China faces bleak environmental future

[jay gw]

With a rare glimpse inside one of China's working coalmines, Newsnight's Science Editor, Susan Watts, has been to find out if a coal-dependent future for China is inevitable.

Coal built China - and fuels its relentless growth today. Eighty per cent of China's electricity comes from coal, and there are plans for 544 new coal-fired power stations - to meet an insatiable demand for energy.

Yet coal is a prime source of carbon dioxide - the global warming gas. If the power plants go ahead, it will be all but impossible to avoid dangerous climate change. Over the past two decades, China has put economic growth above all else, and with 200 million Chinese still living on less than a dollar a day, relieving poverty remains vital.

Coal offers the way out. Nearly 80% of the country's electricity comes from coal... that's twice the average, worldwide. And for the time being, as the demand for power grows, this means one thing - more emissions of climate-changing gases. The effects of climate change could prove devastating for China's cities too. Shanghai, like the rest of China's eastern coastal cities, is built on a river delta.

It's desperately vulnerable to flood. The bigger the city gets, the more energy it consumes, feeding its own destruction by making sea-level rise due to global warming all the more likely.

"We're assuming that in the next 50 years the sea level here might be 50cm higher than the present sea level," Professor Chen Zhongyuan of East China Normal University, told us.

"That is a huge concern for the people living here. We have 16 to 17 million people living here so we need fresh water. If fresh water is affected by a salt water invasion, then the whole city is collapsing... Shanghai is getting more and more important for international trade, so we want to protect it..."

In fact, the latest estimates suggest the impact of sea-level rise on Shanghai itself could be far worse. The sea-level rises officials are expecting could hit in just 20 years, not 50.

Fundamental change is what's needed. China's coal-based economy is entrenched, and there are plans for another 500 coal-burning power stations. What China does now will decide how much damage it causes the world's atmosphere. If it builds these coal-fired power stations it will push carbon dioxide concentrations right up to the 400 parts per million level at which scientists expect dangerous climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm

 

[NickW]

I watched a few documentaries on this subject two or three months ago. An amazing thing to me is that the pollution of Chinese air has been so great that winds have actually blown harmful pollution from China, across the pacific, and into the Californian air, greatly hurting the efforts in large cities like Los Angeles to reduce the air pollution.

 

[Rob Lister]

I watched a few documentaries on this subject two or three months ago. An amazing thing to me is that the pollution of Chinese air has been so great that winds have actually blown harmful pollution from China, across the pacific, and into the Californian air, greatly hurting the efforts in large cities like Los Angeles to reduce the air pollution.

They'll be fine. While the level of pollution may decrease their average live span in a statistically unprovable manner (given the variables involved), their advances will so increase their average life span (along with naturally decreasing their reproduction) that the maybe-possibly-THINKOFTHECHILDREN effect will only be noted by the few (but growing) number of China's homegrown environmentalists.

Heck, if all goes well they may someday have the oriental equivalent of PETA!

 

[BPSCG]

I watched a few documentaries on this subject two or three months ago. An amazing thing to me is that the pollution of Chinese air has been so great that winds have actually blown harmful pollution from China, across the pacific, and into the Californian air, greatly hurting the efforts in large cities like Los Angeles to reduce the air pollution.

Explain to me again why the U.S. is being a Bad Country because it's not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty, while China gets a Get-Out-Of-Kyoto-Free card.

 

[Elind]

They'll be fine. While the level of pollution may decrease their average live span in a statistically unprovable manner (given the variables involved), their advances will so increase their average life span (along with naturally decreasing their reproduction) that the maybe-possibly-THINKOFTHECHILDREN effect will only be noted by the few (but growing) number of China's homegrown environmentalists.

Heck, if all goes well they may someday have the oriental equivalent of PETA!

And how long do you and your children expect to live to see the benefits?

 

[Rob Lister]

And how long do you and your children expect to live to see the benefits?

Benefits of what?

 

[a_unique_person]

Explain to me again why the U.S. is being a Bad Country because it's not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty, while China gets a Get-Out-Of-Kyoto-Free card.

No one says it does. The force of the rest of the world would be an imperative for China and the other countries to sign up to.

FWIW, China is denuding Papua of trees. The economic growth is unsustainable, IMHO.

 

[Drooper]

With a rare glimpse inside one of China's working coalmines, Newsnight's Science Editor, Susan Watts, has been to find out if a coal-dependent future for China is inevitable.

Coal built China - and fuels its relentless growth today. Eighty per cent of China's electricity comes from coal, and there are plans for 544 new coal-fired power stations - to meet an insatiable demand for energy.

Yet coal is a prime source of carbon dioxide - the global warming gas. If the power plants go ahead, it will be all but impossible to avoid dangerous climate change. Over the past two decades, China has put economic growth above all else, and with 200 million Chinese still living on less than a dollar a day, relieving poverty remains vital.

Coal offers the way out. Nearly 80% of the country's electricity comes from coal... that's twice the average, worldwide. And for the time being, as the demand for power grows, this means one thing - more emissions of climate-changing gases. The effects of climate change could prove devastating for China's cities too. Shanghai, like the rest of China's eastern coastal cities, is built on a river delta.

It's desperately vulnerable to flood. The bigger the city gets, the more energy it consumes, feeding its own destruction by making sea-level rise due to global warming all the more likely.

"We're assuming that in the next 50 years the sea level here might be 50cm higher than the present sea level," Professor Chen Zhongyuan of East China Normal University, told us.

"That is a huge concern for the people living here. We have 16 to 17 million people living here so we need fresh water. If fresh water is affected by a salt water invasion, then the whole city is collapsing... Shanghai is getting more and more important for international trade, so we want to protect it..."

In fact, the latest estimates suggest the impact of sea-level rise on Shanghai itself could be far worse. The sea-level rises officials are expecting could hit in just 20 years, not 50.

Fundamental change is what's needed. China's coal-based economy is entrenched, and there are plans for another 500 coal-burning power stations. What China does now will decide how much damage it causes the world's atmosphere. If it builds these coal-fired power stations it will push carbon dioxide concentrations right up to the 400 parts per million level at which scientists expect dangerous climate change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4330469.stm

You really do ned to modify your posting style.

It is not entirely clear what material is yours (well, actually, nearly everything you post here is cut and paste).

Along with a link to the orginal article you should place everything you take from another source within quote tags.

like this

To the subject matter, though.

China is no different to most present day industrialised economies at the same stage of development. London was severly polluted little more than a century ago - foggy old London town was in fact smoggy old London town.

As China becomes wealthier people will want to trade of material gain for environmental gain.

And let's not start on global climate models again shall we?

 

[Elind]

Benefits of what?

Heck, if all goes well they may someday have the oriental equivalent of PETA!

 

[aerocontrols]

No one says it does. The force of the rest of the world would be an imperative for China and the other countries to sign up to.

China has both signed ('98) and ratified ('02) the Kyoto Treaty.

 

[Rob Lister]

Heck, if all goes well they may someday have the oriental equivalent of PETA!

You know what? I almost, sarcastically, referred to that part of my post as if it were a foregone conclusion that the PETA comment was what you were referring to!

Okay, so now I know you were just playin' with me but still you deserve a serious answer; I will provide one.

If PETA becomes in China what PETA has become in the U.S., then things are indeed very well in China. It takes a certain kind of social/economic/governmental 'comfort' for such a silly, silly, group to have such a powerful media presence, dontchathink?

I've got nothing against PETA. Heck, their homeoffice is in the city* in which I live and love. I find them very amusing and sometimes I even find them right on an issue(a rare occasion).

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*Rumor: It is suggested that the mayor of our fine city (and fine it is) made PETA an offer they couldn't refuse when they relocated here. Basically it involved the following...er...request: "keep your antics outside city limits." I don't know if its true but, knowing our mayor (Ed bless her) it probably is.

 

[BPSCG]

China has both signed ('98) and ratified ('02) the Kyoto Treaty.

This link says China has "approved" the treaty, but not ratified it. India hasn't "signed" it but has "acceded" it, while the U.S. has only "signed, but hasn't "accepted", "acceded", or "ratified" it.

I have no idea what any of these distinctions mean.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Re: Re: China faces bleak environmental future

To the subject matter, though.

China is no different to most present day industrialised economies at the same stage of development. London was severly polluted little more than a century ago - foggy old London town was in fact smoggy old London town.

Is there some point to this banal statement?

As China becomes wealthier people will want to trade of material gain for environmental gain.

As any sane society would. I'm a bit surprised you acknowledge this, though.

And let's not start on global climate models again shall we?

Why-ever not? Perhaps you are feeling a bit outgunned?

 

[Zep]

Explain to me again why the U.S. is being a Bad Country because it's not signing on to the Kyoto Treaty, while China gets a Get-Out-Of-Kyoto-Free card.

Who says what China is doing is "acceptable"? What gives you the impression China is not going to be subject to the same international scorn for those reasons? Why the use of a tu quoque argument? Word games?

And, just like the USA, who else is big enough to stop them anyway?

 

[BPSCG]

Who says what China is doing is "acceptable"? What gives you the impression China is not going to be subject to the same international scorn for those reasons? Why the use of a tu quoque argument? Word games?

Not at all. My understanding is that China and India are in some way exempt from the Kyoto protocols, even though they're bigger polluters than the U.S. If my understanding is mistaken - and it may very well be - I'll be happy to be enlightened.

Otherwise, why should they be exempt?

 

[aerocontrols]

This link says China has "approved" the treaty, but not ratified it. India hasn't "signed" it but has "acceded" it, while the U.S. has only "signed, but hasn't "accepted", "acceded", or "ratified" it.

I have no idea what any of these distinctions mean.

Ratification defines an international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. In the case of multilateral treaties the usual procedure is for the state to notify the depositary of its ratification; the depositary keeps all parties informed of the situation regarding ratifications. The institution of ratification grants states the necessary time-frame to seek the required approval for the treaty on the domestic level and to enact the necessary legislation to give domestic effect to that treaty.

Acceptance or approval have the same legal effect as ratification and consequently express the consent of a state to be bound by a treaty. In the practice of certain states, acceptance and approval have been used instead of ratification when, at a national level, constitutional law does not require the treaty to be ratified by the head of state.

...

Accession is the act whereby a state accepts the offer or the opportunity to become a party to a treaty already negotiated and signed by other states. It has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession usually occurs after the treaty has entered into force. The conditions under which accession may occur and the procedure involved depend on the provisions of the treaty; a treaty might provide for the accession of all other states or for a limited and defined number of states.

China is a party to the Treaty and is bound to its terms as applies to China. The Terms of the Kyoto Accord require China to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. Thus, I would argue, their willingness to sign.

They would not be, contra AUP, more willing to sign if the US ratified it.

 

[aerocontrols]

Who says what China is doing is "acceptable"? What gives you the impression China is not going to be subject to the same international scorn for those reasons? Why the use of a tu quoque argument? Word games?

And, just like the USA, who else is big enough to stop them anyway?

Those who wrote the treaty say that what China is doing is "acceptable", by writing a Treaty that allows China to sign on and requires China to do nothing.

Events give me the impression that China will not be subject to international scorn, because they have not been subject to international scorn.

Nobody is big enough to 'stop' them, though I've seen no evidence that anyone has applied any effort whatsoever. The world's vital, multinational, anti-global warming treaty excludes China from any sort of emissions reduction at all. The Kyoto treaty could have had a emissions reduction target for China and then the Chinese could have decided not to agree to the Treaty, and the world would have seen exactly the same amount of greenhouse gas reductions from that country.

Instead, we get a treaty where we have 140 nations that agree to it, and only 38 nations are required to reduce emmissions at all. It's the miracle of global consensus!

MattJ

 

[Brian the Snail]

Not at all. My understanding is that China and India are in some way exempt from the Kyoto protocols, even though they're bigger polluters than the U.S. If my understanding is mistaken - and it may very well be - I'll be happy to be enlightened.

It's true that China and India (as well as other developing countries) are not bound to specific emissions targets under Kyoto. They do however "have to report their emissions levels and develop national climate change mitigation programmes."

It's not true that China and India are bigger emitters of CO<SUB>2</SUB> than the U.S.

 

[Zep]

Not at all. My understanding is that China and India are in some way exempt from the Kyoto protocols, even though they're bigger polluters than the U.S. If my understanding is mistaken - and it may very well be - I'll be happy to be enlightened.

Otherwise, why should they be exempt?

Personally, I don't see why they should be exempt. And if they are building a new industrial base, it would seem sensible to make sure they are compliant from the start. Then again, "sensible" is something rampant industrialists have never seemed to bother with, as a matter of course.

I suspect the issue is that the US has been VERY public about NOT ratifying Kyoto, whereas China and India have not been so public. What they actually HAVE done w.r.t. Kyoto I'm not sure - you said above that various "word games" seem to be being employed. Frankly, none of it washes with me.

And just for good measure, our lap-dog government has also come out publicly to say they will not be ratifying Kyoto, even after signing, just like "our good friends, the USA". Can't say I'm overly pleased with them at all on TWO counts now.

 

[Rob Lister]

I suspect the issue is that the US has been VERY public about NOT ratifying Kyoto, ...

And for very good reason; it will NOT effect a significant reduction in the warming and will cost a great deal of resources. Why shouldn't the US be very publically against it? Why aren't you?