Skip to main content

China Takes Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead

From The Age (Australia):
CHINA has surged past the United States to become the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, beating even the most pessimistic predictions that it would take at least another year to outstrip the US.

The findings, by a Dutch environmental agency that advises the Netherlands Government, sharply raises the stakes as world leaders try to reach a climate accord — to include China and the US — to succeed the 1997 Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012.

Australia, which is hosting the next APEC summit, has been lobbying the US and China to strike a regional deal on climate change in Sydney in September. But in its first action plan on climate change, released this month, China committed itself to improving energy efficiency but rejected mandatory emission cuts, as the US is demanding, dealing such hopes a blow.

Comments

john-google said…
The United States, on a per person basis, emits four times as much carbon as China. See the numbers here
Anonymous said…
So, by that measure, all we have to do is start popping out more kids so our per capita carbon output drops below that of China? Probably total carbon emissions is more important on a global basis than per capita measures.
KenG said…
The US per capita emissions may be 4 times China but the US per capita GPA is 6 times China. China's rapidly growing economy combined with the a relatively high carbon emission rate per unit of economic activity should raise a concern among those who worry about CO2. Also, the "carbon efficiency" of the US and other developed countries is increasing while China's does not seem to be.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…