Climate Change

Sciences, Environmental/Climate issues, Academia and Technical interests
Post Reply
User avatar
The Reboot
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:05 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by The Reboot » Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:33 pm

As the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter accounting for approximately 27% of global GHG emissions (excluding LULUCF), China’s actions both at home and abroad have an enormous impact on global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. China’s 2030 Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is however rated “Highly Insufficient”. The country's current domestic policies however are headed in a slightly better direction towards an "Insufficient" rating, indicating a significant potential for the country to increase its NDC level of ambition.

In the last few years there had been hopeful signs that China's CO2 emissions were flattening. However, discouragingly, increased fossil fuel consumption drove an estimated 2.3% increase in Chinese CO2 emissions in 2018 and 4% in the first half of 2019, marking a third year of growth after emissions had appeared to level out between 2014 and 2016. Exacerbating this deteriorating picture is the fact that China started construction of 28 GW of new coal-fired power capacity in 2018 after lifting a previous construction ban, bringing its total coal capacity under construction to 245 GW. China’s recent increased coal consumption and development is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement, under which 1.5˚C compatible pathways for non-OECD Asia coal power generation would need to be reduced 63% by 2030 [below 2010 levels], leading to a phase-out by 2037. China’s emissions, like the rest of the world’s, need to peak imminently, and then decline rapidly.

In addition to its domestic actions, China’s actions abroad will also have an important impact on future global greenhouse gas emissions, and China is financing and building both fossil-fuel and renewables infrastructure worldwide. Of all coal plants under development outside of China, one quarter, or 102 GW of capacity, have committed to or proposed funding from Chinese financial institutions and companies. That’s roughly double Germany’s current coal capacity. China is not alone in supporting coal development outside its borders as countries such as Australia, Japan and South Korea are also very active.

Almost paradoxically China is simultaneously the world’s largest consumer of coal and the largest developer of renewable energy – so the choice it makes, domestically and abroad, between the technology of the past versus the renewable future will have a lasting effect on the world’s ability to limit warming to 1.5˚C.

With its current policies, China’s greenhouse gas emissions are projected to rise until at least 2030, although the rate of increase is projected to slow towards the end of the 2020s. Under optimistic renewables growth assumptions, energy-related CO2 emissions could level off over the next few years, but these emissions continue to grow in our upper-bound scenario. Consequently, China is on track to overachieve its 2030 NDC targets based on its current policies. If one were to recalculate its NDC based on current policies, China’s target of a 20% share of renewable energy in total primary energy demand in 2030 would be increased to a minimum of 23%, and its carbon intensity target would be strengthened from 60-65% below 2005 levels to approximately 68%. Therefore, in updating its NDC, China will need to go beyond this level in order to achieve a significant progression in scaling up its climate action.

China’s next step could be to submit a strengthened NDC to the Paris Agreement by 2020, something it has indicated it intends to do, which would set a positive example for others to follow. In a bilateral meeting between France and China in November 2019, Chinese President Xi Jingping signed a pact recommitting to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, which hopefully is a positive signal in this direction (for details on China’s NDC, see “pledges and targets” section).
Source
Is China Still the Global Leader on Climate Change?

The world’s success in bringing down global greenhouse gas emissions is dependent on the actions of China, the world’s largest carbon emitter.

China’s claim to the mantle of global leader on climate change is becoming frayed. The world’s largest carbon emitter – more than the United States and the European Union combined – appears to be retreating in the global fight against pollution as its economy slows.

Just three years ago, President Xi Jinping proudly announced at the 19th Communist Party Plenum that China must be a “torchbearer” in reducing climate change. He made fighting the war against pollution one of his top three priorities for his second term. In a well-reported speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos two years ago, Xi contrasted his willingness to lead the charge globally with the retreat of the United States.

Fast forward to the present day and China’s rhetoric is more tempered. This September at the UN Climate Action Summit, Foreign Minister Wang Yi announced, “We must follow through on the Paris agreement…We must uphold multilateralism.” In context, his meaning was clear – it is the global community that must take action. There was no reference to China playing a leadership role, which echoes other high-level statements made recently by China’s leaders.

The world’s success in bringing down global greenhouse gas emissions is dependent on the actions of China, the world’s largest carbon emitter. Given its sheer size, economic output, and ability to test new models and technology, China’s actions will have by far the most significant impact on the global effort to avert a climate disaster.

Yet it appears that China’s interest in leading is ebbing as its economy slows. Combine that with an ongoing trade war with the United States as well as the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, incentives for China to lead in this global battle are drastically reduced. The effects of this are real.

While China has made considerable progress addressing its immediate challenges of cleaning up the air, water and soil, Chinese C02 emissions rose 2.3 percent in 2018, rising a second year after emissions slowed consistently in 2014-2016. Additionally, China has plans to build over 226 Gigawatts of new coal power projects, comprising 40 percent of the world’s total, according to the Global Coal Exit List. And its financial institutions finance at least 25 percent of all new plants coming online from Southeast Asia to the Middle East — in fact, the first Middle Eastern investment of the Silk Road fund, created as the private equity firm of the Belt and Road, was a “clean coal” plant in the United Arab Emirates.

Even in times of robust economic growth, it is challenging to finance the transition to a low carbon economy. China’s central bank estimates that it will take $1 trillion annually, while the government can only provide 15 percent of the funds. The rest must come from the private sector. It is even harder to raise money with the threat of a global recession looming.

Yet, there is a strong domestic economic incentive for China to maintain its goals to be a leader in fighting climate change. A study from the Chinese University of Hong Kong found air pollution in China is a $38 billion drag on the economy when factoring in the impact on public health and reduced crop yields. Moreover, a 2018 University of Chicago report found that if the Chinese government sustains the pollution reductions it made from 2013-2017, the average Chinese citizen would see their life expectancy increase by 2.3 years. The environment continues to be the largest source of protests in China.

Then there is the opportunity that comes from developing new markets. According to a 2015 study by Goldman Sachs, China’s demand for environmental goods and services could be upward of $1 trillion. This could spell big profits for foreign and domestic companies alike particularly as China’s economy slows.

China cannot afford to lose momentum in its effort to create a low-carbon economy. An immediate first step and a bold move would be to reduce all tariffs and not-tariff barriers on environmental products and services for foreign firms. This would stimulate growth and job creation. In addition, it should bring its guidelines for defining green investments in line with global standards and not definite coal-related industries as green. Increasingly investors are seeking to make green investments but need the confidence that they are in fact green. Promoting and defining green finance could help offset the difficult transition China is experiencing as it tries to wean off its reliance on coal.

In the long-term China should ensure that Xi’s flagship foreign policy, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), does not become a chance to export or unload China’s brown industries. Chinese lenders for example should immediately stop providing guarantees to any coal related projects along the BRI. Instead, an initiative of this size and magnitude – including 131 countries and two-thirds of the world’s population — is an opportunity to promote the best of China’s green practices and help build confidence in a sustainable BRI.

China’s slowing economy is not a reason for it to forgo a leading role in the fight against climate change. In fact, acting as a “torchbearer” in the effort may be China’s best bet for an economy that grows stronger and more sustainably.
Source

Tsk tsk, oh deary deary me. Seems China doesn't know if it's "Arthur or Martha" when it comes to climate change. It appears they are more interested in empty posturing than actually doing anything about it. :roll:

"Yeah, we'll go green... until it screws with our economy."

Where's Greta, and why isn't she challenging the Chinese tyrant, with her signature constipated expression "HOW DARE YOU?" :rofl

User avatar
The4thEstate
Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by The4thEstate » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:36 pm

Texan wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:10 am
China doesn't honor any agreement unless they are forced to or it is in their best interests. Just look at the last Olympics they hosted in 2014.
Image

I can't see the Olympics through the smog.

User avatar
The4thEstate
Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by The4thEstate » Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:37 pm

The Reboot wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:33 pm
Tsk tsk, oh deary deary me. Seems China doesn't know if it's "Arthur or Martha" when it comes to climate change. It appears they are more interested in empty posturing than actually doing anything about it. :roll:

"Yeah, we'll go green... until it screws with our economy."

Where's Greta, and why isn't she challenging the Chinese tyrant, with her signature constipated expression "HOW DARE YOU?" :rofl
Here's the new theme song for China's anti-climate change efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQeezCdF4mk

User avatar
The Reboot
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:05 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by The Reboot » Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:30 pm

The4thEstate wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:37 pm
The Reboot wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:33 pm
Tsk tsk, oh deary deary me. Seems China doesn't know if it's "Arthur or Martha" when it comes to climate change. It appears they are more interested in empty posturing than actually doing anything about it. :roll:

"Yeah, we'll go green... until it screws with our economy."

Where's Greta, and why isn't she challenging the Chinese tyrant, with her signature constipated expression "HOW DARE YOU?" :rofl
Here's the new theme song for China's anti-climate change efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQeezCdF4mk
That can apply to some people on this forum too :lol:

User avatar
The4thEstate
Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by The4thEstate » Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:59 am

The Reboot wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:30 pm
The4thEstate wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:37 pm
The Reboot wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:33 pm
Tsk tsk, oh deary deary me. Seems China doesn't know if it's "Arthur or Martha" when it comes to climate change. It appears they are more interested in empty posturing than actually doing anything about it. :roll:

"Yeah, we'll go green... until it screws with our economy."

Where's Greta, and why isn't she challenging the Chinese tyrant, with her signature constipated expression "HOW DARE YOU?" :rofl
Here's the new theme song for China's anti-climate change efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQeezCdF4mk
That can apply to some people on this forum too :lol:
I can't imagine which people you might be talking about.

User avatar
The Reboot
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:05 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by The Reboot » Tue Feb 11, 2020 9:16 pm

The4thEstate wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:59 am
The Reboot wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:30 pm
The4thEstate wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:37 pm
The Reboot wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 12:33 pm
Tsk tsk, oh deary deary me. Seems China doesn't know if it's "Arthur or Martha" when it comes to climate change. It appears they are more interested in empty posturing than actually doing anything about it. :roll:

"Yeah, we'll go green... until it screws with our economy."

Where's Greta, and why isn't she challenging the Chinese tyrant, with her signature constipated expression "HOW DARE YOU?" :rofl
Here's the new theme song for China's anti-climate change efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQeezCdF4mk
That can apply to some people on this forum too :lol:
I can't imagine which people you might be talking about.
I bet :rofl

User avatar
Black Orchid
Posts: 25685
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:10 am

Re: Climate Change

Post by Black Orchid » Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:47 pm

Scott Morrison has described a report he may adopt a technology investment target to avoid signing up to a commitment of zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 as speculation, but confirmed his government will take a “technology over taxation” approach to climate change.

On Tuesday, Morrison told reporters in Melbourne the report in the Australian was “very speculative”, but said it was true that emissions reductions were achieved through technology, not “meetings”.

The Australian suggested Morrison favoured a technology investment target as a way to help Australia resist an international push for a more explicit commitment to reduce emissions to net zero by mid-century at the next major UN climate summit in Glasgow in November.


The government is expected to soon release what it calls a technology investment roadmap, but has said little about what it will entail.

Several moderate Liberal MPs including Katie Allen and Trent Zimmerman have noted Australia effectively committed to net zero emissions by signing the 2015 Paris agreement. Under that deal, countries agreed to keep global heating above pre-industrial levels below 2C and to pursue policies to restrict it to 1.5C.

Morrison has begun the political year torn between moderate Liberals attempting to build traction internally for the government to increase climate action and resistance from the Nationals, who want more government support for coal-fired power.

Cabinet discussions have explored how to reposition the government’s climate policies, with a focus on technology, as the bushfire crisis caused a spike in concern about the environment and a hit to Morrison’s popularity.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Morrison reiterated that Australia would not make commitments without “having thoroughly looked at what is the impact on jobs … on electricity prices … [and] on rural and regional Australia”.

Asked if an investment target would create tension with those who want a net zero emissions commitment, Morrison said “currently no one can tell me that going down that path won’t cost jobs, won’t put up your electricity prices”.

A major report by CSIRO last year found there was no trade-off between strong economic growth and transitioning to zero emissions. The result of two years’ work by 50 leaders across the community, the CSIRO’s Australian National Outlook report found bold action could lead to GDP growth of 2.76% to 2.8% annually, a 90% increase in real wages and net zero emissions by 2050.

On Tuesday, Morrison suggested investment in technology would enable steel plants to use hydrogen power and increase uptake of renewable energy.

“The smart way in dealing with this to get emissions down … is to focus on the technology and making sure that that technology is affordable and it is scalable,” he said.

“You want to get global emissions down? … You need technology that can be accessed and put in place, not just here in Australia, but all around the world. Meetings won’t achieve that, technology does. And I can tell you taxes won’t achieve it either.”

The industry minister, Karen Andrews, told reporters at Flinders University she was focused on “what the solutions will be rather than endlessly discussing targets or whether or not climate change is real”.

Andrews said it was “clear that we do have businesses … that are already investing”, citing BAE and the Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre.

Labor’s climate change spokesman, Mark Butler, said a technology target would be a throwback to 2007, when then prime minister John Howard and US president George W. Bush rejected emissions reduction targets agreed under the Kyoto Protocol in favour of a “technology approach” that including support for nuclear power and “clean coal”.

“Of course technology is the key to lowering emissions, but industry has made it clear that the take-up of new technology requires a serious energy and climate policy,” Butler said. “This is something the Morrison government will never deliver as long as the hard-right climate deniers continue to run the show on climate policy.”

The leader of the Greens, Adam Bandt, said: “Instead of a technology smokescreen, we need a Green New Deal to work with affected communities and workers to phase out coal, create new industries and look after the workers in those communities who are affected”.

Erwin Jackson, policy director with the Investor Group on Climate Change, said acting on technology was important but not enough. He said all policy needed to be tied to an emissions goal. Net zero emissions was the most credible long-term scenario and had widespread backing, including within the business community.

“Setting a path to net zero emissions is prudent economic risk management,” Jackson said. “The only question is if it’s going to happen in a smooth way or in a disruptive way.”

Martijn Wilder, a partner at climate advisory and investment firm Pollination and chairman of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena), said technology would play a critical role in reaching net zero emissions if backed by strong policies.

“With the right mix of technologies and policies, Australia is easily capable of reaching net zero well before 2050 and in doing so building an incredibly strong decarbonised economy,” he said.

Wilder said having strong public institutions, such as Arena and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and policies similar to Britain’s promised ban on new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2035 could “greatly accelerate the transition”.

In addition to the technology investment roadmap, the government has commissioned a review of its climate policies led by the businessman Grant King, and promised an electric vehicle policy and a long-term emissions strategy. It has also made it known it is likely to give an $11m grant to the owners of the Vales Point coal-fired power plant in the May budget.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change

I agree that technology and not taxes is the way to go. Absolutely agree with Morrison on this. Katie Allen and Trent Zimmerman can shove the Paris Accord Agreement and Adam Bandt can shove his Green New Deal where the sun don't shine.

sprintcyclist
Posts: 7007
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 11:26 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by sprintcyclist » Tue Feb 18, 2020 8:49 pm

Black Orchid wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 4:47 pm
Scott Morrison has described a report he may adopt a technology investment target to avoid signing up to a commitment of zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 as speculation, but confirmed his government will take a “technology over taxation” approach to climate change.

On Tuesday, Morrison told reporters in Melbourne the report in the Australian was “very speculative”, but said it was true that emissions reductions were achieved through technology, not “meetings”.

The Australian suggested Morrison favoured a technology investment target as a way to help Australia resist an international push for a more explicit commitment to reduce emissions to net zero by mid-century at the next major UN climate summit in Glasgow in November.


The government is expected to soon release what it calls a technology investment roadmap, but has said little about what it will entail.

Several moderate Liberal MPs including Katie Allen and Trent Zimmerman have noted Australia effectively committed to net zero emissions by signing the 2015 Paris agreement. Under that deal, countries agreed to keep global heating above pre-industrial levels below 2C and to pursue policies to restrict it to 1.5C.

Morrison has begun the political year torn between moderate Liberals attempting to build traction internally for the government to increase climate action and resistance from the Nationals, who want more government support for coal-fired power.

Cabinet discussions have explored how to reposition the government’s climate policies, with a focus on technology, as the bushfire crisis caused a spike in concern about the environment and a hit to Morrison’s popularity.

At a press conference on Tuesday, Morrison reiterated that Australia would not make commitments without “having thoroughly looked at what is the impact on jobs … on electricity prices … [and] on rural and regional Australia”.

Asked if an investment target would create tension with those who want a net zero emissions commitment, Morrison said “currently no one can tell me that going down that path won’t cost jobs, won’t put up your electricity prices”.

A major report by CSIRO last year found there was no trade-off between strong economic growth and transitioning to zero emissions. The result of two years’ work by 50 leaders across the community, the CSIRO’s Australian National Outlook report found bold action could lead to GDP growth of 2.76% to 2.8% annually, a 90% increase in real wages and net zero emissions by 2050.

On Tuesday, Morrison suggested investment in technology would enable steel plants to use hydrogen power and increase uptake of renewable energy.

“The smart way in dealing with this to get emissions down … is to focus on the technology and making sure that that technology is affordable and it is scalable,” he said.

“You want to get global emissions down? … You need technology that can be accessed and put in place, not just here in Australia, but all around the world. Meetings won’t achieve that, technology does. And I can tell you taxes won’t achieve it either.”

The industry minister, Karen Andrews, told reporters at Flinders University she was focused on “what the solutions will be rather than endlessly discussing targets or whether or not climate change is real”.

Andrews said it was “clear that we do have businesses … that are already investing”, citing BAE and the Innovative Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre.

Labor’s climate change spokesman, Mark Butler, said a technology target would be a throwback to 2007, when then prime minister John Howard and US president George W. Bush rejected emissions reduction targets agreed under the Kyoto Protocol in favour of a “technology approach” that including support for nuclear power and “clean coal”.

“Of course technology is the key to lowering emissions, but industry has made it clear that the take-up of new technology requires a serious energy and climate policy,” Butler said. “This is something the Morrison government will never deliver as long as the hard-right climate deniers continue to run the show on climate policy.”

The leader of the Greens, Adam Bandt, said: “Instead of a technology smokescreen, we need a Green New Deal to work with affected communities and workers to phase out coal, create new industries and look after the workers in those communities who are affected”.

Erwin Jackson, policy director with the Investor Group on Climate Change, said acting on technology was important but not enough. He said all policy needed to be tied to an emissions goal. Net zero emissions was the most credible long-term scenario and had widespread backing, including within the business community.

“Setting a path to net zero emissions is prudent economic risk management,” Jackson said. “The only question is if it’s going to happen in a smooth way or in a disruptive way.”

Martijn Wilder, a partner at climate advisory and investment firm Pollination and chairman of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena), said technology would play a critical role in reaching net zero emissions if backed by strong policies.

“With the right mix of technologies and policies, Australia is easily capable of reaching net zero well before 2050 and in doing so building an incredibly strong decarbonised economy,” he said.

Wilder said having strong public institutions, such as Arena and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and policies similar to Britain’s promised ban on new petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2035 could “greatly accelerate the transition”.

In addition to the technology investment roadmap, the government has commissioned a review of its climate policies led by the businessman Grant King, and promised an electric vehicle policy and a long-term emissions strategy. It has also made it known it is likely to give an $11m grant to the owners of the Vales Point coal-fired power plant in the May budget.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ate-change

I agree that technology and not taxes is the way to go. Absolutely agree with Morrison on this. Katie Allen and Trent Zimmerman can shove the Paris Accord Agreement and Adam Bandt can shove his Green New Deal where the sun don't shine.
yes
Right Wing is the Natural Progression.

User avatar
brian ross
Posts: 6059
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:26 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by brian ross » Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:16 pm

Why is a market based initiative like a carbon tax a bad tax when market based initiatives are considered good taxes everywhere else, children? Oh, thats right 'cause Tone Rabbit rabbited on about it being a bad tax. :roll :roll
Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. - Eric Blair

User avatar
Nom De Plume
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:18 pm

Re: Climate Change

Post by Nom De Plume » Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:13 pm

Science will solve it... or destroy us

https://www.dezeen.com/2018/10/18/five- ... echnology/
"But you will run your kunt mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 56 guests