China

How the U.S. can stay the global wind leader

The Global Wind Energy Council reported Monday:

The United States passed Germany to become world #1 in wind power installations, and China's total capacity doubled for the fourth year in a row. Total worldwide installations in 2008 were more than 27,000 MW ... 36% more than in 2007 ...

Global wind energy capacity grew by 28.8% last year, even higher than the average over the past decade, to reach total global installations of more than 120.8 GW at the end of 2008.

It just goes to show what this country can do with intelligent and (somewhat) consistent government policies -- state-based renewable electricity standards and a federal tax credit (see "U.S. wind energy grows by record 8,300 MW").

But the race is on for global leadership, and China is poised to be our major contender, as it "once again doubled its installed capacity by adding about 6.3 GW, reaching a total of 12.2 GW":

Children are externalities

"So many people are wondering why, when our lives are supposed to be getting better, there are more and more babies born with birth defects and couples who are infertile."

-- Chinese environmental activist Huo Daishan, on the alarming rise in birth defects in his country

How Obama can get a better climate bill in 2010

Update: The Center for American Progress has the post "Timeline: A Fight for State Fuel Efficiency Standards, President Obama Moves on Issue After Years of Roadblocks."

My new Salon piece is out: "Real science comes to Washington: Myopic conservatives and the media still don't get global warming. But if anybody can preserve a livable climate, Obama's amazing energy team can."

Besides exploring how the media clearly doesn't get the dire nature of the climate problem (duh) and how Obama's amazing team of radical pragmatists clearly do, I discuss what Obama needs to do in 2009 to justify not passing a major climate bill this year.

I am trying to make lemon out of lemonade here. I can't find a single reporter, staffer, or wonk who thinks we're going to have a climate bill this year. As the NYT reported earlier this month, "advisers and allies have signaled that they may put off ... restricting carbon emissions." Noting that many in Congress "question the pace at which lawmakers will be able to move on a climate legislation," Climate Wire ($ub. req'd) even quoted the uber-progressive Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Barbara Boxer, as "acknowledging this" and saying, "If that doesn't all come together within a year, I would expect EPA would act."

Boxer's comment gets at one of the two key issues, namely, what does team Obama need to do in 2009 to make up for the fact that there won't be a climate bill? The other issue is, what does team Obama need to do in 2009 to get a better bill next year than they could get this year? I have already blogged on one part of the answer to the second question -- they need to get China onboard with a hard emissions cap (see "Part I, Does a serious bill need action from China?").

Here is my answer to both questions from the Salon piece:

Does a serious bill need action from China?

I'm not asking whether we should pass a serious climate bill before China acts. The answer to that question is obviously yes, as I've written many times (see The "China Excuse" for inaction and The U.S.-China Suicide Pact on Climate).

But as I noted in my post on Steven Chu's confirmation hearing for energy secretary, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) made some worrisome remarks on the subject. Our very own David Lewis transcribed the exchange in the comments (here). I'm going to repost it below because Bayh is a thoughtful moderate who certainly understands the climate issue.

First, however, let me make a few comments. We have no chance to stabilize CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm (let alone 350), if China does not agree to cap its carbon emissions by 2020 (see "Must-read IEA report explains what must be done to avoid 6°C warming"). Right now, however, China seems to be willfully pursuing planetary self-destruction (see "China announces plan to single-handedly finish off the climate").

The international negotiation process that led to the Kyoto Protocol -- and that is supposed to culminate in another deal in Copenhagen at the end of this year -- is for all intents and purposes in a deep coma, even if most of the participants don't realize that (see "Obama can't get a global climate treaty ratified, so what should he do instead? Part 1"). Indeed, the only thing that could possibly revive it is China agreeing to a cap by no later than 2020. That alone means Obama's top international priority this year must not be Copenhagen, but rather China. Whether or not Obama needs some action by China to get a U.S. bill passed, his entire presidency and the fate of the planet rest on whether he can in fact get a China deal (see "What will make Obama a great president, Part 2: A climate deal with China").

Let me go further here, based in part on Bayh's remarks. I think it is rather obvious that if China simply refuses to agree to any strong emissions constraints sometime during Obama's (hopefully) two terms in office, than even if we had passed a climate bill in this country, the political support for the kind of carbon dioxide prices needed to achieve meaningful reductions by 2020 would just fade away. Second, I think it is even more obvious that the climate bill we could pass in this country would be considerably stronger if we could in fact negotiate a strong, bilateral GHG agreement with China (or trilateral with China and the E.U.) -- though presumably the Chinese side of things would be contingent on a U.S. bill passing.

I do not want to be misunderstood here: It is more than reasonable to argue, as I have repeatedly, that the U.S. should try to pass a bill first -- and such a bill may be the key to unlocking Chinese action. But Bayh's comments in his exchange with Chu suggest that may not work politically:

Eight years of Bush inaction leave Obama with a near-impossible challenge

Given the sheer number of candidates for “worst legacy of the Bush years,” it may seem perverse to pick the hundreds of coal-fired power plants that have opened across China during his administration. But given their cumulative effect — quite possibly the concrete block that broke the climate-camel’s already straining back — I think they […]

MIT and NBER (and Tol and Nordhaus) — right wing deniers love your work. Ask yourselves 'why?'

"Study Shows Global Warming Will Not Hurt U.S. Economy" -- That's the Heritage Foundation touting a new study by economists from MIT and the National Bureau of Economic Review.

This study, "Climate Shocks and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Half Century" [PDF] -- wildly mistitled and deeply flawed, as we will see -- is yet another value-subtracting contribution by the economics profession to climate policy.

What makes the paper especially noteworthy, however, is not merely the credentials of the authors, but that they thank such climate economist luminaries as William Nordhaus and Richard Tol for "helpful comments and suggestions." The only helpful comment and suggestion I can think of for this paper is, "Burn the damn thing and start over from scratch."

Heritage quotes the study:

Our main results show large, negative effects of higher temperatures on growth, but only in poor countries. In poorer countries, we estimate that a 1?C rise [sic -- the Heritage folks haven't mastered the ° symbol] in temperature in a given year reduced economic growth in that year by about 1.1 percentage points. In rich countries, changes in temperature had no discernable effect on growth. Changes in precipitation had no substantial effects on growth in either poor or rich countries. We find broadly consistent results across a wide range of alternative specifications.

Heritage then quotes a commentary on the study by right-wing blogger for U.S. News & World Report James Pethokoukis, "Sorry, Climate Change Wouldn't Hurt America's Economy." Pethokoukis also quotes from the study:

Despite these large, negative effects for poor countries, we find very little impact of long-run climate change on world GDP. This result follows from (a) the absence of estimated temperature effects in rich countries and (b) the fact that rich countries make up the bulk of world GDP. Moreover, if rich countries continue to grow at historical rates, their share of world GDP becomes more pronounced by 2099, so even a total collapse of output in poor countries has a relatively small impact on total world output.

(If these excerpts suggest to you that the study authors and the economist commenters are victims of some sort of collective mass hysteria, then you are a getting (a little) ahead of me ... but the fact that thoroughly-debunked denier Ross McKitrick is a commenter on this paper certainly suggests this entire effort is indefensible.)

Pethokoukis himself then offers a conclusion that, though amazing, is not utterly ridiculous given a narrow misreading of this absurdly narrow, easily-misread study:

China's BYD to bring plug-in hybrid, electric cars to U.S. in 2011

DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 12, 2009 (AFP) — China’s BYD Auto announced plans Monday to enter the U.S. market in 2011 with a range of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. It would likely be the first Chinese automaker to enter the highly-competitive U.S. market and beat many established automakers in offering an extended-range electric vehicle to […]

China to increase coal production 30 percent by 2015

The Canberra Times/AFP has the alarming news:

China is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 per cent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the Government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming.

(Note to Canberra Times: Some statements are so obvious you can skip the journalistic hedging.)

Land and Resources Ministry chief planner Hu Cunzhi said the Government planned to increase annual output to more than 3.3 billion tonnes by 2015.

That is up from the 2.54 billion tonnes produced in 2007, according to the ministry.

In short, from 2007 to 2015, China will increase its coal production by an amount equal to two-thirds of the entire coal consumption of the United States -- an amount that surpasses all of the coal consumed today in Europe, Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa, and Central and South America.

Such is the legacy of eight years of the Bush administration blocking all national and international action on climate change, and indeed actively working to undermine international negotiations by creating a parallel do-nothing track for countries like China. As Chinese officials have told me, we gave them the cover to accelerate emissions growth.

Some might claim a different president would never have been able to get China on a different path. But if Al Gore had been elected picked by the Supreme Court in 2000, I assert that China would not be planning for its 2015 coal production to be triple that of current U.S. coal production.

Changing China's rapacious coal plans will arguably be Obama's single greatest challenge in terms of preserving a livable climate and thus the health and well-being of future generations and thus any chance at a positive legacy for his presidency.

The story continues:

NASA: China's pollution control efforts improved air quality during the Olympics

Over at the Atlantic, James Fallows noted a NASA study, presented at the December meeting of the American Geophysical Union, that shows that China's efforts to clean up the air pollution during the Olympics did improve air quality.

Though the reductions in air pollutants seems to be specific to the Beijing area, the report noted:

During the two months when restrictions were in place, the levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) -- a noxious gas resulting from fossil fuel combustion (primarily in cars, trucks, and power plants) -- plunged nearly 50 percent. Likewise, levels of carbon monoxide (CO) fell about 20 percent.

The release that accompanied the report noted that the "steep decline in certain pollutants surprised the researchers," and in all fairness, it surprised me too. My coverage of the Beijing air was decidedly pollution-heavy. Though it's hard for me to swallow that Beijing may have gotten the air-pollution measures right -- an API of 95 is bad no matter how you spin it -- I couldn't agree more with Fallows:

... it shows that corrective steps can improve even the most hopeless-seeming environmental disasters. It's worth trying to do something, rather than just hunkering down in bed and trying to take very, very shallow breaths -- my strategy in the months from April to July.

In other words, Yes We Can.

NASA images below the fold: