Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Let's see... If we could go through every RWED thread concerning climate change and add up how many posts by our righties even obliquely mentioned the health of the planet as something of the slightest, vaguest interest to them, versus how many focused on the evil baaad politics of leftie liberals...

Then we went back and counted how many posts by the non-RWAs focused on Earth-y subjects like plants and animals and oceans and air and didn't even mention a politician...

Whadya think we'd find, hmm?

The troll fails again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Let's see... If we could go through every RWED thread concerning climate change and add up how many posts by our righties even obliquely mentioned the health of the planet as something of the slightest, vaguest interest to them, versus how many focused on the evil baaad politics of leftie liberals...

Then we went back and counted how many posts by the non-RWAs focused on Earth-y subjects like plants and animals and oceans and air and didn't even mention a politician...

Whadya think we'd find, hmm?

The troll fails again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Just checking CDIAC, and see they have preliminary 2012 carbon emissions figures in.
China went from 2.259 billion tons in 2010 to 2.625 billion tons in 2012 (16% increase).
The U.S. went from 1.481 billion tons in 2010 to 1.396 in 2012 (5% decrease).
Looks like China should be producing double the carbon emissions of the U.S. when the 2013 figures come out.
Now THAT'S leadership in the climate control field.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Facts do confuse her so very much.

---

Quote:

---

China’s official newspaper China Daily recently reported that China would soon release detailed plans to achieve the goal of reduction of carbon intensity. The plans would address the short-term goal of reducing carbon intensity by 17% over 2005 levels by 2015 and a medium-term goal of 40-45% reduction by 2020.

---

Quote:

---

Show evidence that China would actually make a substantial reduction in emissions if the U.S. signed onto a future climate treaty, or shut up.... Hell, tell me they're going to substantially reduce the rate of increase. If you're honest, you can't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Once again, you're asking someone to do the impossible, which is to "prove" something.

---

Quote:

---

Once again, you're asking someone to do the impossible, which is to "prove" something. The only way to do hypothesis -testing, if that's what you want to do- is to frame the hypothesis in a way that it can be dis proved.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not about to use what China does as an excuse for our own lack of action.

---

Quote:

---

Imagine that 100 people are in a lifeboat, and five of them have half-filled the lifeboat with water. (That's us). Now 25 people have decided to do what we're doing... only they're doing less of it per person than we are. And we have decided that since they're following our example, we're not going to change. Meanwhile, the lifeboat continues to fill with water.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The answer is usually no. And if it is no, I proceed to engage in a diabolical series of sophistry with just enough apparent on-topic-ness and citations to see how long I can keep someone responding to my ridiculous idiocy until such time that I become bored or annoyed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The answer is usually no. And if it is no, I proceed to engage in a diabolical series of sophistry with just enough apparent on-topic-ness and citations to see how long I can keep someone responding to my ridiculous idiocy until such time that I become bored or annoyed.

---

So YOU taught this to SignyM and KPO?

I take back 37.4% of the nice things I've said about you.

---

Quote:

---

Bullshit. I can prove that China has been increasing carbon emissions just by citing the CDIAC reports. I can prove their per capita emissions are higher than France, Spain, Switzerland, e.g., from the same source.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

2. China signing up hinges on America signing up, for all the reasons I'VE said.


What reasons have you said?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Because the US put most of the carbon dioxide up there.

Also, to state the obvious, the US has much higher per-capita emissions than China, and much higher GDP per-capita.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Also, as noted here

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/03/china-to-exceed-planned-carbon-di
oxide-emissions/

and here

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/06/china-carbon-emissi
on-forecasts-economy

China has a history of promising carbon reductions it can't meet.

---

Quote:

---

Show evidence that China would actually make a substantial reduction in emissions if the U.S. signed onto a future climate treaty, or shut up.

---

Quote:

---

Go here...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/CO2_Emission/timeseries/national

...and look at the amount of China's emissions and the rate of increase. Tell me they're going to reduce their emissions. Hell, tell me they're going to substantially reduce the rate of increase. If you're honest, you can't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Maybe if we started bailing that would be a good idea. There are a number of ways to safely sequester carbon, including farming, forestry, and wetland practices that increase the carbon content of the soil and reduce wildfires.

---

Quote:

---

Also, economic incentives are a pretty powerful tool for getting nations to come on board. Tariffs on high-carbon goods, or just an out-and-out carbon tax would work pretty universally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Bullshit. I can prove that China has been increasing carbon emissions just by citing the CDIAC reports. I can prove their per capita emissions are higher than France, Spain, Switzerland, e.g., from the same source.

---

My point was that you can't prove a hypothesis, not that you can't prove facts. Here is a link on hypothesis testing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Would you say it's fair to expect China to sign up to a climate treaty if the US doesn't, in light of those facts?

---

Quote:

---

It was a simple, Yes/No question, and I guess the answer is no, you don't support the US signing up to a global climate treaty - even one that includes China and everyone else.

---

Quote:

---

As for the point you just made, the first link makes no mention of China exceeding any kind of carbon pledge, only projections, and the second one appears to be broken. Would you like to try again, backing up your claim that China makes carbon pledges it can't keep?

---

Quote:

---

And then crucially, can you show that those targets were binding (the kind of targets we would be talking about in a global climate deal)?

---

Quote:

---

Reasons why China might sign up to a future climate treaty, and be able to reduce its emissions, or slow their growth (off the top of my head):

1. It has pledged to, in principle

---

Quote:

---

2. It's invested heavily in green techs, and is now a (the?) global leader

---

Quote:

---

3. It's invested heavily in nuclear, according to your link

---

Quote:

---

4. Climate change will affect China, like everyone else. This will be disruptive, and expensive

---

Quote:

---

5. China wants to be considered a global leader, not a reckless giant pariah that is warming the planet for everyone else

---

Quote:

---

6. China's economy won't be on fire forever - with reduced economic output comes reduced emissions

---

Quote:

---

7. China's emissions are partly high because it is a workshop of the world. But it won't stay that way forever - it will get richer and manufacturing will go elsewhere. Also China is actively trying to change its economic model from one of purely export-driven growth (to one of increasing domestic consumption).

---

Quote:

---

China's emissions ARE going to stabilise, just like all other developed countries have. That's a pretty safe prediction. I would say almost certainly the curve will start to bend soon, and that it probably has already.

---

Quote:

---

The question is whether the curve will bend in time to avert major climate change. And the answer to that is probably not. Not on its own, not without a climate deal with binding emissions targets. Not without a cost on carbon.

---

Quote:

---

As for your 'look at the data' quip: strangely enough there isn't data for 2020, and 2030, and beyond. No, we're talking about predictions here, and reasons for those predictions. What reason do you have to think that China's emissions will keep shooting up at the same rate that they have over the last 10 (remarkable) years?

---

Quote:

---

As of July 2012, China’s government planned 363 coal-fired power plants for construction across China, with a combined generating capacity exceeding 557 gigawatts (for reference, installed capacity at the end of 2012 was 758 GW). This amounts to an almost 75 percent increase in coal-fired generating capacity. China already ranks as world’s largest coal consumer, accounting for almost 50 percent of global coal use.

---

Quote:

---

And here's a funny article from 2011.

Quote:

---

China’s official newspaper China Daily recently reported that China would soon release detailed plans to achieve the goal of reduction of carbon intensity. The plans would address the short-term goal of reducing carbon intensity by 17% over 2005 levels by 2015 and a medium-term goal of 40-45% reduction by 2020.

---

http://agneyablog.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/chinas-carbon-intensity-red
uction-plan/

So let's see.

Using CDIAC figures throughout, China's carbon emissions in 2005 were 1.579 billion tonnes. A 17% reduction would cut .268 billion tonnes for a 2015 total of 1.311 billion tonnes. China's 2012 carbon emissions were 2.259 billion tonnes, and have been going up 5% to 8% per year for several years.

Think they're gonna meet their goal?

---

Quote:

---

So it's about what you consider "fair", not saving the planet.

---

Quote:

---

Which treaty? Kyoto put no limits on the Chinese.

---

Quote:

---

Using CDIAC figures throughout, China's carbon emissions in 2005 were 1.579 billion tonnes. A 17% reduction would cut .268 billion tonnes for a 2015 total of 1.311 billion tonnes. China's 2012 carbon emissions were 2.259 billion tonnes, and have been going up 5% to 8% per year for several years.

---

Quote:

---

Any treaties on the horizon that would implement binding limits on China?

---

Quote:

---

1. It has pledged to, in principle


Cite?

---

Quote:

---

the Three Gorges dam, which displaced 1.3 million people and is causing all sorts of ecological problems.

---

Quote:

---

If the U.S. can reduce emissions without binding treaties, why not China?

---

Quote:

---

You have data through 2012. Show where the curve over, say, five years, has flattened.

---

Quote:

---

You keep saying this, but I see no evidence that China will agree to a treaty with binding emissions targets,

---

Quote:

---

Does it seem likely to you that China would invest in a 75% increase in coal-fired generator capacity if they were planning to reduce their coal usage?

---

Quote:

---

Note that a number of signatories to the Kyoto Accords that have not met their goals, have finagled carbon credits to appear to have met them, or opted out of the agreement altogether.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Indeed. That man is as mentally flexible as a brick.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

So it's about what you consider "fair", not saving the planet.

---

Of course fairness matters. But it especially matters if it's the difference between China signing up to a climate deal or not. It would be a tough sell to China's domestic population if they sign up to binding targets when the US doesn't. It makes something already politically difficult, much harder.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Which treaty? Kyoto put no limits on the Chinese.

---

I said 'a' treaty. Do you, in principle, support the idea of the US signing up to a treaty with binding targets, along with China and everyone else?

---

Quote:

---

This analysis is wrong, China's targets were per unit GDP. And... China's GDP will have grown substantially by 2015. This is the graph you want:



So you're back to square 1 in proving that China has a history of breaking emissions promises.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Any treaties on the horizon that would implement binding limits on China?

---

Of course any future climate deal would involve binding targets for China. Have I not stressed enough to you the importance of binding targets?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1. It has pledged to, in principle


Cite?

---

From Wiki:

"In the non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, and initially hoped that it would be in place by 2009."

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

the Three Gorges dam, which displaced 1.3 million people and is causing all sorts of ecological problems.

---

Are you making points just to bash China now? As for them selling green techs - is that supposed to be a bad thing?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If the U.S. can reduce emissions without binding treaties, why not China?

---

Seriously? You need me to answer that? For one thing, it's relatively easy to cut emissions when your emissions are so high per capita. For another, for the US it's not a trade off between cutting emissions and raising millions out of poverty. I can keep going.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You have data through 2012. Show where the curve over, say, five years, has flattened.

---

Done.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770

On 2012: " Emissions from China increased by 3% but this was a significant slowdown compared to annual increases of around 10% over the past decade."

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You keep saying this, but I see no evidence that China will agree to a treaty with binding emissions targets,

---

Your talking of 'evidence' is nonsensical. We're talking about something that hasn't happened yet - what evidence am I supposed to produce?

---

Quote:

---

All I can show is a list of reasons why it might be feasible, and in China's interest to sign up to a deal and cut its emissions (or at least dramatically bend the curve). To be clear, I'm not claiming with certainty that China will sign up, only saying that it MIGHT. And if there's a chance, we should push for it.

---

Quote:

---

You however are saying, with no more evidence and much less logic and reasoning than I, that there's NO CHANCE of China signing up to a deal, and that we shouldn't even bother trying. You're the one irrationally jumping to conclusions here, not me.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Does it seem likely to you that China would invest in a 75% increase in coal-fired generator capacity if they were planning to reduce their coal usage?

---

First of all this, from Wiki:

"Other commentators have pointed out that China has been taking a role as a leader in making use of coal as an electricity source more clean and responsible. For instance, the country built new ultra-supercritical coal plants (~44% efficiency) before the United States.[52] While the average efficiency of the coal fleet in China remains less than that of the US, the gap is quickly closing. China has required companies building new plants to retire an old plant for every new one built."

So cleaner plants mean that increases in power generation do not completely translate to increases in emissions.

---

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, a closer look at the findings refutes that conclusion. After China’s coal growth stops, the installed base of coal plants will remain, and that fleet will be the largest in the world—more than three times the capacity of all the coal plants in the United States. And unlike the US, most of China’s coal plants were built after 2000 and are young; they will operate economically for 40-60 years. New wind, nuclear, and solar plants in China will help at the margins, but the imperative need is to install carbon capture and storage (CCS) that can cut these plants’ CO2 emissions by 90 percent. Otherwise, the sheer size and remaining life of China’s coal fleet will make it impossible to achieve aggressive climate management targets.?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Note that a number of signatories to the Kyoto Accords that have not met their goals, have finagled carbon credits to appear to have met them, or opted out of the agreement altogether.

---

By all means let's learn from any failures/shortcomings in Kyoto. But its biggest weakness was that countries like the US and China were not in it. That's the main thing that needs to be remedied, and is what I've been saying all along.

---

Quote:

---

The point of the articles you and Auraptor posted above was that the Central Committee can act without having to worry about what the population thinks, unlike in the West, where the government can be voted out if the people are unhappy enough.

---

Quote:

---

Depends on the treaty terms, and what the binding targets are.

---

Quote:

---

For them to do any good, China has to at least meet the same reduction targets as the U.S. and other developed nations.

---

Quote:

---

If they don't produce actual reductions, the treaty is worthless in terms of reducing global carbon emissions.

---

Quote:

---

This article...
http://environment.about.com/b/2009/11/26/china-promises-to-cut-greenh
ouse-gas-emissions.htm
...notes the bait and switch by mentioning that many news sources give the wrong impression of China's promise by failing to include the GDP reference.

---

Quote:

---

But even they apparently didn't do the math.

---

Quote:

---

"Non-binding"

---

Quote:

---

Okay. So you're admitting that China can't actually reduce emissions.

---

Quote:

---

In 2012, they were 2.62 billion tonnes. I'd call that a 6% increase.

---

Quote:

---

China does have slight dips in the rate of increase every few years, but historically, it goes right back up.

---

Quote:

---

Trends, historical data, extrapolations, You know, what I've been showing.

---

Quote:

---

I have plenty of evidence of China's increase in emissions, and their ability to spin things like emissions vs. GDP to look good when they're actually setting a goal of increasing emissions.

---

Quote:

---

I don't doubt they'll sign a deal if they think they can get targets that don't require them to do much reduction, and that if they sign an agreement that does, they'll break it.

---

Quote:

---

But putting a price on carbon would make the coal power plants less economical - which is what needs to happen. It would also speed up technologies and efforts to clean up existing coal plants.

---

Quote:

---

The U.S, on the other hand, has made reductions in emissions. And we didn't need the treaty to do it.

---

Quote:

---

You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?

---

You really need to ask ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Depends on the treaty terms, and what the binding targets are.

---

Of course it depends what the terms are, whether or not you find the treaty acceptable - that's true for everyone, myself included... Can I take this as a YES, that you do in principle agree to the US signing up to a well-crafted, fair, climate treaty with binding targets (if all can agree and accept what constitutes fair, etc.)?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

For them to do any good, China has to at least meet the same reduction targets as the U.S. and other developed nations.

---

Are you classing China as a developed country? Or saying that developing countries should not have it any easier, even though they're wrestling with poverty, and people with no electricity etc.?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If they don't produce actual reductions, the treaty is worthless in terms of reducing global carbon emissions.

---

You're saying it's not acceptable for China simply to hold their emissions steady, or significantly slow their growth? They have to show 'reductions'? Well I imagine the Chinese response to that would be to delay signing a climate deal for another 5-10 years, build all the coal plants that they want for their energy-hungry economy, and THEN sign a climate deal that reduces their emissions SLIGHTLY from a very high level. There's your 'reduction' President Geezer. Way to be tough on China, and thanks for screwing the planet!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This article...
http://environment.about.com/b/2009/11/26/china-promises-to-cut-greenh
ouse-gas-emissions.htm
...notes the bait and switch by mentioning that many news sources give the wrong impression of China's promise by failing to include the GDP reference.

---

Bait and switch... by who? China, or the liberal media? The simple explanation of course, is that a lot of journalists are not very smart.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But even they apparently didn't do the math.

---

Why? Because it says that China's target was 'an aggressive goal', and talks about the strong efforts China has made in the direction of renewables?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Okay. So you're admitting that China can't actually reduce emissions.

---

No. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to expect a relatively poor country with relatively low emissions per capita to cut emissions at the same rate as a rich country with higher emissions per capita.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In 2012, they were 2.62 billion tonnes. I'd call that a 6% increase.

---

It's possible there's different sets of figures out there.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

China does have slight dips in the rate of increase every few years, but historically, it goes right back up.

---

That goes against the analysis in that BBC article. Can I take that as a prediction?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Trends, historical data, extrapolations, You know, what I've been showing.

---

To extrapolate is senseless. You shouldn't be allowed near graphs. If you're determined to look at graphs, and ignore most of the facts on the ground in the process, look at graphs of emissions of other countries that have ALREADY rapidly industrialised, into developed economies: Korea, Japan etc - did their emissions keep on rising ever higher towards infinity?? Or did they plateau??

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I have plenty of evidence of China's increase in emissions, and their ability to spin things like emissions vs. GDP to look good when they're actually setting a goal of increasing emissions.

---

There is sense in linking emissions to GDP, and it's an accepted and adopted metric.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I don't doubt they'll sign a deal if they think they can get targets that don't require them to do much reduction, and that if they sign an agreement that does, they'll break it.

---

You hate China, we get it.

---

Quote:

---

China's State Council said that by 2020 the country would reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 40 percent to 45 percent compared with levels in 2005.

This is "a voluntary action based on our own national conditions" and "is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change," the State Council said.

While China's cuts are welcomed, Greenpeace China said the targets did not go far enough, considering China's emissions are expected to continue rising. A pledge in the 45 percent to 50 percent range would have been better, they said.

And China's GDP is expected to grow, so its total emissions might not drop.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2010365251_chinacarbon27.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
But then, it's their pledge. Which they are on their way to meeting.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?


They seem to manage public opinion pretty well by a combination of censorship, imprisonment of dissidents, and violent reaction to public demonstrations.

---

Quote:

---

I doubt that China will sign one if they have to reduce their rate of increase in emissions substantially.

---

Quote:

---

So you don't disagree that the Chinese pledge to cut emissions related to GDP is really a pledge to increase emissions?

---

Quote:

---

So the biosphere knows that China's emissions are lower per capita than the U.S., even though they're greater overall, and will react to China's carbon differently?

---

Quote:

---

Look at the CDIAC data. you'll see that some years have greater increases over the previous year, and some less. Except for the period of political unrest from 1998 and 2000, it goes up every year

---

Quote:

---

Korea. Never increased at the same rate as China is now.

---

Quote:

---

And just out of curiosity, how long will it be until you consider China an "industrialized, developed" country? 10 years? 100 years?

---

Quote:

---

No. But I don't trust them as much as you apparently do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?

---

You really need to ask ?

---

That would be an example of why they should, and do, fear domestic opinion. Even their military sometimes thinks the oppression used against the civilians is extreme. And that's not even getting into their even more oppressed ethnic minorities.

The whole thing about Tiananmen Square, and why it's famous in the West and why it's been purged of all mention over in China was because it was a student revolution that a lot of the population joined in on, and when China sent in the military to quell the dissent, the average soldiers sympathized with the civilians.

Tank Man was a potent image of this resistance because he stood in front of the oncoming tanks, and instead of the tanks mowing him down, they tried to go around him because they did not WANT to harm the civilians. And he kept stepping in their way, forcing the tanks to keep stopping. Shortly afterward, he was disappeared, and the tanks were able to continue.

China is not nearly the united front that they would have us believe they are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?


They seem to manage public opinion pretty well by a combination of censorship, imprisonment of dissidents, and violent reaction to public demonstrations.

---

*shakes head*

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So you don't disagree that the Chinese pledge to cut emissions related to GDP is really a pledge to increase emissions?

---

Pledge to increase emissions? I hope you realise that this is completely wrong, and are just saying it because you think it sounds good. China's target is essentially to grow their economy faster than their emissions. They don't have to increase emissions to achieve that.

---

Quote:

---

CO2 emissions are of pressing importance, but they are not the only important issue in this world. Poverty is also an important issue, and carbon zeal should not come at the expense of efforts to lift people out of poverty. If it's down to a poor village getting electricity from coal, or no electricity at all, I will support the village getting electricity from coal. This is a dichotomy you have in developing countries (including parts of China), but not developed countries, so developing countries should get off easier. If that seems 'unfair' to you, just think of all the decades rich countries like ours have been pumping out CO2 (which is still up there), while these poorer countries have had no electricity at all.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Korea. Never increased at the same rate as China is now.

---

That point is irrelevant. Here's the graph for Korea, it's emissions have definitely started to plateau:

---

Quote:

---

Want to change your prediction that China's emissions will go up and up at the same rate indefinitely? Perhaps you can give an example of a developed country that is doing that?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And just out of curiosity, how long will it be until you consider China an "industrialized, developed" country? 10 years? 100 years?

---

My guess? Certainly no more than 20. Barring a really severe hard landing.

---

Quote:

---

Multiply that by the .42 BTPTD and you get 6.615 billion tonnes of emissions per year in 2020. Considering that expected 2013 emissions for China are around 2.70 billion tonnes, That's about a 2.45 times increase over current levels, and around 4.75 times what the U.S. will be producing.

---

Quote:

---

Are you okay with this?

---

Quote:

---

Any evidence that the electricity from all these coal plants is going to the villages, instead of the cities and factories? Have you seen much evidence that the Chinese government is really interested in improving the life of villagers? Not just slogans and promises, but actual evidence?

---

Quote:

---

Based on a few years.

---

Quote:

---

And in 20 years, China's annual emissions could be seven times what they are now, close to 19 billion tonnes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Multiply that by the .42 BTPTD and you get 6.615 billion tonnes of emissions per year in 2020. Considering that expected 2013 emissions for China are around 2.70 billion tonnes, That's about a 2.45 times increase over current levels, and around 4.75 times what the U.S. will be producing.

---

1. Your emissions total is high, by my calcs...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Any evidence that the electricity from all these coal plants is going to the villages, instead of the cities and factories? Have you seen much evidence that the Chinese government is really interested in improving the life of villagers? Not just slogans and promises, but actual evidence?

---

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a576f22-fbd0-11e1-af33-00144feabdc0.html#ax
zz2rnS6m0bH

"Thanks to this investment, 95 per cent of Chinese villages now have roads, electricity, running water, natural gas and phone lines..."

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

And in 20 years, China's annual emissions could be seven times what they are now, close to 19 billion tonnes.

---

I treat this with even less respect than your earlier projection.

---

Quote:

---

The hope is that China's emissions peak relatively soon: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/07/16/us-china-carbon-iea-idUSTRE66
F2XC20100716

But a climate deal will almost certainly be needed for this to happen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

UN Climate Chief Says Communism is Best Way to Fight Global Warming


Climate change has been a popular topic of conversation lately and it appears the United Nations is taking a stand on the environmental changes. The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, also apparently knows about how government systems affect the climate. Oh wait, no she doesn’t.

She stated earlier this week that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. She also said that communist China is instead the best model.

Even though China is the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggles with major pollution issues of their own, apparently Ms. Figueres thinks that means they are “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming.

“Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.”


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2014/01/19/un-climate-chi
ef-says-communism-is-best-way-to-fight-global-warming-n1779973

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Oh, give me a break..................puh-leeeeeeze!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

1. Your emissions total is high, by my calcs...


Let's see them.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
So why are you projecting that China's BTPTD will go back up to 0.42 in 2020?


Because that's their stated goal

---

Quote:

---

So controlling climate change by reducing emissions is pretty much out the window, as far as you're concerned.

---

Quote:

---

Good. Then they can stop increasing emissions.

---

Quote:

---

IEA's hope. Reading the article, China expresses skepticism. They're politely saying no.

---