't matter who's doing all the polluting because everyone should quit doing it anyhow (or more accurately be cut to a more managable level). And they you say that USA shouldn't do anything about it because China doesn't do jack either? So does it actually matter or doesn't it?

USA shouldn't cut pollution because China won't? What's the logic in hat? If your neighbour jumps from the window you jump after him?
Not at all. I'm all for smart pollution-reduction measures in the US that make sense. For example, in 2006 the US's CO2 emissions fell by 1.3% (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press284.html), following on from a decade-long reduction in the carbon intensity of the US economy. The wealthier and more technologically advanced the US's economy gets, the more efficient and cleaner it becomes.

But what I am saying is that Kyoto and similar measures are absolutely useless because they do nothing to restrain many of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters. This does seem somewhat at odds with the rhetoric claiming that we're facing an emergency and must drastically cut emissions now, doesn't it?


What exactly are you saying.. in what way, are the mechanism not honest and transparent ? I don't believe the US has signed the Kyoto ?

If China does not exist, you would simply move those manufacturing products to other countries.. like india, vietnam etc. And this does explain the already high comsumption of OIL in US, being the highest in the world.Actually, 'dirty' industrial development is a universal feature of all developing nations, since they can seldom afford the more expensive (but cleaner) technologies used by Western industry.

Further, the only reason some companies have moved manufacturing to China is because there are almost no environmental or labour regulations in place. Which of course means that costs are a lot lower. Besides, it's not like you can blame foreign companies for supposedly polluting China: The Chinese government is building cheap and dirty coal-powered power stations at a rate of one every week. Those pump out a crazy amount of CO2. See, it's not about oil consumption, it's about emissions.


Diverting the blame on other countries.. is not the solution, when you're the number one pollutor. Any other words, giving yourself the the excuse that it is normal that we remain in first place, but asking others to reduce.Did you not read the first post? China has now surpassed the US as the world's biggest polluter, by far. In fact, if China were to reach a similar per capita emissions level to that of Canada (it's not far off), it would mean an 8% increase in its emissions. Compare that to a 1.3% fall in US emissions, which are *already* lower than China's, and you might begin to see where this is headed.


So why don't US do what they preach... than place the emphasis on others.This is ironic, since it's precisely the opposite to what the US's policy is on this. The Bush admin has always said (supported by a 95-0 vote in the Senate, incidentally) that if emissions controls really are that important, we must place restrictions on *everybody*, not just the West. Otherwise countries like China will have no problem in erasing any possible CO2 decrease the West manages (at great cost).

Look, this is where the big practical problem comes from. All nations go through a highly polluting Industrial Revolution-type stage as their economies grow and they become wealthier. After a certain number of years as their economies become more high tech, they become more efficient and less polluting. Witness South Korea, which just 40 years ago was a dirty, polluting little backwater making t-shirts for the West, but is now a high-tech and efficient powerhouse.

But that 'dirty' transition stage is pretty-much unavoidable if you want to convert large numbers of unskilled subsistence farmers to skilled participants in a modern economy. So the question is, how do we manage the fact that CO2 emissions from China, India, Brazil, South Africa et al are guaranteed to rise even more quickly as they grow? I've given my possible solution, does anybody else here have anything better?

Ultimately, the issue here is not whether the West should carry on polluting. I think we all accept that less pollution is a desirable thing, so long as the cost isn't prohibitive. Rather, what I'm saying is that the Kyoto Protocol and the mass hysteria supporting it are utterly useless if we really wish to contain emissions, that it will do nothing to halt global warming and that most of those supporting it seem to be more focused on punishing the US for its past pollution than really finding a workable solution to containing emissions.

[nighteen]

more than 1300000000 people in the world are chinese,but how many americans are there in the world?

[pedro_rafael]

No see that doesn't work, because American workers/industry are far more productive than Chinese workers/industry, so we produce more goods/services per unit of CO2.


mmmmm...but i have yet to see businessmen caring for the environment, so productivity is likely to still - in the real world - be defined by wages vs production vs revenues.

Aaaaand Chinese workers are way, way cheaper.

If that weren't true you wouldn't see so much Latin Immigrants in US Cities.

[lenovo]

It is very nature for a nation has 1.3 billion population.

Actually, if you look further, that also means China's productivity is the NO1.
Think about the reason why US could win the WWII.