If I recall China claims ~5 tonnes a year per capita CO2 emissions compared to over 25 tonnes for Australia. Since China's rural poor are such low energy users I suggest that the comparison should be made just for the middle classes in both countries. In that light China's claim of disadvantage is less persuasive. Indeed is there any prospect that all 1.3 bn can make it to the middle class? For example each family with a car and air conditioner.

Australia doesn't seem to grasp that exports of coal and ores (that need more coal) could be an own goal. We rub our hands together with glee at the export dollars but shrug our shoulders when floods and firestorms become increasingly fierce. If countries like Australia had their carbon emissions under control we could legitimately impose carbon tariffs on imports from China. That would hurt both the western consumer and the Chinese worker but it may prove necessary to bring China into compliance. So if China says they want the West to make 40% CO2 cuts we could say accept limits to middle class aspirations and put up with carbon tariffs.

Taswegian

Overall emission reduction is needed to reduce global warming.

Australia produces around 1.2% of global CO2 emissions.

China is the world's biggest CO2 emitter.

On your reference to compliance, one may consider arguing the case for responsibility, awareness, and the negative response by China to reduce emissions.

With compliance in mind, how would you rank China on the global responsibility scale when it continues with its current energy expansion programme using outdated technology? These plants will operate for the next 40 to 75 years and lock China into long-term high CO2 and low quality emissions. With very few exceptions, the plants are incompatible with clean coal technology. The majority of China's existing coal fired plants are inefficient and unsuited for effective upgrade.

China's energy expansion programme will push any effective C02 reduction by China well beyond what may be considered critical global limits.

Do not lose sight of the eventual goal and available timeline.

China's imports of Australian coal will continue to decline as new domestic and neighbouring mines come on line.

2006 – 2007 financial year China imported 2.4% of our coal exports
2.3M tonnes coking coal
3.7M tonnes steaming coal

2007 – 2008 financial year China imported 1% of our coal exports
1.5M tonnes coking Coal
1.0M tonnes steaming coal

Indonesia's exports of coal to China make Australia's exports pale into insignificance in comparison.

China's energy inefficiency is not just restricted to housing, commercial, and industrial buildings, but across nearly every aspect of industry.

China consumes 3 times the world average on energy to produce $1 of GDP and 7 times that of Japan.

What solution can you present to motivate China to improve its act on carbon emissions?

The solution will involve pain all around. The longer we delay, the worse the pain.

Arthur Thomas

Arthur T,
In 2006 China used just over 15% of the world's commercial energy to produce 10% of the world's GDP (Source, US Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009) - i.e. China's energy use was 1.5 times greater than the world average, not 3 times as great. It can't be concluded that China uses energy less efficiently than the rest of the world, because China produces far more than its share of energy-intensive items such as steel and cement.

I think your claims that China is an inefficient user of energy must rely on estimates of GDP which have been converted into a common currency using exchange rates - i.e., the estimates assume that the overall price level in China is as high on average as in the world as a whole. This is clearly not the case.

IanC

Thanks for the comments.

Can you confirm that the data used has taken into account the number of China's coal fired power stations and the outdated poor thermal efficienct technology they use.

I acknowledge that there are a few coal-fired power stations along the eastern seaboard that meet developed nation standards, but the nearly 2000 remaining do not.

It is not just a matter of the energy finally converted to product that relates to inefficiency, but the inefficiencies in producing that energy where more coal is mined and consumed to generate a given amount of energy.

Did the source produce the tonne of coal/kW of energy produced for comparison purposes?

The audit trail of energy inefficiency starts at the mine and finishes at kW used in production.

Did US Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, include transmissions losses in overall inefficiencies?

Have you the cut off dates for the data used in compiling the outlook 2009?

Was the comparison made on comparisons with China's own GDP and compared against the GDP of other nations?

Arthur T

Arthur T,
Your articles on China in OLO have been interesting and you are obviously more familiar with official Chinese sources than I am.

My comments above relied on US EIA data but are much the same as those produced by the International Energy Agency (IEA). This doesn’t necessarily mean that these sources are right, but they are being extensively relied upon by the world’s policymakers. If there are large differences between the Chinese data reported by these bodies and those from Chinese sources, these should be investigated and if possible eliminated.

IEA publications provide estimates of the tonne of coal/kW of electricity produced for each country, as part of a fully integrated dataset which includes production, export and imports of coal and other sources of energy, Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) and Total Final Consumption (TFC) for each of the sources and uses of energy. The Agency also produces detailed estimates of the sources of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion for each country.

Yes, transmission losses are reported separately: Chinese transmission losses are reported as similar to those of the US in relation to electricity production and use, and less than one-quarter of the corresponding proportions for India.

It is important that the serious problem of discrepances in the Chinese energy and emissions data not be confused with the trivial issue raised by the IPCC’s truculent insistence that it’s OK to use crude exchange rate-based comparisons of GDP because “the economy does not change by using a different metrics (PPP or MEX), in the same way that the temperature does not change if you switch from degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit” (IPCC Press Information on AR4 and Emissions Scenarios, Milan, 8 December 2003).

The GDP figures used in my comparisons are derived from the International Comparison Program, which assembles detailed value and price data for hundreds of items from each of hundreds of countries. This avoids the need for the kind of comparisons which have long since been been rejected by economic statisticians and index number theorists.

Hmmm very interesting. A lot of info there that is way out of my field
of knowledge.
However the figures that Arthur gives for expansion seem so large that
they enable me to make some, I believe valid comments.

The energy increase and materials increase are so large that it seems
likely that they will be unobtainable.
The only way they could even make a start on such expansion would be
to deny both the energy and materials to other countries.
These figures explain why China is rushing around the world tying up
contracts for oil by providing finance to countries such as Sudan,
Venezuela, Russia and several Central Asia countries.
It explains why they were so miffed at not getting control of the
Pilbarra.
With the world tettering on the edge of energy depletion it would
seem that China could only proceed by obtaining the energy by
diverting it from other countries.

I cannot see other countries handing over their energy sources
willingly.