US_China_target_comparison

nullnullUpdate from COP15, Copenhagen: Comparing US and China Emission Targets, and Beyond Dale Wen Dec 17, 2009China and US's TargetsChina and US's Targets China: 40-45% carbon intensity (carbon emission per unit GDP) cut by 2020 compared to 2005 US: 17% total carbon emission cut by 2020 compared to 2005, according to the Waxman-Markey bill Understanding US targetUnderstanding US targetWith some straightforward assumption and simple math, we can translate US target into a carbon intensity target as well: US GDP growth rate for the last decade was 1.9% (from 2nd quarter 1999 to 2nd quarter 2009, reported by Business Week August 2009) Assume US GDP will grow at a higher rate of 2% between 2005 and 2020 Compound growth during the 15 year period is 1.02^15=1.346Understanding US target (cont'd)Understanding US target (cont'd) So the US carbon intensity in 2020 comparing to 2005 is (100%-17%)/1.346=62% Carbon intensity cut 100%-62%=38%Direct Comparison of China and US TargetsDirect Comparison of China and US TargetsBetween 2005 and 2020 China: 40-45% carbon intensity cut, without any offseting US: 38% carbon intensity cut, with offseting including carbon trading, LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry)--lots of loopholes in these offset mechanisms according to many criticsMore “Ambitious” Goal by the US?More “Ambitious” Goal by the US? Some US NGOs are compaigning for a more ambitious goal of 20% emission cut for the US, even with this, the carbon intensity cut for US is 1-(1-20)/1.346=41%, which is on the lower end of China's target. Is this the “ambition” for the world richest country?Common but Differentiated Responsibility Reversed? Common but Differentiated Responsibility Reversed? We have omited common but differentiated responsibility, climate justice etc. considerations in above calculation and comparison (which we should not), Still, China, as a developing country with tens of millions people still living under 1$/day, has offered the level of emission reduction superior to the US target in direct comparison. Yet, China and sometimes together with other developing countries are being blamed for the deadlock in Copenhagen.Misinformation Campaign by the MediaMisinformation Campaign by the Media New York Times, Dec 14, China and U.S. Hit Strident Impasse at Climate Talks Financial Times, Dec 15, Comment: China pressed to reveal numbers Washington Post: U.S., China deadlock in Copenhagen Double Standard or not?Double Standard or not? Are China and US equally at fault for the deadlock in Copenhagen? As these reports from mainstream media are trying to indicate? Backlash already: the above number comparison was first sent to me by a friend who believes that climate change is only a western conspiracy to stall the growth of developing countries. Now he claims that the politics at COP15 is validating his views. And I am forced to admit I cannot find any fault with his numbers or the logic behind.Will Public Pressure Work for the Better or the Worse?Will Public Pressure Work for the Better or the Worse? Guardian, Dec 17, World leaders 'face public fury' if agreement proves impossible But, something can be worse than a failure: a failure dressed up as a successThe Worst Possible Outcome of COP15?The Worst Possible Outcome of COP15?Now Dec 17 10 pm, my worst fear at the moment: a weak and unfair deal, yet because of the enormous pressure to reach a deal, we all pretend that it is a good deal. So it is time to be more honest to have the courage to admit failure if it happens to reclaim the integrity of global environmental agenda down the road.