From The Hill:
The weakness of the Paris Agreement was that it was lopsided, requiring little from China and a great deal from the U.S. President Obama committed the United States to reducing carbon emissions in 2025 by 26 to 28 percent, which would have meant a substantial jump in electricity costs. By contrast, China committed to boosting non-fossil fuels to around 20 percent of its overall energy mix by 2030 (a project already underway) and a “hope” that emissions might peak at that time. As one analyst commented in the New York Times, “What China is pledging to do here is not a lot different from what China’s policies are on track to deliver.”
As vague as its goals were, it is becoming clear that the country is unlikely to meet them. To do so would require sacrificing growth to rein in pollution. Since the Chinese Communist Party has pledged to double China’s 2010 GDP by 2020 and to create a “moderately prosperous society” by 2021, that is extremely unlikely.
Fans of the Paris accord have proudly noted that China’s emissions flattened between 2014 and 2016. But that reported hiatus in Beijing’s long-term carbon growth occurred during a period of economic deceleration. In 2017, with a renewed push for industrial investment and output, emissions again began to grow. China is key. It is by far the world’s biggest source of carbon emissions, producing more than one quarter of the global total and 81 percent more than the United States. The U.S. is the second-largest; India a distant third.
Unlike China, emissions from the United States have trended lower in recent years. The peak occurred in 2005; overall net emissions in 2016 were 12.1-percent lower than in 2005, and the International Energy Agency reports another drop in 2017. The main driver of lower emissions in the U.S. has been increased substitution of natural gas for coal in producing electric power. Cleaner natural gas became increasingly competitive with cheap coal thanks to widespread use of newly improved hydraulic fracking techniques.
The United States also implemented higher fuel economy standards for automobiles, but the impact from that measure has been far more limited. Emissions in the electric power sector dropped 25 percent between 2005 and 2016, from 2,401 million metric tons (mmt) to 1,809 mmt.
In transportation, the decline was a more modest 4 percent, from 1,856 mmt to 1,783 mmt. In 2017, according to the IEA, increased use of renewables for power generation was a key contributor to the decline in U.S. emissions. By contrast, in China, coal use has trended higher recently, driving emissions up. Coal consumption, according to Beijing’s own (questionable) statistics, rose 0.4 percent in 2017, producing some backpedaling among those optimistic about China’s compliance with the Paris accord. Others estimate the increase at between 1 percent and 5 percent.
It is difficult to know, given China’s history of fudging the numbers. In the lead-up to the Paris talks, for instance, it became obvious that China was burning 17 percent more coal than it had admitted, a variance the New York Times described as “immense."
Make no mistake: China is indeed attempting to reduce the blinding pollution that makes its major cities almost uninhabitable and that routinely shuts down its airports. Officials are ramping up the use of renewables and nuclear power, and they are trying to reduce their power sector’s reliance on coal.
This is not because of President Xi Jinping’s commitment to the Paris Agreement; it is because for several years there have been escalating (illegal) protests about the foul air and water that the political elites in Beijing and Shanghai have been forced to endure.
In a 2015 poll by Pew Research Center, three-quarters of Chinese respondents listed air and water pollution as “very” or “moderately” big problems; only “corrupt officials” ranked higher.
China’s supposed commitment to global emissions reductions is undermined by its sponsorship of coal elsewhere. The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that between 2013 and 2016, Beijing spent $15 billion building coal plants outside of China, mainly in countries included in its "One Belt, One Road" project. Another $13 billion is on tap for similar projects.
Eager to score a foreign policy achievement, Obama committed to promises that could have been met only by retarding U.S. growth.
In his speech announcing his withdrawal, President Trump cited a study by National Economic Research Associates that claimed the Paris Agreement would cost the U.S. 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, including 440,000 in manufacturing and nearly $3 trillion in lost GDP by 2040. All, according to the study, for a 0.2-degree Celsius change in global warming by the year 2100.
Most important, it would have required the U.S. to hobble one of its greatest competitive weapons: its vibrant fossil fuel industries.
China President Xi Jinping was undoubtedly enthusiastic about a deal that demanded few sacrifices by China but that would have cost America dearly in terms of lost growth and income.
When he said at the start of last fall’s 19th party congress: “No one should expect China to swallow anything that undermines its interests,” he could have been referring to the Paris accord.
Beijing embraces a “China First” view of the world. Thank heavens the U.S. finally has a president who puts his country’s interests first as well. (Read more.)
From The Western Journal:
Immediately upon taking office, President Biden started issuing a flurry of executive orders to undo President Trump’s legacy (of success). They include halting the financing of the border wall (walls provide security at inaugurals, but apparently not at borders), rejoining the World Health Organization (which has really distinguished itself during the pandemic), including non-citizens in the Census count and other things I tried to warn you about before the election. But some of these reversals might not be so easy.
Remember, I predicted that his biggest enemy won’t be Republicans; it will be reality.
Democrats have publicly railed against Trump’s “evil” policies for years while enjoying the benefits they brought, including strong job creation, rising wages, Middle East peace and cheap and abundant fuel. Now, Biden is poised to undo those policies, but at the expense of losing all the benefits they never gave Trump credit for. If he were smart, he’d find a way to keep the policies and claim them as his own by calling them “new and improved, now with more liberal compassion!” or something like that. (Read more.)
From The Epoch Times:
Rejoining the Paris climate agreement as it stands now will have devastating economic consequences for the United States, with little actual environmental benefit, according to experts. President Joe Biden on Jan. 20 signed an executive order to rejoin the global pact, one of his first major moves as president. According to the United Nations, developed countries under the agreement should “take the lead in providing financial assistance to countries that are less endowed and more vulnerable,” while also encouraging voluntary contributions by other countries.
While “well intentioned,” the agreement was flawed economically and environmentally from the get-go, according to Nicolas Loris, deputy director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
“It will be very costly for Americans families and business because 80 percent of our energy needs are met though carbon-emitting conventional fuels,” Loris told The Epoch Times. “Regulating them and subsidizing alternatives is going to harm American families and taxpayers.
“Because there is really no teeth to the Paris climate accord, developing countries are getting a free pass in terms of their emissions,” he said. “It’s likely that the Paris climate accord is not going to reach its intended goal.”
The aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit the global temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. To achieve this long-term goal, according to the U.N., countries “aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century.” (Read more.)
Also from The Epoch Times:
The premier of Alberta, Canada’s biggest oil producing province, urged President Joe Biden on Friday to reconsider his cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, saying the move was a snub to one of America’s closest allies. On his first day in office, Biden took a series of executive actions that included revoking a permit that former President Donald Trump granted to the Keystone XL pipeline.
Jason Kenney, who besides serving as premier also leads Alberta’s United Conservative Party, told Fox News that Biden’s decision to ax the pipeline was disrespectful to Canada.
“It’s very frustrating that one of the first acts of a new president was I think, to disrespect one of America’s closest friends and allies,” he said.
While Kenney congratulated Biden on his election and said he hopes Canada and the United States will continue to have “a close and strong relationship,” he noted that the biggest part of the strong bilateral trade relationship between the two countries is Canadian energy exports, mostly from Alberta.
“We have the third-largest oil reserves in the world. We ship about $100 billion of energy to the U.S. every year. Keystone XL would have meant a significant, safe, modern increase in that shipment,” Kenney said. (Read more.)
No comments:
Post a Comment