Empire of Carbon
I have seen the future, and it won’t work.
These should be hopeful times for environmentalists. Junk science no longer rules in Washington. President Obama has spoken forcefully about the need to take action on climate change; the people I talk to are increasingly optimistic that Congress will soon establish a cap-and-trade system that limits emissions of greenhouse gases, with the limits growing steadily tighter over time. And once America acts, we can expect much of the world to follow our lead.
But that still leaves the problem of China, where I have been for most of the last week.
Like every visitor to China, I was awed by the scale of the country’s development. Even the annoying aspects — much of my time was spent viewing the Great Wall of Traffic — are byproducts of the nation’s economic success.
But China cannot continue along its current path because the planet can’t handle the strain.
The scientific consensus on prospects for global warming has become much more pessimistic over the last few years. Indeed, the latest projections from reputable climate scientists border on the apocalyptic. Why? Because the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions are rising is matching or exceeding the worst-case scenarios.
And the growth of emissions from China — already the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide — is one main reason for this new pessimism.
China’s emissions, which come largely from its coal-burning electricity plants, doubled between 1996 and 2006. That was a much faster pace of growth than in the previous decade. And the trend seems set to continue: In January, China announced that it plans to continue its reliance on coal as its main energy source and that to feed its economic growth it will increase coal production 30 percent by 2015. That’s a decision that, all by itself, will swamp any emission reductions elsewhere.
So what is to be done about the China problem?
Nothing, say the Chinese. Each time I raised the issue during my visit, I was met with outraged declarations that it was unfair to expect China to limit its use of fossil fuels. After all, they declared, the West faced no similar constraints during its development; while China may be the world’s largest source of carbon-dioxide emissions, its per-capita emissions are still far below American levels; and anyway, the great bulk of the global warming that has already happened is due not to China but to the past carbon emissions of today’s wealthy nations.
And they’re right. It is unfair to expect China to live within constraints that we didn’t have to face when our own economy was on its way up. But that unfairness doesn’t change the fact that letting China match the West’s past profligacy would doom the Earth as we know it.
Historical injustice aside, the Chinese also insisted that they should not be held responsible for the greenhouse gases they emit when producing goods for foreign consumers. But they refused to accept the logical implication of this view — that the burden should fall on those foreign consumers instead, that shoppers who buy Chinese products should pay a “carbon tariff” that reflects the emissions associated with those goods’ production. That, said the Chinese, would violate the principles of free trade.
Sorry, but the climate-change consequences of Chinese production have to be taken into account somewhere. And anyway, the problem with China is not so much what it produces as how it produces it. Remember, China now emits more carbon dioxide than the United States, even though its G.D.P. is only about half as large (and the United States, in turn, is an emissions hog compared with Europe or Japan).
The good news is that the very inefficiency of China’s energy use offers huge scope for improvement. Given the right policies, China could continue to grow rapidly without increasing its carbon emissions. But first it has to realize that policy changes are necessary.
There are hints, in statements emanating from China, that the country’s policy makers are starting to realize that their current position is unsustainable. But I suspect that they don’t realize how quickly the whole game is about to change.
As the United States and other advanced countries finally move to confront climate change, they will also be morally empowered to confront those nations that refuse to act. Sooner than most people think, countries that refuse to limit their greenhouse gas emissions will face sanctions, probably in the form of taxes on their exports. They will complain bitterly that this is protectionism, but so what? Globalization doesn’t do much good if the globe itself becomes unlivable.
It’s time to save the planet. And like it or not, China will have to do its part.
Link to column: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/opinion/15krugman.html
Posts
4 comments:
Krugman can be a real tool at times. He's been a real lapdog on the economic issues at times, and seems to be here, too.
After all, who is he talking about when he says "the Chinese?" I've read a number of articles on how seriously the Chinese academia and government take ACC, so who is he referring to and what was the context? He states somewhat separately the "policy makers," which reinforces the idea he's referring to random Chinese businessmen or people as if they are also the government. A bit of demonizing, perhaps?
I suspect the Chinese gov't has a long-term plan that is far more comprehensive than the US's (especially since we don't have one.)
Cheers
The Chinese (whatever that means) are incredibly astute.
They have been down here in Brazil for more than 5 years buying up rare earth mines, farmland, and have driven the gem market bonkers.
They also lease huge tracts of farmland and send all the produce to China.
They have "loaned" the national oil company, Petrobras, billions of dollars (to be paid back in oil of course).
They have "loaned" billions of dollars to Argentina, to be paid back in agricultural products.
We already know that they are doing the same thing in Africa.
They are eating the planet up.
In the meantime, they have invaded the computer systems that control the infrastructure of the U.S.'s electrical grid.
Click on the label "China" on the left of my blog to read about these things.
In 2006, I was personally asked to find mines in this area (this area is very rich in strategic minerals) to sell to the China (whoever they are). I refused.
The 'Chinese' position is just as complex and bogged down in contradiction as most major nations. They bailed out on 95% of all GHG pollution to date: it's the responsibility of The West. They're not sacrificing growth or prosperity by slowing the installation of coal-fired plants. They're not eating the planet any more or less effectively than the USA or the EU. China needs to 'get it' asap.
We all need to "get it," and soon, like yesterday.
My daughter was right in that inland hurricane on May 8th in Carbondale, Illinois.
This is not the first time inland hurricanes have tried to form over the Midwest recently.
I saw them trying to form up on doppler radar images last year, and I wondered what the hell they were.
Look what the expansion of the Hadley cells has done here south of the equator. Brazil has 400,000 homeless due to the floods in the north and northeast. There is no sign that the rains will stop any time soon. (We are in the so-called "dry season" right now.)
I am going to post that article from the NYT about the increase in frequency of the dust storms in the U.S. West that has caused the snow pack in the mountains to melt now instead over over the spring and summer, meaning no water later this year for many farmers.
It is all part and parcel of the same thing. You can't mess with Mother Nature.
Post a Comment