U.S. and China, After Months of Talks, Reach Deal on Climate Change

[LocoAko]

Obviously a political sort of discussion, but still well suited for this forum.
 

BEIJING — China and the United States made common cause on Wednesday against the threat of climate change, staking out an ambitious joint plan to curb carbon emissions as a way to spur nations around the world to make their own cuts in greenhouse gases. The landmark agreement, jointly announced here by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030. Administration officials said the agreement, which was worked out quietly between the United States and China over nine months and included a letter from Mr. Obama to Mr. Xi proposing a joint approach, could galvanize efforts to negotiate a new global climate agreement by 2015.

 
More on the agreement: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/asia/china-us-xi-obama-apec.html?smid=fb-share
 
Letter from John Kerry explaining the agreement: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/opinion/john-kerry-our-historic-agreement-with-china-on-climate-change.html (emphasis mine)
 

BEIJING — The United States and China are the world’s two largest economies, two largest consumers of energy, and two largest emitters of greenhouse gases. Together we account for about 40 percent of the world’s emissions.

 

We need to solve this problem together because neither one of us can solve it alone. Even if the United States somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, it still wouldn’t be enough to counteract the carbon pollution coming from China and the rest of the world. Likewise, even if China went down to zero emissions, it wouldn’t make enough of a difference if the United States and the rest of the world didn’t change direction.

 

That’s the reality of what we’re up against. That’s why it matters that the world’s most consequential relationship has just produced something of great consequence in the fight against climate change.

 

Today, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping are jointly announcing targets to reduce carbon emissions in the post-2020 period. By doing this – together, and well before the deadline established by the international community – we are encouraging other countries to put forward their own ambitious emissions reduction targets soon and to overcome traditional divisions so we can conclude a strong global climate agreement in 2015

 

Our announcement can inject momentum into the global climate negotiations, which resume in less than three weeks in Lima, Peru, and culminate next year in Paris. The commitment of both presidents to take ambitious action in our own countries, and work closely to remove obstacles on the road to Paris, sends an important signal that we must get this agreement done, that we can get it done, and that we will get it done

 

This is also a milestone in the United States-China relationship, the outcome of a concerted effort that began last year in Beijing, when State Councilor Yang Jiechi and I started the United States-China Climate Change Working Group. It was an effort inspired not just by our shared concern about the impact of climate change, but by our belief that the world’s largest economies, energy consumers and carbon emitters have a responsibility to lead

 

The targets themselves are also important. Ambitious action by our countries together is the foundation to build the low-carbon global economy needed to combat climate change. The United States intends to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 – a target that is both ambitious and feasible. It roughly doubles the pace of carbon reductions in the period from 2020 to 2025 as compared to the period from 2005 to 2020. It puts us on a path to transform our economy, with emissions reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050. It is grounded in an extensive analysis of the potential to reduce emissions in all sectors of our economy, with significant added benefits for health, clean air, and energy security

 

Our target builds on the ambitious goal President Obama set in 2009 to cut emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. We are on track to meet that goal, while creating jobs and growing the economy, with the help of a burgeoning clean energy sector. Since the president took office,wind energy production has tripled and solar energy has increased by a factor of ten. This summer, the Environmental Protection Agency proposedthe first carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, which account for a third of United States carbon pollution.

 

The Chinese targets also represent a major advance. For the first time China is announcing a peak year for its carbon emissions – around 2030 – along with a commitment to try to reach the peak earlier. That matters because over the past 15 years, China has accounted for roughly 60 percent of the growth in carbon dioxide emissions world-wide. We are confident that China can and will reach peak emissions before 2030, in light of President Xi’s commitments to restructure the economy, dramatically reduce air pollution and stimulate an energy revolution

 

China is also announcing today that it would expand the share of total energy consumption coming from zero-emission sources (renewable and nuclear energy) to around 20 percent by 2030, sending a powerful signal to investors and energy markets around the world and helping accelerate the global transition to clean-energy economies. To meet its goal, China will need to deploy an additional 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other renewable generation capacity by 2030 – an enormous amount, about the same as all the coal-fired power plants in China today, and nearly as much as the total electricity generation capacity of the United States

 

There is no question that all of us will need to do more to push toward the de-carbonization of the global economy. But in climate diplomacy, as in life, you have to start at the beginning, and this breakthrough marks a fresh beginning. Two countries regarded for 20 years as the leaders of opposing camps in climate negotiations – have come together to find common ground, determined to make lasting progress on an unprecedented global challenge. Let’s ensure that this is the first step toward a world that is more prosperous and more secure.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I take it this will have to be approved by the republican congress?

[CoastalWx]

I take it this will have to be approved by the republican congress?

 

Mitch McConnell is already not a fan of it and argues the whole cost and jobless issue of it, but it sounds like a typical response.

[ORH_wxman]

So China wouldn't stop growing their emmissions until 2030? They are currently nearly 30% of the world's emmissions. I suppose its good they agreed to stop by then, but all that basically means is no actual progress until then.

 

The U.S., which has dropped down to roughly 15% of global emmissions, reduces its output by just over one quarter from 2005 levels (which were 15% higher than right now) by 2025. As the U.S. share continues to dwindle, that means we'd contribute roughly 1-2% reduction to the globe by then..and that's a generous figure.

 

You can see how difficult the math is unless China slows down considerably.

 

 

 

 

 

Still, I guess stopping growth by 2030 for China is better than nothing.

[CoastalWx]

Yeah a small drop in the bucket compared to China. At least it's something, but when China leads the world by such a large margin...that's not going to help the next 15 years or so. 

[Msalgado]

Look, I'm not saying that its not valid to criticize the agreement, but at the same time you have to realize that saying that the first step a marathoner takes is bad because its not for 26 miles is incredibly short sighted.

 

We need to get a few of these agreements in place to start with, THEN we can refine them.  But the fact is when the debate (politically) is not even to the point where half the government agrees this is even happening then the first step is merely to get SOMETHING done.   

[ORH_wxman]

Look, I'm not saying that its not valid to criticize the agreement, but at the same time you have to realize that saying that the first step a marathoner takes is bad because its not for 26 miles is incredibly short sighted.

 

We need to get a few of these agreements in place to start with, THEN we can refine them.  But the fact is when the debate (politically) is not even to the point where half the government agrees this is even happening then the first step is merely to get SOMETHING done.   

 

 

Not if it takes the marathoner an hour to take the first step. That's what this agreement is akin to.

 

I already said it was better than nothing. If it causes some sort of tangible large-scale action by nations everywhere, then we could give it more credit.

[JBG]

So China wouldn't stop growing their emmissions until 2030? They are currently nearly 30% of the world's emmissions. I suppose its good they agreed to stop by then, but all that basically means is no actual progress until then.

Or ever.

This proposed agreement with China (link to article) marks a new low in this administration's Obamanable disregard for his own country. Obama has made what would be a binding pledge for the U.S. to reduce emissions 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, in exchange for........drum roll........China promising to plateau its emissions by 2030. First of all, it commits the U.S. to "go first," a grave mistake when dealing with China. You can be sure that the U.S.'s free press will vigorously force the enforcement of this deal. How much pressure will China's supine and controlled press give?

Second of all I don't see any limits on how high China can push emissions.

This abject surrender by Obama is in my opinion close to "adhering to (the U.S.'s enemies) giving aid and comfort" to enemies? Or levying war on the United States.

 

Here's a picture of Obama and Xi celebrating his vivisection of the U.S.:

[nflwxman]

Not if it takes the marathoner an hour to take the first step. That's what this agreement is akin to.

 

I already said it was better than nothing. If it causes some sort of tangible large-scale action by nations everywhere, then we could give it more credit.

I'm with you.  On the face of it, it seems pretty toothless.  I don't get the extreme positive spin here from the media.  Basically China will take advantage of every year between now and 2030 to grow their economy in huge chunks. They will sprint to 2030, and then quickly create the technology to offset CO2 growth by 2030 (because they are China, they have like no permitting requirements).  This all assumes they actually follow a pledge that has no penalties.

 

The US has been reducing emissions at a steady rate the last decade, so it's not like we are conceding much either. 

 

Perhaps this "breakthrough" will at least spur more conversation about short term goals and reductions.

[WEATHER53]

President HateAmerica at it again.

There are a lot more people on the planet than 50 years ago expelling a lot of CO2.

If we all just exhale every other breath instead of every breath I think we will be good to go.

Meanwhile, ice increasing like crazy in Antarctic and winters in northern hemishphere much colder last 15 years.

[Fozz]

So China wouldn't stop growing their emmissions until 2030? They are currently nearly 30% of the world's emmissions. I suppose its good they agreed to stop by then, but all that basically means is no actual progress until then.

 

The U.S., which has dropped down to roughly 15% of global emmissions, reduces its output by just over one quarter from 2005 levels (which were 15% higher than right now) by 2025. As the U.S. share continues to dwindle, that means we'd contribute roughly 1-2% reduction to the globe by then..and that's a generous figure.

 

You can see how difficult the math is unless China slows down considerably.

 

 

 

 

 

Still, I guess stopping growth by 2030 for China is better than nothing.

 

The more I look at that graph, the less exciting this agreement seems. 15 more years of this growth seems like a raw deal.

[Msalgado]

Not if it takes the marathoner an hour to take the first step. That's what this agreement is akin to.

 

I already said it was better than nothing. If it causes some sort of tangible large-scale action by nations everywhere, then we could give it more credit.

 

Thats fair.

[valkhorn]

President HateAmerica at it again.

There are a lot more people on the planet than 50 years ago expelling a lot of CO2.

If we all just exhale every other breath instead of every breath I think we will be good to go.

Meanwhile, ice increasing like crazy in Antarctic and winters in northern hemishphere much colder last 15 years.

 

Your last statement is patently false. By the way, Obama does not hate America.

[JBG]

President HateAmerica at it again.

There are a lot more people on the planet than 50 years ago expelling a lot of CO2.

If we all just exhale every other breath instead of every breath I think we will be good to go.

Meanwhile, ice increasing like crazy in Antarctic and winters in northern hemishphere much colder last 15 years.

I think we all ought to read Article III Section 3 of the Constitution carefully:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

[left_gulley]

The more I look at that graph, the less exciting this agreement seems. 15 more years of this growth seems like a raw deal.

 

We could all do much more, but China has around 4.5 times the U.S.'s population. Our per capita emissions are still much higher than theirs and some of their emissions (more than any other country's) comes from exporting cheap stuff to the rest of the world (often subsidized, but I guess that's a different discussion). The U.S. also stumbled onto a boatload of low-price, fracked natural gas and China does not have access to a similar cheap lower-carbon energy source at this point. Our economic growth has also been relatively muted since 2005 while their GDP is still growing around 7.5% a year.

 

They have been installing more renewable capacity than anyone else the past few years. They have more installed wind capacity than any other country by a long shot and they are increasing wind and solar rapidly. They put way too many eggs in the coal basket but they seem to be slowly adjusting their energy mix. This year their coal use might actually decrease slightly after many years of rapid growth, despite another large increase in GDP. Could still go up a bit the next few years, though. They are still building more coal-fired plants, which is probably not a good idea, but at least they have been taking a large number of older, inefficient plants offline. Interesting article here (great charts there too):

 

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/26/chinas-coal-consumption-finally-decreased/

 

They generally do not question climate change and they are very aware of the seriousness of the problem. When they make targets then usually meet them (look at their past 5-year plans, though sometimes how they meet the target is of questionable long-term sustainability, like building ghost cities to meet a GDP target). Their massive population will also likely stop growing or will only grow very slowly in 15 to 25 years, which should help. It's not growing nearly as fast as India's which will pass China in the not-too-distant future.

 

I think they made some very poor decisions in the past but they will slowly right the ship as much of the population is fed up with poor environmental quality and it has put a good deal of pressure on the government to change (tens of thousands of protests, etc., which have led to some environmental victories - e.g, they recently announced a several hundred billion dollar plan to improve air quality by 10-25% in Northeast China - see http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2013-10/28/content_30425833.htm. Corruption, particularly in rural areas and at the local level, has been slowing progress, though.

 

As for CO2 the action they're taking to slow carbon intensity and eventually reduce emissions, given growth in India and elsewhere, might be be too little, too late. If all the major players get on board and we halve the time frame then maybe it will be enough to avoid a bad outcome. I'm not optimistic about that, though.

 

You can download their most recent 5-year plan at the link below. Lots of talk about the environment (with some targets). Obviously plenty of bs in there, but some good stuff too....

 

http://cbi.typepad.com/china_direct/2011/05/chinas-twelfth-five-new-plan-the-full-english-version.html

 

Also, I like to track their "local" air pollution here: 

 

http://aqicn.org/map/

 

Usually if it's above 100 it's a bit noticeable, above 200 you definitely can tell the air is polluted, above 350 the buildings a block away start getting a bit fuzzy, and above 500 you wish you had an oxygen tank. Luckily it's hardly ever above 500 and the yearly average is around 120. I never had any trouble breathing there though the sky is gross at times. Obviously it's better to not have that crap in your lungs and bloodstream, but most of the ill effects go away relatively quickly once you leave. Also, the average air pollution in major Chinese cities has actually decreased over the past 10 years, though due to some unusually stagnant weather patterns they have had some record pollution on individual days the past two or three years. Beijing isn't even in the top 50 most polluted cities in the world, and much of southern and western China is much cleaner than Beijing.

 

I've been to Beijing five times and in September it's mostly blue skies and a rather pleasant place to be where you can see the hills in the distance. In January you're often better off in one of those giant air-filtered bubbles they have where rich kids play tennis.

 

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2013/01/25/new-on-beijing-skyline-pollution-domes/

[StudentOfClimatology]

I think we all ought to read Article III Section 3 of the Constitution carefully:

Since when is China our "enemy"? We're not at war with them..

[PhillipS]

Since when is China our "enemy"? We're not at war with them..

 

Maybe JBG is referring to the 9/11 attack since that's the only foreign attack on US territory this century.  Sounds like he wants Bush charged with treason for not declaring war on Saudi  Arabia following the attack (remember, 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens [link] and none of them were Iraqi or Afghani).  If that's JBG's position, I'll have to disagree since there's no evidence the Saudi government was involved, and Bush just wants to enjoy his retirement painting pictures of feet.

 

[chubbs]

There is no political will in either country for going much beyond policies that were already in place but you have to start somewhere. At least China recognizes that it can't continue to rely heavily on coal for future economic growth. There is nothing here that is going to harm the US economy. Cheap natural gas in the US makes it easy to move away from coal and we are already moving in that direction with a little prod from this administration. Our other big GHG policy is improved efficiency which provides a net economic savings in many cases

 

Almost all future growth in energy use and emissions is projected for the developing world.  Below is a chart of per capita emissions. It is unrealistic to expect the developing world to limit future growth in GHG emissions if the US and other developed countries are not willing to take the lead.

 

edit: I see the axes don't show up - x axis starts in 1960, y axis units are tons CO2 per person per year.

 

[NCWX]

Um.... you are wrong.  China has over 1.375 billion people. We have only 370 million people.  I do not see with their lack of emission controls how we are higher in CO output then them.  Not with those numbers.  

 

We could all do much more, but the U.S. has around 4.5 times China's population. Our per capita emissions are still much higher than theirs and some of their emissions (more than any other country's) comes from exporting cheap stuff to the rest of the world (often subsidized, but I guess that's a different discussion). The U.S. also stumbled onto a boatload of low-price, fracked natural gas and China does not have access to a similar cheap lower-carbon energy source at this point. Our economic growth has also been relatively muted since 2005 while their GDP is still growing around 7.5% a year.

 

 

[left_gulley]

Um.... you are wrong.  China has over 1.375 billion people. We have only 370 million people.  I do not see with their lack of emission controls how we are higher in CO output then them.  Not with those numbers.  

 

See the graph posted by Chubbs just above. The average American is still emitting more than twice as much CO2 as the average Chinese citizen. Due to their much larger population their total emissions are larger than ours, though.

 

EDIT: Also, sorry. I meant to say that China has around 4.5 times our population, not the other way around!

[ORH_wxman]

??

See the graph posted by Chubbs just above. The average American is still emitting more than twice as much CO2 as the average Chinese citizen. Due to their much larger population their total emissions are larger than ours, though.

In the post he quoted, you said the US has 4.5 times the population of China. I think you meant to say it the other way around which made it confusing.

[left_gulley]

In the post he quoted, you said the US has 4.5 times the population of China. I think you meant to say it the other way around which made it confusing.

 

Fixed that, thanks. I shouldn't post at that hour anymore!

[ORH_wxman]

I agree with Hansen that next generation nuclear technology will be the only way to

reduce global emissions by any significant degree that would matter.

 

 

 

 

Yep. The green renewables aren't reliable/cost-effective enough yet to take on the brunt of the energy demand (a lot of the green energy in Europe has to be constantly backed up by fossil-fuel power plants). They will get there eventually, but if anything serious on the climate change front is going to get accomplished in the next 2 decades, it has to come mostly from nuclear.

[NCWX]

It is simple Obama let China walk all over him and the earth.  Anyone be it if you believe in climate change or not should be upset at this deal.  If China is allowed to do as they please for 15 years and we have to reduce ours by 27% is that not counter productive? 

[ORH_wxman]

It is simple Obama let China walk all over him and the earth.  Anyone be it if you believe in climate change or not should be upset at this deal.  If China is allowed to do as they please for 15 years and we have to reduce ours by 27% is that not counter productive? 

 

 

No, there was no real bargaining position with China, so I don't think your statement is accurate. The positive to take away from it was that they got China to agree to anything at all...but that type of moral victory is more for the PR forum and not here.

 

Plus, the 27% decline is from 2005 levels...we are already 15% below those 2005 levels (with the help of the economic recession). We'll easily achieve that number I think.

[ORH_wxman]

The German situation is very tough where they have been increasing emissions by burning more coal to take

the place of the nuclear plants that they are closing. I would much rather have safer next generation

nuclear in my backyard than a dirty coal plant.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-19/rising-german-coal-use-imperils-european-emissions-deal.html

 

 

Yeah it is the law of unintended consequences working there.

 

Germany went to a lot more green energy...but also wanted to get rid of nuclear and so much of the green energy needs to be backed up in additon to supplemented so they turn to coal. There goes the emissions. It's beginning to look like an expensive operation that doesn't have a lot of return on that investment.

 

For as much crap as I've given Hanson for some of his extreme views on the climate change front...he did have nuclear power right. It is the easiest way to fight emissions.

[left_gulley]

Yeah it is the law of unintended consequences working there.

 

Germany went to a lot more green energy...but also wanted to get rid of nuclear and so much of the green energy needs to be backed up in additon to supplemented so they turn to coal. There goes the emissions. It's beginning to look like an expensive operation that doesn't have a lot of return on that investment.

 

For as much crap as I've given Hanson for some of his extreme views on the climate change front...he did have nuclear power right. It is the easiest way to fight emissions.

 

Unfortunately the world hasn't put enough of an effort into technology for storing renewable energy. It's feasible now with battery power, pushing water uphill when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, then running turbines by hydropower later, etc. This is still expensive, but the cost would come down due to better technology and economies of scale and experience if we made it a priority. I think that's the main problem - reducing emissions is nowhere near a top priority in most countries. If we could split the atom and put a man on the moon decades ago I think we can solve this problem. The political will is just not there since it's not that important for most people. It might take a while to get off gasoline, but there's no excuse for still being so reliant on fossil fuels for most country's power supply.

 

Also, nuclear wouldn't be nearly as cheap without the massive subsidies it receives and if the long-term costs of nuclear waste storage, etc. were taken into account (though obviously the last part depends on what discount rate you want to to use - with a high enough rate and long enough time horizon those costs magically disappear!)

[valkhorn]

Unfortunately the world hasn't put enough of an effort into technology for storing renewable energy. It's feasible now with battery power, pushing water uphill when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, then running turbines by hydropower later, etc. This is still expensive, but the cost would come down due to better technology and economies of scale and experience if we made it a priority. I think that's the main problem - reducing emissions is nowhere near a top priority in most countries. If we could split the atom and put a man on the moon decades ago I think we can solve this problem. The political will is just not there since it's not that important for most people. It might take a while to get off gasoline, but there's no excuse for still being so reliant on fossil fuels for most country's power supply.

 

Also, nuclear wouldn't be nearly as cheap without the massive subsidies it receives and if the long-term costs of nuclear waste storage, etc. were taken into account (though obviously the last part depends on what discount rate you want to to use - with a high enough rate and long enough time horizon those costs magically disappear!)

 

Well we have nothing that can compete with nuclear in terms of energy per raw ton of material, and frankly we can store spent fuel rods in geologically stable areas underground for 25,000 years without a problem.

 

We need energy, and a lot of it, and until we get fusion working renewables aren't going to be enough. So we might as well build uranium reactors and work on thorium reactors as well until fusion energy kicks in.

[Brewbeer]

The agreement is entirely political. There is nothing scientific in the agreement to discuss and therefore this discussion is more appropriately placed in PR.

[chubbs]

Yeah it is the law of unintended consequences working there.

 

Germany went to a lot more green energy...but also wanted to get rid of nuclear and so much of the green energy needs to be backed up in additon to supplemented so they turn to coal. There goes the emissions. It's beginning to look like an expensive operation that doesn't have a lot of return on that investment.

 

For as much crap as I've given Hanson for some of his extreme views on the climate change front...he did have nuclear power right. It is the easiest way to fight emissions.

Unfortuneately nuclear is one of the rare technologies with a negative cost learning curve. Need to reduce financial risk to increase future use. In the long-term I'd bet on solar based on potential scale and continuing cost progress.