China's Coal-Heavy Energy Demand Clouds Global Environmental Future

[hatrack]

"Since CNOOC, an oil company owned mostly by the Chinese government, made its unsolicited $US18.5 billion ($24.9 billion) bid for California-based Unocal Corp last month, the Washington debate has revolved mostly around the deal's economic and national security implications. But the energy and environmental ramifications may justify far more concern. The acquisition attempt, which the Unocal board is studying, suggests that China is anticipating enormous increases in its consumption of fossil fuels. The direct result for the United States and other nations could be a threatening rise in the carbon dioxide emissions associated with global warming, as well as higher petrol prices at the pump.

"The more their demand, the higher oil and gas prices are going to go here," says Michael Wessel, a member of the congressionally chartered US-China Economic and Security Review Commission. "All people have to do is look at the $US2.50 a gallon for gas they spend on their summer vacation to realise that the China problem is here to stay." Chinese demand isn't the only cause of rising petrol prices, of course. And China still uses far less energy per person than the US or other Western nations. But it is also much less efficient in its energy use than major industrialised nations, partly because it relies so heavily on coal to generate electric power.

China requires about three times as much energy as the US to produce $US1 in economic output. It emits nearly four times as much carbon dioxide per dollar of economic activity as the US. That means that as China's rapid economic growth continues, its demand for energy and its contribution to global warming will skyrocket.

EDIT

China was exempted from reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol on global warming because it was classified as a developing country. But if China can't reduce the growth of its carbon emissions, it could overwhelm efforts to control them elsewhere. The Energy Information Administration forecasts that from 1990 through 2025, China's total carbon emissions will rise more than the combined increase for the US, western Europe and Japan. The most frightening part is that these forecasts might be too optimistic. They assume that China will produce each dollar of economic output with less energy and fewer carbon emissions. That's been the pattern until recently. However, Jeffrey Logan, China program manager for the Paris-based International Energy Agency, points out the most recent Chinese figures show energy efficiency declining as the nation continues an energy-intensive boom in housing, industrial and road construction. "That's tremendously scary," Logan says."

EDIT

http://afr.com/articles/2005/07/07/1120704495664.html

[Massacure]

1. Many peasants are starting to rebel against the government over pollution.

The Chinese government will not be able to sit on their hands much longer.

[acmejack]

3. I've seen horror stories about the foulness of the air

in the most industrialized cities. It must be truly appalling to have to try to breathe in places there.

[NNadir]

2. China has 9 nuclear reactors, 2 under construction, 8 ordered, 19...

...proposed

As China gains experience in nuclear construction it may become as advanced as say, France. France was able to install 78 nuclear reactors in less than thirty years time. As the Chinese emerge from centuries of poverty their technical skill, experience and undoubtedly their efficiency will rise. Unquestionably the "under construction," "ordered" and "proposed" figures in China will rise dramatically in the next several years.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

I note that the Chinese are installing the first commercial nuclear reactor in the world that is designed specifically to produce hydrogen. This technology will ultimately make possible the manufacture of liquid motor fuels. Thus China has a real shot at becoming the most technologically advanced energy producing nation in the world.

Finally, if one reads the scientific journal Energy and Fuels one will see that Chinese Chemists represent a huge portion of the scientists doing research on biologically produced fuels - in some issues they represent the majority of such papers, even though the journal is a publication of the American Chemical Society.

It is worth noting that the per capita generation of greenhouse gases in China is still lower than the per capita generation of the United States. Any attempt to ignore this fact is claim that Americans have a greater intrinsic right to decent living standards than do Chinese. This is nonsense. All human beings have an equal right to escape poverty. Moreover since the Chinese are apparently more reality based than the Americans - who are setting new standards for sloth, waste, violence and wishful thinking - they will have a much better shot at addressing the issue of climate change than we will.

Finally I note with increasing disgust that China remains the only nation on earth with an official policy of reducing its population.

All nations - all people on earth - have a responsibility to reduce their consumption and the generation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases but the article misleads in placing the onus on China. The Chinese at least are acting. Everyone else is just talking or simply evading the issue.