 | Will OPEC increase supply in the 2nd half of 2007? Or has Ghawar peaked? | The Oil Drum: Europe | The Anglo Disease - an introduction |  |
61 comments on Carbon emissions: China no longer has any excuse to wait
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
61 comments on Carbon emissions: China no longer has any excuse to wait
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I do have SOME sympathy with the argument that we are depending on them to produce our consumer goods and by doing so, burn fuel and emit CO2. Certainly in UK, most polluting heavy industry is long gone and even a lot of light manufacturing too - we have outsourced production together with the fossil fuel use and CO2 emission that inevitably goes with it. Of course one reason - apart from cheap labour - that goods from China, etc., are so cheap is the lack of anti-pollution legislation, also the factories and systems are built quickly and often in inefficient ways so that they can start producing as soon as possible.
There is also the factor that they are DEVELOPING rather than already developed. The construction of factories, housing and infrastructure in itself uses a lot of energy and concrete. Close to half the concrete in the world is used in China.
Arguing that they must address their CO2 output in light of these facts, is as difficult as getting western governments to take notice of the peak oil argument. The reason is the same - while most of us on this forum agree that fossil fuel depletion will soon cause a crash unless we change our direction of development soon, this is not an argument that business and governments want to hear.
In short, I fear that China will continue to use the "we are still developing, we are producing your goods" argument, until fossil fuel prices soar and drive western economies to recession.
Economic theory says that who actually pays the tax and who bears the burden of the tax are not necessarily the same entity.
Assume, for sake of the arguement, you could assign carbon charges to a single manufacturing process. Say a plastic doll made in China and shipped to the US.
Carbon contributions could in theory be assigned to the producer of the raw materials, which could be the Middle East, the manufacturer of the product, China, or the consumer, US.
In any case, the final product will cost more and those further up stream will have to adjust margins to compensate. It is hard to punish the consumer and spare the manufacturer.
One of the ways that Europe has managed to hold dowm CO2 emissions whilst having economic growth is by off-shoring those emissions. We must accept our responsibilities. For example, the graph at the top of the post has the UK contributing 2.1% of global CO2 emissions. But if you take into account the UK's indirect emissions (those that have been off-shored) then it is around 4 to 5 times as much. The UK population are major polluters (as are other EU member states). If we want to see emissions reductions in China or India then we must reduce our use of the products and services they provide us. And we can only replace them with products and services (from home or elsewhere) that have minimal CO2 emissions. In general this means reducing our level of consumption. As you say, not something our political leaders will opt for, but something that peak oil will enforce.