‹header›
‹date/time›
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
‹footer›
‹#›
Motives: reduce air pollution; efficient industry.
First three actions are the most effective in the short-term.
LPG & natural gas vehicles have big effect in reducing air pollution, but minor benefit for directly reducing GHG emissions. However, cleaning up the air will permit solar hot water to make a significant contribution. (Until recently, the sun couldn’t be seen in many Chinese cities.)
1-child policy has also helped.
Public transport could make big long-term reductions in GHG emissions.
Subsidies to fossil fuels are a global problem (addressed below).
China’s total GHG emissions from fossil fuels is declining, from peak in 1997 according to USEIA data or peak in 1996 according to BP data. By far the biggest emitting sector is industry, and its emissions are declining, although GDP is increasing at over 7% p.a. (1999 value). The 2 other sectors to watch are Transport and Commercial which are relatively small in magnitude but increasing rapidly.
EU’s share is slightly above China’s.
Australia’s share is about 1.5%.
But in per capita terms, Australia is one of the largest, and if we include emissions from land clearing, Australia has the largest per capita emissions in the world. This graph simply shows the annual emissions. However, global climate change is determined by the atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions which is mainly determined by the accumulated emissions. If we plot the accumulated emissions over 1980-1999 (say) the US contributions and Australia’s contributions is much larger in proportion to the developing world’s.
This is part of the new Shanghai, Pudong, seen from across the river from the old Shanghai, Puxi. Shanghai is 21st century city that protects at least part of it cultural heritage. Greater Shanghai has a population of over 16 M and growing. Economic powerhouse. Here you can see unsustainable and sustainable developments proceeding side by side. But Shanghai is grappling with the issue of sustainable development more deeply than any part of Australia or the USA.
In the centre of Shanghai is a planning and cultural heritage exhibition which occupies the whole of a 4-storey building. Strongly recommended. Here you can see that one whole floor is occupied by a realistic model of the city. In the exhibition, it is stated that Shanghai intends to be one of the world’s leading commercial cities in 21st century and, to do this, it will have to clean up the air and clean up the river.
Last year the planning exhibition announced that part of the program to clean up the air pollution will involve constructing 9 new underground metro lines, in addition to the 2 existing ones, and about 6 new light rail lines at ground level. This March, when I returned to Shanghai, they had already built 10 km of the first new line and were announcing that in October they will begin construction of a super-fast magnetic levitation railway to join the new Pudong international airport to the metro. 
Windpower is currently growing at about 30% p.a.
In Denmark it already supplies 13% of electricity.
It is one of Denmark’s major export industries and has created thousands of new jobs. Danish government’s official target is 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 [CHECK]
China is on a knife edge between sustainable and unsustainable models of development. Which pathway it ultimately follows will depend to a large degree on the example set by western countries, notably the USA, but also Australia. I have been running short courses on sustainable development for visiting Chinese delegation composed of senior government officials and business people. While they are impressed with some of Australia’s local actions -- such as the Green Olympics -- it is always embarrassing when they ask what Australia is doing at the national and State levels to achieve sustainable development and, in particular, to reduce GHG emissions.
To see what is possible in commercial energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we have to move from China to Europe.
Does anyone know what is the fastest growing energy technology in the world over the past 15 years?
[One definition of a subsidy is “ all measures that keep prices for consumers below market level or prices for producers above market level, or that reduce costs for consumers and producers by giving direct or indirect support” (de Moor 2001)]
Is the last point “picking winners” or “opening doors”?
NIEIR report to EA +
Subject of a PhD thesis by one of my students. We estimate at least $6 billion p.a., not counting many hidden subsidies -- data not available to calculate.
• It is theoretically possible to gain the 55 countries/55% requirement without USA. Nothing to lose in trying. Essential to encourage China to continue to cut emissions and other UDCs such as India and Brazil to take KP seriously. • China could take a much higher international profile as a major power that is successfully reducing emissions  while its economy is growing. It could be a leader of ‘LDCs’ and an example for all countries. • Australian renewable energy systems, some energy efficiency technologies, and trains have a potentially huge market in China. Chinese businesses have the capacity to commercialise Australian R & D. Australia could learn from some Chinese GHG policies. • Such an agreement should recognise market failure in the energy sector and the environmental benefits of most renewable energy sources compared with fossil fuels. In this way it could support transitional ‘subsidies’ to set up infrastructure for renewable energy, until fossil fuels attract international carbon taxes.
Some of the savings from removing subsidies can be transferred to former recipients in better ways: e.g. rural electricity subsidies replaced by direct grants to people who live in rural areas. Other subsidies, e.g. to aluminium smelters, can be redirected to greenhouse response.
Technologies: The actions must recognise that:
• the only long-term technologies are the efficient use of energy generated from renewable sources; • in the medium term, natural gas is a valuable, though limited, transitional fuel; • in greenhouse terms, there is no such thing as ‘clean coal’. Coal must be phased out. Resources should not be wasted on new coal-fired power stations or aluminium smelters based on subsidised coal electricity.
• Current CCP funding is only an average of $3,500 per Council p.a., yet LG is responsible for approving building plans, local roads & parking, land development, locations for many local travel destinations. About $130 million required.
• About $1 billion.
• About $30M: ~$3M per technology for (say) 10 technologies. Shall we have a ‘green’ fridge at last?
• Rural energy consumers may still be subsidised by targeted funding, independent of energy prices, that allows these consumers to invest in energy effic. & ren. en. instead.
• TEA allows PT to compete with roads for funding.
• Benefits include better health, more jobs (if implemented well),less economic risk (in formerly coal dependent areas, and nationally).
• Huge body of case studies contradicts, including Fed. Govt’s greenhouse Challenge program.
• E.g. Studies of the cost of GH response in Australia & China.
• Parameters are (1) Autonomous End-Use Energy-Intensity Improvement, usually assumed due to new technology and to be 0.5-1.0% p.a. (2) elasticities, e.g. change in energy demand resulting from change in its price.
China since 1997 makes a nonsense of both parameters.
• GDP etc increase when we spend on sea walls, pesticides, medical & hospital bills, snow-making machines, etc.
• How tax is spent dramatically changes job creation in computer simulations.