By Jordan McGillis
Tuesday, May 27, 2020
On November 4 — the day after the 2020 election — the
United States will officially exit the Paris climate agreement, fulfilling the
vow President Trump made in 2017 and finalized last year. If a new president
replaces Trump in January, the Paris agreement’s advocates will urge that the
country rejoin immediately. The international agreement, its advocates assert,
gives humanity its best chance to limit global temperature rise to manageable
levels. But their hopes rest on the dubious expectation that China will comply
with the steep emissions reductions the agreement demands.
Though the Western world drove the hydrocarbon-fueled
industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries, with the United States at the
forefront, it is now China that emits the world’s greatest volume of greenhouse
gases. The U.S.
emits 10 percent less than it did in 2005, but China has more than made up
the difference, increasing
its emissions from about 5 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2005 to more than 10
billion in the most recent statistical year. China now emits nearly twice
as much as the U.S., generating 30 percent of the global total. Suffice it to
say, the agreement’s success or failure hinges on whether China will sharply
curtail its emitting behaviors.
China’s Paris
Commitment
From the perspective of the climate hawks, China’s
commitment to the Paris agreement leaves much to be desired. China has pledged
to begin reducing its emissions in 2030 and to generate 20 percent of
its energy from non-hydrocarbon sources by the same year. It has also pledged
to reduce its economy’s “carbon intensity” to 60 percent below 2005 levels by
2030. “Carbon intensity” refers to an emissions-to-GDP ratio — one that
naturally will decrease for any economy as it progresses to a more service- and
knowledge-oriented framework. Climate Action Tracker has deemed China’s plans
“highly insufficient” and hopes that it will further tighten its emissions
policies. But policy commitments are one thing, and emissions reductions are
another.
There’s good reason to think that China will offer lip
service with the former while shirking the latter. China’s actions and its
historic approach to international cooperation indicate that a meaningful
reduction in emissions from China is unrealistic, thus undermining the Paris
agreement’s justification.
Trends Suggest More
Emissions on China’s Horizon
Media outlets such as Politico have heaped
plaudits on China for its approach to climate policy. One
Politico reporter, for instance, praised China’s “climate
diplomacy,” writing that “while the U.S. pulls back, China is taking its seat
at the leadership table.” In the same vein, scholars
from the Center for American Progress averred that “China is indeed going
green.” But China’s actions, taken comprehensively, suggest these views are
naïve. China’s Paris pledge and its investments in solar and battery technology
development conceal an emissions-forward posture.
According to data
aggregated by David Sandalow, of the Columbia Center on Global Energy
Policy, China accounts for more than half the world’s coal consumption and
generates one-fifth of the global greenhouse-gas emissions total through its
use of coal alone; it will use even more in the years to come.
In 2018, China added roughly 30 gigawatts of new
coal-fired power capacity — about 60 power plants’ worth. In fact, China is in
the process of building more coal-fired electricity generation capacity than
the United States currently has in operation. By 2030 it is expected to have
1,300 gigawatts of coal power available to its grid. The U.S., by comparison,
has 229 gigawatts of coal capacity. Though China’s new plants are of the more
efficient supercritical and ultra-supercritical varieties, their cumulative
emissions profile is enormous. Even if every Chinese plant were to emit 35
percent less than its American counterpart per unit of energy, as coal backers
claim is possible, the total effect would still be staggering.
What’s more, China’s emissions-intensive investments do
not stop at its borders. Just as crucially, China is constructing and financing
hundreds of infrastructure projects and coal-fired power plants in countries
across the developing world as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Through BRI, China has committed to building more than 200 coal-fired power
plants in more than 24 countries, ranging from Bangladesh to Serbia to
Zimbabwe. The endeavor is an infrastructure expansion such as the world has
never seen, requiring gargantuan volumes of steel and concrete, two industrial
products as carbon-intense as any. “While China has imposed a cap on coal
consumption at home, its coal and energy companies are on a building spree
overseas,” Yale Environment 360’s Isabel Hinton wrote last year.
According a
2019 World Bank Group working paper on BRI, “the potential for indirect
effects of land‐use change and deforestation from BRI road and rail
construction, as described above, could not only profoundly affect forest cover
and ecosystem health but also generate a significant impact on the global
climate.” These potential impacts are hidden when policy within China’s borders
is evaluated in isolation. As Hinton describes, BRI will ensure that China’s
partners develop in the carbon-intensive patterns that China itself has pledged
to curb.
The Cooperation
Mirage
As the global coronavirus pandemic has highlighted,
China’s party leaders are not reliable narrators. While thousands of people in
Wuhan fell ill, the regime silenced doctors and dissenters who sounded the
alarm. Now months into the global pandemic, China still resists inquiries into
the origins of the virus and prioritizes its fragile beliefs over international
cooperation. It has no more trustworthy a record on the environment. To cite
one example, despite China’s being a party to the Montreal Protocol on gases
that deplete the ozone layer, the Chinese provinces of Shandong and Hebei have
been identified as the source of recent spikes in atmospheric concentrations of
the refrigerant trichlorofluoromethane. In the journal Nature, researchers reported
in 2018 that 7,000 metric tons of trichlorofluoromethane have been released
annually since 2013 — three years after the Montreal Protocol phase-outs were
to be completed. China assures global monitoring bodies that it will
investigate.
In other arenas it’s less tactful. China’s regard for the
1984 Sino–British joint declaration on Hong Kong’s status wears thinner each
year. This month’s meeting of China’s rubber-stamp National People’s Congress
has yielded new strictures on Hong Kong under the guise of safeguarding
national security that will suffocate any autonomy that remains. Before
halftime in the 50-year period of transition from British to Chinese
sovereignty, China has reneged on its pledge.
Despite this record, Paris-agreement advocates believe —
or at least wish to believe — that China will scale back its industrial
activities just as its population has begun to show signs of age and its
economic growth has flagged.
The coronavirus crisis has illustrated China’s shrewd
cultivation of its image. Mere weeks after suppressing the open dissemination
of information on the virus and intimidating concerned doctors who dared to
speak publicly, China launched a goodwill campaign delivering PPE to stricken
regions abroad and presenting itself as the proverbial adult in the room. The
president of Serbia — a Belt and Road partner, it’s worth noting — remarked,
during an address to his nation, “I believe in my friend and my brother, Xi
Jinping, and I believe in Chinese help. The only country that can help us is
China.” Likewise, the WHO itself all but endorsed China’s bungling of the
situation, with senior adviser Bruce Aylward saying, “If I had COVID-19, I’d
want to be treated in China.” One has to doubt that the Chinese
citizen-journalists who recently have been detained and Li Wenliang, the Wuhan
doctor who warned colleagues about the virus before succumbing to it himself,
would share that opinion. Similarly, China has cultivated a climate-conscious
façade that Paris-agreement advocates gullibly admire. China’s purported
leadership on climate is likely to be a mirage.
An Unreliable
Partner
As the world suffers through the coronavirus pandemic, diplomats from Germany, Australia, and the United States are expressing their displeasure with China’s diplomatic attitudes, its opacity, and its self-promotion in the face of a problem of its own exacerbation. Yet simultaneously the Paris advocates urge the U.S. to endorse an international agreement for which China’s openness and honesty would need to be the linchpin. The Paris climate agreement puts too much confidence in a bad-faith regime. Rather than placing a bet on China’s self-restraint, American climate hawks should turn their attention to what we can accomplish here. Sir Roger Scruton argued in his book How to Think Seriously About the Planet: The Case for Environmental Conservatism for a home-based approach rather than an international treaty. “The only answer to global warming,” he wrote, “is action by individual nation-states — those rich enough to conduct research and to act on the scale required, responsible enough to answer to the need to do so, and with a public opinion shaped by open discussion.” While Sir Roger probably put too much stock in the U.S. political process, he’s right that China’s regime has proven itself an unreliable partner. Let us not base our climate strategy on the Paris agreement’s naïve expectations to the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment