China announces targets

Ahead of Copenhagen, China sets targets to slow emissions growth | csmonitor.com

They finally came out: "Ten days before a climate change summit opens in Copenhagen, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases announced it would emit between 40 and 45 percent less carbon per unit of economic output by 2020 than it did in 2005." So since legislation and the treaty is at 1990 levels, where does this measure up?

"Between 1990 and 2005, according to official figures, Beijing cut carbon emissions relative to economic activity by 47 percent." But that doesn't seem right - right?! China is now the biggest emitter so how could it be cutting its emissions earlier this decade?

As I suspected, there is a different story here. Check out this graph on the BBC from 2005 which shows China's emissions in 2002.

For better data...when all else fails, go to the Congressional Research Service (CRS). According to CRS:

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (metric tons CO2e) in 2005
China 7,527
United States 7,282

"Using [International Energy Agency (IEA)]’s GHG emission estimates and the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, China’s GHG intensity fell more than two-thirds from 1990 to 2005 (whether calculated by GDP using exchange rates or GNI using purchasing power parities)."

"According to IEA estimations of China’s GHG emissions, from 1990 to 2005 the total amount of CO2 increased from 2545 MMTCO2 to 5843 MMTCO2 (almost 144%), while total GHG emissions increased from 3905 MMTCO2e to 7527 MMTCO2e (152%)."

So, 2005 due to the incredible increase in China's growth in greenhouse gas emissions is a better year to set a target than 1990. This is good news! And our lesson here, don't trust official Chinese figures.

Thanksgiving Update!

As I noted yesterday, it is official that the U.S. is committing to targets that are in line with pending federal legislation and President Obama will attend to make this commitment before the world in Copenhagen. The NY Times has a great story on it. Obama to Go to Copenhagen With Emissions Target. Sen. Kerry (D-MA) is calling this a "game changer." I understand his sentiment as the Bush Regime was very against any commitment of any targets, until the end of his Administration. But is it? Maybe for achieving a political accord (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action - AWG-LCA8) but the Kyoto Protocol (Conference of Parties on the Kyoto Protocol - CMP5; Ad Hoc Working Group for Annex 1 Parties under Kyoto Protocol - AWG-KP10) is stalled without passed American legislation ensuring that not only will the U.S. be a signatory to the accord but they ratified it before its signed off by others. But time will tell. I would love to be wrong.

Now lets talk about setting targets "in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050." The League, of which I am a delegate, supports a target of atleast 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95 percent by 2050. So this is nearly in line with the League's position that is joined by numerous other organizations in the National Call to Action.

So where is COP15 today on the negotiations? In the 174 page Barcelona Report of the AWG-LCA7, the targets are set as such (pp. 64-65):

• "global emissions must peak by 2015, and then be reduced by more than 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050"
• "Parties shall collectively reduce global emissions by atleast 45 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 and by atleast 95 percent from 1990 levels by 2050."
• "aggregate greenhouse gas emissions by developed country Parties shall be reduced by [25-40] percent by 2020 compared with 1990."
• "Parties shall further collectively reduce global emissions by 50-85 percent by 2050 compared with the 2000 level."

So what does that bracketed red number in the third bullet mean? Well it means that the target is in negotiation. What is notable here is that President Obama's recommendation of 17 percent is well below the lower negotiated target of 25 percent. It will be very interesting to see where the U.S. negotiators take us. My guess, since I am a betting woman, is that we will end up trying to negotiate lower, get pushed by the EU and end up at 25 percent. Which means that the U.S. will need to change the pending legislation in the Senate (House passed version is 17 percent, the Senate version is 20 percent in 2020). That means that this will all come down to language used in reconciliation as Congressional negotiators come up with one bill between the two chambers.

And what about health care reform? Well it has been confirmed that our Congressional Delegation ("codel" in the COP talk) may be delayed. According to a source from the Majority Leader's office, if the vote is pending on health care reform, the legislators will not be able to go to Copenhagen. This again underscores the importance of Obama attending to demonstrate the American commitment to curb carbon emissions.

And yes, I am loving doing all this analysis and reading long negotiated texts, using all my Model UN skillz and what law school taught me to do when looking at these crazy documents. I am getting a great deal of personal satisfaction out of this! I am a geek that someday will get a real life.

Tomorrow - I will discuss health care and global warming and the two new studies out of the Lancet.

So as this is the Thanksgiving edition, I am truly wishing you and your family a very wonderful Thanksgiving. We all have a great deal to be thankful for. So, like I did when I first moved to Michigan - having been introduced to the idea by a friend of a friend - here are my Gratitudes:

I am grateful for:

• A healthy family and furry children (first time in a long time);
• Amazing friends that inspire me every day to do better;
  
• A beautiful home where I can play in the sand and watch the setting sun over the ocean any day I like; and
  
• The opportunity and God-given ability to help the world in activities such as this and my other volunteer activities.

Happy Thanksgiving!