4 ms·

Mapped: The world’s largest CO2 importers and exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/m

Mapped: The world’s largest CO2 importers and exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import... "Despite the large total of CO2 imports and exports, US emissions are only 6% higher and Chinese emissions are 13% lower when CO2 transfers are taken into account." Energy related carbon dioxide emissions peaked in 2007 in the United States [1]. They didn't just get hidden by imports replacing domestic manufacturing. Even incorporating imports into the national balance, US emissions are down from the peak. This is largely due to efficient combined cycle gas turbines replacing coal plants and -- to a lesser but growing extent -- a larger proportion of renewable electricity in the national electricity mix. Chinese carbon dioxide emissions have not peaked yet. As of 2017 (referenced above), 87% of Chinese emissions are attributable to domestic consumption. That should moderate hopes that Chinese emission trends could be reversed by CO2 tariffs. It should also moderate anxiety that Chinese emissions are "really" the offshored emissions of Western consumers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_th...

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
Carbon tariffs don't have to only be on the carbon content of the goods transferred. You can just punish a country generally for not doing their part if you'll otherwise have a tragedy of the commons type outcome. I'm relatively hopeful that renewables will simply be cheaper though, in part thanks to China. But we could still use tariffs for global co-operation on other sources of emissions (there was a story recently about China releasing CFCs for example).
- philipkglass 7y ago
  It's hard to get a good read on what really happens in China since they don't have a free press and I can only read what has been translated into English. The amazing progress in photovoltaic price:performance ratios makes me hopeful too, and it looks like we are just starting to enter the era of affordable big battery projects to use solar electricity after sunset. Those are great developments. Unfortunately, China appears to have some historical inertia and perverse incentives to keep mining coal and building/running coal plants even if coal-fired electricity isn't the cheapest any more [1]. The incentives to keep running economically dubious coal plants to maintain employment can be very strong in some provinces, even if that conflicts with national goals for reducing air pollution. Mining coal and running coal plants requires more workers per megawatt hour than solar power. And even if they were equal, it's not like coal miners can painlessly make the transition to working in solar manufacturing or installation. I have also read about situations where e.g. a province gets revenue for every ton of coal mined, but would not get any revenue for every hour of sunshine collected, so there are localized revenue reasons for provincial authorities to prefer coal. [1] Like Germany, Australia, the US, Poland, South Africa... and more.
- deusofnull 7y ago
  I think anything like that is going to appear retroactively very hypocritical to any developing nation that finds itself under such carbon tariffs. A sort of reparation or settlement for western carbon output in the 20th century, which the same impact on the climate only differing in happening earlier, would help developing nations get on board. This arrangement could take the form of investment in a developing nations clean energy infrastructure or compensation in other forms. Otherwise, developing nations besides China will probably continue buying legacy, retired coal fire equipment from China, which has been happening for some time now.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Hypocrisy is orthogonal to effectiveness. If it costs less to switch to renewables than pay the tariffs then they stop burning coal. But the hypocrisy argument fails anyway because the renewable alternatives that exist today didn't exist a hundred years ago. It's altogether different to choose coal when the science is less well understood and no viable alternatives are known to exist than to do so today when that is not the case. There is also a difference in scale. There are more than four times as many people in the developing world as there are in the developed world. If they used the same amount per capita then they would release more carbon in 10 years than we did in 40. Even if the First World hadn't burned an ounce of coal, they still wouldn't be able to do what we actually did. But they also don't need to today. And it would be easier to pass tariffs than convince the population of the First World to send their money overseas. This needs to happen right now, not after people argue about it for another twenty years.
    - deusofnull 7y ago
      Largely, I agree with you. Just pointing out the appearance of hypocrisy could lead to tension in this decisive time where we need to act now, as you say. A mixture of tariffs / investment could be used to get the goal most effectively.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Imposing the tariffs would result in the investment you're looking for anyway. Once you make coal uncompetitive on cost, people still need electricity, so they buy renewables. The investors follow the demand.
xbmcuser 7y ago
I personally think China won't be the problem for carbon production in the future at a national level as they are heavily investing in solar, batteries and electric transportation at the same time they have started to look for gdp growth in the services industry instead of production and construction. I feel the major carbon growth is going to come from Africa and poorer parts of Asia as more people get out of poverty and start to consume more power.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

Carbon tariffs don't have to only be on the carbon content of the goods transferred. You can just punish a country generally for not doing their part if you'll otherwise have a tragedy of the commons type outcome. I'm relatively hopeful that renewables will simply be cheaper though, in part thanks to China. But we could still use tariffs for global co-operation on other sources of emissions (there was a story recently about China releasing CFCs for example).

philipkglass 7y ago
It's hard to get a good read on what really happens in China since they don't have a free press and I can only read what has been translated into English. The amazing progress in photovoltaic price:performance ratios makes me hopeful too, and it looks like we are just starting to enter the era of affordable big battery projects to use solar electricity after sunset. Those are great developments. Unfortunately, China appears to have some historical inertia and perverse incentives to keep mining coal and building/running coal plants even if coal-fired electricity isn't the cheapest any more [1]. The incentives to keep running economically dubious coal plants to maintain employment can be very strong in some provinces, even if that conflicts with national goals for reducing air pollution. Mining coal and running coal plants requires more workers per megawatt hour than solar power. And even if they were equal, it's not like coal miners can painlessly make the transition to working in solar manufacturing or installation. I have also read about situations where e.g. a province gets revenue for every ton of coal mined, but would not get any revenue for every hour of sunshine collected, so there are localized revenue reasons for provincial authorities to prefer coal. [1] Like Germany, Australia, the US, Poland, South Africa... and more.
deusofnull 7y ago
I think anything like that is going to appear retroactively very hypocritical to any developing nation that finds itself under such carbon tariffs. A sort of reparation or settlement for western carbon output in the 20th century, which the same impact on the climate only differing in happening earlier, would help developing nations get on board. This arrangement could take the form of investment in a developing nations clean energy infrastructure or compensation in other forms. Otherwise, developing nations besides China will probably continue buying legacy, retired coal fire equipment from China, which has been happening for some time now.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Hypocrisy is orthogonal to effectiveness. If it costs less to switch to renewables than pay the tariffs then they stop burning coal. But the hypocrisy argument fails anyway because the renewable alternatives that exist today didn't exist a hundred years ago. It's altogether different to choose coal when the science is less well understood and no viable alternatives are known to exist than to do so today when that is not the case. There is also a difference in scale. There are more than four times as many people in the developing world as there are in the developed world. If they used the same amount per capita then they would release more carbon in 10 years than we did in 40. Even if the First World hadn't burned an ounce of coal, they still wouldn't be able to do what we actually did. But they also don't need to today. And it would be easier to pass tariffs than convince the population of the First World to send their money overseas. This needs to happen right now, not after people argue about it for another twenty years.
  - deusofnull 7y ago
    Largely, I agree with you. Just pointing out the appearance of hypocrisy could lead to tension in this decisive time where we need to act now, as you say. A mixture of tariffs / investment could be used to get the goal most effectively.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Imposing the tariffs would result in the investment you're looking for anyway. Once you make coal uncompetitive on cost, people still need electricity, so they buy renewables. The investors follow the demand.

xbmcuser 7y ago

I personally think China won't be the problem for carbon production in the future at a national level as they are heavily investing in solar, batteries and electric transportation at the same time they have started to look for gdp growth in the services industry instead of production and construction. I feel the major carbon growth is going to come from Africa and poorer parts of Asia as more people get out of poverty and start to consume more power.