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

[chubbs]

A recent MIT/China report outlines policies needed to cap China CO2 growth by 2030: carbon tax, peak coal by 2020, and large expansion of nuclear+renewables. Looks like China is committing to more than US in recent deal.

 

http://globalchange.mit.edu/CECP/publications/latest/2849

 

Chart is China CO2. For comparison current US emissions are around 5 Billion tons per year

[ORH_wxman]

A recent MIT/China report outlines policies needed to cap China CO2 growth by 2030: carbon tax, peak coal by 2020, and large expansion of nuclear+renewables. Looks like China is committing to more than US in recent deal.

 

http://globalchange.mit.edu/CECP/publications/latest/2849

 

Chart is China CO2. For comparison current US emissions are around 5 Billion tons per year

 

 

 

Looks like that chart is already under-shooting the mark for no policy since China was at 10 billion tons in 2013.

[chubbs]

Looks like that chart is already under-shooting the mark for no policy since China was at 10 billion tons in 2013.

 No policy is BAU circa 2010. The continuing effort case includes policies adopted in the past couple of years.  The accelerated efforts case includes additional measures that advance peak CO2 from 2040 to 2030.

 

edit: I see your point carbonbudget has China emissions rising to 12.7 by 2019 slightly above the no policy line.

 

2nd edit: MIT uses an econometric model of China's economy which they claim is uniquely representative. The base year is 2007 and 2010 is the first modeled year. It appears that absolute values from the model are running low so should focus on relative effects

[chrisf97212]

Do what BC does. Put in a carbon tax (on all fossil fuels), then reduce income taxes an equivalent amount. We want less carbon, not less work. It doesn't have to cost taxpayers a dime overall, and those who cut their emissions significantly can be much better off under this scenario. The higher gas, coal, and natural gas prices spur private incentive to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and to consume more non-carbon-based goods and services, and private companies and utilities invest more in renewables since the relative price of carbon-based technologies increases and will presumably be elevated for the extended future. It's been working well up there.

 

It spurs private companies to move production overseas.

[chrisf97212]

No, I believe his math was correct though, perhaps, his assumptions were a bit simplistic.

 

Using your value of 20 Watts/ft2 peak power, a 500 ft2 PV array will produce 10,000 watts (10 kW) of power at the daily peak.  Chubbs used a value of 2000 hours of sunlight/year, which for many places is low (365 X 10 hrs = 3,540 hrs/yr) but is good enough for a back of the envelope analysis.  10kW X 2000 hrs = 20,000 kWhrs/yr.  That's assuming the PV array is a tracking array with a long period of peak power.  A fixed array (typical for residential systems) would produce roughly a third of that or around 7,000 kWhrs/yr.  

 

If his utility is charging him $0.10/kWhr he'd have an annual savings of $700.  A 10 kW PV system will cost around $4/W or $40,000 before rebates and tax savings so he'd have a lengthy payback, but as utility rates go up the savings increase and the payback is quicker.

 

I actually had 10 watts/ft2.  The average house uses 10,837 kwh/year( http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3) Regardless I'm getting off track.  My original point was that storage needs to be improved and cheapened, and that this agreement with China takes too long to bring down emissions.

[left_gulley]

It spurs private companies to move production overseas.

 

BC has a 5.9% unemployment rate, almost identical to the U.S. While corporations and individuals are now paying a bit more for energy, corporate and income taxes have been cut at the provincial level (which they can afford to do due to all of the carbon tax revenue). Their economy has grown faster than the rest of Canada's since 2011 too (even with oil sands in Alberta driving up the average).

 

From The Economist:

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax

 

"BC now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America, too. ... BC’s fuel consumption is also down. Over the past six years, the per-person consumption of fuels has dropped by 16%.... Each year the evidence becomes stronger and stronger that the carbon tax is driving environmental gains,” says Stewart Elgie, an economics professor at University of Ottawa.... At the same time, BC’s economy has kept pace with the rest of the country. ... "There’s very little evidence—zero evidence—that carbon taxing is related to jobs,” says Brandon Schaufele at the University of Western Ontario....

[skierinvermont]

Well I've gone back and forth on this a few times. At first the big headlines sounded great. Then I was convinced by those saying this wasn't really committing to a policy change from China (although it would require further policies in the U.S. which is still a good thing). 

 

But that study seems to suggest it commits China to emissions about 5% lower than they would be otherwise, which is also about what the U.S. committed to. 

 

So a significant positive step overall. If both countries follow through domestically with their international commitments.

 

 

It's not realistic to expect China to continue having per-capita emissions at 1/3 of U.S. per capita. Some growth in their emissions is to be expected. Committing to cuts beyond the BAU scenario is the goal and that's what this appears to do. 

[Brewbeer]

Under currently forecast projections, in what year will China exceed the US in total carbon emitted into the atmosphere?

[FloridaJohn]

Under currently forecast projections, in what year will China exceed the US in total carbon emitted into the atmosphere?

According to this article on Wikipedia. China already surpasses US emissions.

China: 24.65% of world emissions

US: 16.16% of world emissions

[skierinvermont]

Under currently forecast projections, in what year will China exceed the US in total carbon emitted into the atmosphere?

 

China already surpasses in total emissions a while ago. Their population is 4+ X greater. Their per capita emissions are about 1/3 of ours.

[Brewbeer]

My question is cumulative mass emitted by each country since atmospheric CO2 concentrations started to rise as a result of industrialization.

In other words, which country has contributed more to the increase in atmospheric CO2 over time to date, and when are the two countries' total contributions over time projected to be equal (if this has not already occurred)?

Sorry for not being clear.

[skierinvermont]

My question is cumulative mass emitted by each country since atmospheric CO2 concentrations started to rise as a result of industrialization.

In other words, which country has contributed more to the increase in atmospheric CO2 over time to date, and when are the two countries' total contributions over time projected to be equal (if this has not already occurred)?

Sorry for not being clear.

 

U.S. total historical emissions are something like 5X China's. U.S. total historical per capita emissions are like 15X China's. These are just ballpark estimates from looking at some graphs, but you get the idea.

 

[FloridaJohn]

In other words, which country has contributed more to the increase in atmospheric CO2 over time to date, and when are the two countries' total contributions over time projected to be equal (if this has not already occurred)?

 

It looks like China is predicted to surpass US cumulative emmisions in a couple decades.

 

[Brewbeer]

U.S. total historical emissions are something like 5X China's.

 

It looks like China is predicted to surpass US cumulative emmisions in a couple decades.

 

Thank you guys. 

 

This information helps explain why the recent US/China agreement puts more responsibility to reduce emissions on the US.

[skierinvermont]

Thank you guys. 

 

This information helps explain why the recent US/China agreement puts more responsibility to reduce emissions on the US.

 

I mean I don't think the ethical /political argument revolves so much about total cumulative but per/capita. Obviously Luxembourg doesn't deserve the same total allocation as the U.S. or China. 

[Msalgado]

Just remember, you can't just simply pawn it off on the country it comes from either.  How much of that CO2 is produced in the manufacturing of goods for the United States?  Quite a bit.  Just because we've outsourced our CO2 production doesn't mean we dont' bear some responsibility in it.

[chubbs]

As a pollution control measure, China is increasing fuel taxes enough to offset recent drop in oil prices. .

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-28/china-to-increase-fuel-tax-to-curb-pollution-carbon-emissions.html

[JBG]

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.

That should be irrelevant if the goal is to save the earth from climate change.

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

I guess Nixon's visit to China made everyone feel good about them. I don't like the fact that they're taking away American jobs with slave labor and essentially no environmental standards. And we have a President too dumb to realize he's been taken for the fool that he is.

[HailMan06]

I guess Nixon's visit to China made everyone feel good about them. I don't like the fact that they're taking away American jobs with slave labor and essentially no environmental standards. And we have a President too dumb to realize he's been taken for the fool that he is.

Take this discussion to PR.

[JBG]

Take this discussion to PR.

The post is on point. The same pattern of all give and no take in negotiations displays itself again in this "deal."

[FloridaJohn]

The post is on point. The same pattern of all give and no take in negotiations displays itself again in this "deal."

 

I assume you are referring to the US as the party "of all give and no take." Have you seen this, which shows the US doesn't really have to do much, but China has to make major changes?

 

 

From the article, "Contrary to Senator McConnell’s perception, it’s President Obama’s pledge that requires doing little more than America is already doing. President Xi’s pledge requires that China dramatically alter its current course, cutting its net carbon pollution between 2015 and 2030 by about 20 billion tons."

[Brewbeer]

I don't like the fact that they're taking away American jobs with slave labor and essentially no environmental standards.

The chinese are not taking american jobs away, american business owners and their shareholders are willingly sending the jobs there in pursuit of greater profits.

[JBG]

The chinese are not taking american jobs away, american business owners and their shareholders are willingly sending the jobs there in pursuit of greater profits.

It shouldn't be such an easy choice for American business owners and shareholders. 

[skierinvermont]

As a pollution control measure, China is increasing fuel taxes enough to offset recent drop in oil prices. .

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-28/china-to-increase-fuel-tax-to-curb-pollution-carbon-emissions.html

 

Excellent policy choice. The U.S. should have done this 30 years ago.

[skierinvermont]

I assume you are referring to the US as the party "of all give and no take." Have you seen this, which shows the US doesn't really have to do much, but China has to make major changes?

 

 

From the article, "Contrary to Senator McConnell’s perception, it’s President Obama’s pledge that requires doing little more than America is already doing. President Xi’s pledge requires that China dramatically alter its current course, cutting its net carbon pollution between 2015 and 2030 by about 20 billion tons."

 

The China line looks like just a linear extrapolation. China was already planning on reducing emissions and their emissions growth would have slowed naturally even without the policy efforts of the last 5 years. From other articles I read, it sounded like both countries went slightly beyond current policy would project. China may have pledged slightly more than the U.S. but not as much as this graph shows.

[chubbs]

Excellent policy choice. The U.S. should have done this 30 years ago.

 

Now is the perfect time with oil prices weak - but our politics won't allow it

[Hambone]

The chinese are not taking american jobs away, american business owners and their shareholders are willingly sending the jobs there in pursuit of greater profits.

 

I guess you missed that class on Finance and Global Economics...

 

American jobs have been driven offshore because of tax policy, over regulation and labor costs that render US corporations uncompetitive in the new world economy. 

[skierinvermont]

I guess you missed that class on Finance and Global Economics...

 

American jobs have been driven offshore because of tax policy, over regulation and labor costs that render US corporations uncompetitive in the new world economy. 

 

Or maybe it's just that corporations can pay a Chinese worker $10,000 to do the same work American's get paid $50,000 for. I mean I don't really know.. that's just a guess.

[Hambone]

Or maybe it's just that corporations can pay a Chinese worker $10,000 to do the same work American's get paid $50,000 for. I mean I don't really know.. that's just a guess.

 

 

Didn't you read where I said US labor costs are non competitive?  Look, it would be great if corporations could remain in the US, pay their investors a reasonable return on their investment, and pay US workers at the same relative rate they did prior to the surge in global competitiveness, but they can't do that and produce a product that is price competitive with the rest of the world.  Reduce regulations, reform corporate taxation, and control labor costs and it may be possible to regain jobs.... But none of that will happen with a liberal, anti-business government.

[Brewbeer]

I guess you missed that class on Finance and Global Economics...

Where'd you get that idea? Did I post something that was not true?