Forecasting the Path of China's CO2 Emissions

This is, I think, very good work--and the worst news about the human future I have learned in months:

Forecasting the Path of China's CO2 Emissions Using Province Level Information:

Maximilian Auffhammer and Richard T. Carson (2008), "Forecasting the Path of China's CO2 Emissions Using Province Level Information"

ABSTRACT: Our results suggest that the anticipated path of China's Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions has dramatically increased over the last five years. The magnitude of the projected increase in Chinese emissions out to 2015 is several times larger than reductions embodied in the Kyoto Protocol. Our estimates are based on a unique provincial level panel data set from the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency. This dataset contains considerably more information relevant to the path of likely Chinese greenhouse gas emissions than national level time series models currently in use. Model selection criteria clearly reject the popular static environmental Kuznets curve specification in favor of a class of dynamic models with spatial dependence.

Comments

[Monte Davis]

The late Nobelist Rick Smalley was working very hard on long-term energy issues for several years before his death in 2005, collaborating with colleagues at Rice and its Baker Institute. This is reminiscent of their high-end curves for Chinese coal, which some found "alarmist."

One of the Baker people was waxing enthusiastic over the opportunities to sell or license US clean coal technology to China. Smalley observed that the eventual costs to us of China's NOT using the best available tech would be so great that we might be better off putting all the blueprints on CD-ROM and shipping them a million copies gratis.

"Or just one CD," he added drily, "we know they can take it from there."

[Neal]

www.american.edu/TED/chincoa.htm

In sum, coal burning in China is having a significant impact on the
physical environment, as well as the population in China, and the
overall world atmosphere. Scientists have predicted by the year
2025, China will emit more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, two
products from coal burning, than the United States, Japan, and
Canada combined.

[dissent]

Keep the free market faith!

I say, if the free market means we burn up, then burn baby burn.

[Slocum]

--------------
"Increasing demand for food will be sorted out by price signals"...the price of food is rising and what do you expect to happen next?
--------------

I expect food prices to keep rising until we get rid of the moronic, disastrous corn-ethanol subsidies which are so essential for wasting vast sums of money, actually increasing greenhouse gas emissions...and pandering to Iowa caucus voters. These subsidies are a main driver of food price increases.

BTW -- will 'progressives' please decide what they want? I've seen plenty of them whining that corn (and corn sweeteners) are much too cheap and this cheap food is poisoning us. Also that low grain prices were killing family farms. For those progressives, corn price increases should be a wonderful thing, right?

--------------
"Increasing demand for energy will be sorted out by price signals" --- yeah, so price of oil is rising and coal is being substituted ... and then what?
--------------

Economists claimed that price signals and substitution effects would prevent the disaster of the world suddenly pumping the last drop of oil and then starving to death while shivering in the cold (which is what Ehrlich was predicting). And the price signals and substitution are happening as economists (but not Ehrlich) expected. No, price signals, on their own, are not going to automatically solve the problems of CO2 emissions (not unless producing solar power unexpectedly becomes cheaper than mining coal)-- but then nobody ever claimed they would.

[bigTom]

"Increasing demand for energy will be sorted out by price signals" --- yeah, so price of oil is rising and coal is being substituted ... and then what?

Only coal prices -especially export are rising even faster than oil.

There are some important economic resources for which either finite extent of the resource, or extraction rate are bounded low enough to create meaningful constraints on aspects of the global economy. In some circles, an unquestioning belief that price signals will necessarily lead to successful substitution is derided, as "cornucopian nonsense".

[bigTom]

"Increasing demand for energy will be sorted out by price signals" --- yeah, so price of oil is rising and coal is being substituted ... and then what?

Only coal prices -especially export are rising even faster than oil.

There are some important economic resources for which either finite extent of the resource, or extraction rate are bounded low enough to create meaningful constraints on aspects of the global economy. In some circles, an unquestioning belief that price signals will necessarily lead to successful substitution is derided, as "cornucopian nonsense".

[Darren]

"The magnitude of the projected increase in Chinese emissions out to 2015 is several times larger than reductions embodied in the Kyoto Protocol."

Wow.

[Alex Tolley]

One can only hope that this does not result in paralysis of action by the developed countries. China has plenty to lose from GW, so they will have to use non-CO2 emitting energy technologies at some point.

[Monte Davis]

"China... will have to use non-CO2 emitting energy technologies at some point."

For sure. It's just that the Aufhammer & Carson paper makes clearer how urgent it is to GET to "that point," because (1) the incremental-CO2 curve is steeper than had been thought, (2) all that new coal-fired generating capacity has its own sunk-cost inertia, (2b) retrofitting it for capture is likely to remain expensive, and (3) the residence time of atmospheric CO2 is so long -- i.e., we'll still be laying rubber for 50-100 years after we finally agree it really is a good idea to apply the brakes.

[Slocum]

"China has plenty to lose from GW"

Perhaps. But it also has a great deal to gain, namely hegemonic power. My sense is that the Chinese would rather be the hegemonic power in a warmed world than remain #2 in a CO2-restricted world.

And, it is in China's interest to raise its emissions as high as possible before agreeing to any kind of deal, since it will be working from a higher baseline and will have a bigger pile of chips.

"There are some important economic resources for which either finite extent of the resource, or extraction rate are bounded low enough to create meaningful constraints on aspects of the global economy. In some circles, an unquestioning belief that price signals will necessarily lead to successful substitution is derided, as "cornucopian nonsense"."

Nobody thinks substitution will be perfect or immediate. But that said, there are many potential energy technologies that are competitive with $100 oil. Investments into these are already flowing rapidly, and will flow even faster as potential investors become more confident that oil $100 will remain at $100 (rather than crash back to $35 and bankrupt the investors in alternatives).

[christofay]

China's interior has barely gotten into the oil economy, it was always dependent on coal, it's the cheapest localist energy source. Substitution effect does not apply

[christofay]

I haven't heard that the Cape Wind project is going ahead

[Movie Guy]

Figures 7, 8, and 9 of their paper only tell part of the story. About 9 years ago, a CO2 chart was displayed during testimony before the U.S. Congress. That chart, supported by an environmental study, indicated CO2 emissions growth out to year 2050. Now, that's a shocker of a chart. And current NASA and other data sources appear to show the growth rate pretty much in alignment with that projection.

I posted the link for that chart on your blog a couple of times during the past two years. Same for a few other blogs.

This is typical of what happens when there are no major environmental considerations required by the WTO for nation membership, or for U.S. trade agreements and trade status considerations.

I see no reason to complain now. There were few major complaints by 'faces' back then. So much for leadership. Then or now.

>>>