Japan this year is going to be 15% above its Kyoto emissions target, due to the world's largest nuclear power plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, having been shut down by an earthquake in mid-2007. The station is still closed for earthquake safety upgrading and "Tokyo Electric Power, its operator, estimates that the extra oil, coal and gas it is using adds 30m tonnes of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere a year, equivalent to virtually all of last year's increase" FT.com.
To compensate, the Japanese government will buy an extra $3.3 bn a year in carbon emission credits, which is another sort of financial bailout because the government does not force companies to buy credits to offset their emissions. Trading is on a purely voluntary basis. Japanese firms apparently feel they have no obligation to offset carbon emissions because, although the country has the world's second largest economy, it is only the fifth largest emitter. Well, whoopee! That makes it all OK then. [But (don't beat me) I know we're even worse].
I thought it was interesting that the closure of one nuclear power plant could raise Japan's emissions by 2.3% of the total. That means that if they want to meet their target to cut emissions by 50% by 2050, they could build approximately 25 new giant nuclear power plants (without growing their GDP) and close down the equivalent in coal-fired stations. They currently have 55 plants in total, but these only provide 30% of all electric power.
To compensate, the Japanese government will buy an extra $3.3 bn a year in carbon emission credits, which is another sort of financial bailout because the government does not force companies to buy credits to offset their emissions. Trading is on a purely voluntary basis. Japanese firms apparently feel they have no obligation to offset carbon emissions because, although the country has the world's second largest economy, it is only the fifth largest emitter. Well, whoopee! That makes it all OK then. [But (don't beat me) I know we're even worse].
I thought it was interesting that the closure of one nuclear power plant could raise Japan's emissions by 2.3% of the total. That means that if they want to meet their target to cut emissions by 50% by 2050, they could build approximately 25 new giant nuclear power plants (without growing their GDP) and close down the equivalent in coal-fired stations. They currently have 55 plants in total, but these only provide 30% of all electric power.
George Monbiot on the Bali deal:
I don't think it is fair, since this is a global problem not a local one, to condemn carbon trading out of hand. It should be the case that developing countries can increase emissions, provided that these are more than offset by reductions in the developed world. A major problem with the EU trading system is that the cap was set too high - given the massive closure of East European plants. Carbon emissions thus acquired no real value (and therefore no real incentive to developed industries and no real disincentive to developing countries to reduce emissions).
ETA: according to UNFCCC data, China's emissions grew by 47% during 1990-2004 and India's by 55%. That means that Chinese emissions grew by an average of 2.8% a year, which is very far below it's overall GDP growth rate of around 8-10% p.a.. India's emissions grew by 3.2% which is still well below it's GDP growth rate of 5-7% p.a. Australian emissions grew by about 1.5% - against a GDP growth of 3-4% p.a. It seems, therefore, that Chinese growth, in particular, has been quite carbon efficient.
'After 11 days of negotiations, governments have come up with a compromise deal that could even lead to emission increases. The highly compromised political deal is largely attributable to the position of the United States, which was heavily influenced by fossil fuel and automobile industry interests. The failure to reach agreement led to the talks spilling over into an all-night session."This is depressing and a timely reminder for those who think that getting rid of Bush will make a difference. Oil producing and guzzling interests fund both parties. It is certainly true that most of the cuts so far made in Europe have been achieved by closure of old Soviet-era plants. Moreover, most of the European cuts were made before 2000 and emissions in Europe have risen slightly since then. I'd really like to see his evidence about the Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs, though it wouldn't surprise me if it was true. However, he doesn't discuss the elements in the Bali statement which do seem to address this issue.
These are extracts from a press release by Friends of the Earth. So what? Well it was published on December 11 - I mean to say, December 11 1997. The US had just put a wrecking ball through the Kyoto protocol. George Bush was innocent; he was busy executing prisoners in Texas. Its climate negotiators were led by Albert Arnold Gore.
The European Union had asked for greenhouse gas cuts of 15% by 2010. Gore's team drove them down to 5.2% by 2012. Then the Americans did something worse: they destroyed the whole agreement.
Most of the other governments insisted that the cuts be made at home. But Gore demanded a series of loopholes big enough to drive a Hummer through. The rich nations, he said, should be allowed to buy their cuts from other countries. When he won, the protocol created an exuberant global market in fake emissions cuts. The western nations could buy "hot air" from the former Soviet Union. Because the cuts were made against emissions in 1990, and because industry in that bloc had subsequently collapsed, the former Soviet Union countries would pass well below the bar. Gore's scam allowed them to sell the gases they weren't producing to other nations. He also insisted that rich nations could buy nominal cuts from poor ones. Entrepreneurs in India and China have made billions by building factories whose primary purpose is to produce greenhouse gases, so that carbon traders in the rich world will pay to clean them up.
The result of this sabotage is that the market for low-carbon technologies has remained moribund. Without an assured high value for carbon cuts, without any certainty that government policies will be sustained, companies have continued to invest in the safe commercial prospects offered by fossil fuels rather than gamble on a market without an obvious floor.
By ensuring that the rich nations would not make real cuts, Gore also guaranteed that the poor ones scoffed when we asked them to do as we don't. When George Bush announced, in 2001, that he would not ratify the Kyoto protocol, the world cursed and stamped its foot. But his intransigence affected only the US. Gore's team ruined it for everyone....
I have written before about the role of the corporate media - particularly in the US - in downplaying the threat of climate change and demonising anyone who tries to address it. I won't bore you with it again, except to remark that at 3pm eastern standard time on Saturday, there were 20 news items on the front page of the Fox News website. The climate deal came 20th, after "Bikini-wearing stewardesses sell calendar for charity" and "Florida store sells 'Santa Hates You' T-shirt".
I don't think it is fair, since this is a global problem not a local one, to condemn carbon trading out of hand. It should be the case that developing countries can increase emissions, provided that these are more than offset by reductions in the developed world. A major problem with the EU trading system is that the cap was set too high - given the massive closure of East European plants. Carbon emissions thus acquired no real value (and therefore no real incentive to developed industries and no real disincentive to developing countries to reduce emissions).
ETA: according to UNFCCC data, China's emissions grew by 47% during 1990-2004 and India's by 55%. That means that Chinese emissions grew by an average of 2.8% a year, which is very far below it's overall GDP growth rate of around 8-10% p.a.. India's emissions grew by 3.2% which is still well below it's GDP growth rate of 5-7% p.a. Australian emissions grew by about 1.5% - against a GDP growth of 3-4% p.a. It seems, therefore, that Chinese growth, in particular, has been quite carbon efficient.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
zhenzhi posted today about the new report from Carma on world rankings of carbon emitters from power stations (covering data from 50,000 power stations). Turns out that Australia tops the ranking in carbon emission per capita. And with one third the population of the UK we actually managed to emit more tons of carbon. In NSW we have 2 of the world's top 100 CO2 emitting stations (as against 5 in the whole of Europe and 6 in the US). Just out of interest I've calculated the tons of carbon emitted per megaWatt hour of power generated and it seems that we're right up there with Russia, although the generators in India and China are even less carbon efficient. I'm not sure whether these numbers relate to the quality of the coal or to the technology in use. At any rate it seems to be an urgent priority to get these numbers down!Here's a sample calculation from a small selection of the top 100.
Power station | Tons CO2/MWH generated |
Reftinskaya (Rus) | 1.299 |
Eraring: (Aus) | 1.286 |
Bayswater: (Aus) | 1.286 |
1.219 | |
WA Parish (US) | 1.111 |
Navajo (US) | 1.080 |
Janschwalde (Ger) | 1.046 |
Hekinan (Jap) | 1.028 |
Gibson (US) | 0.967 |
Niederaussem (Ger) | 0.922 |
Drax ( | 0.865 |
Belchatow (Pol) | 0.671 |
ETA: I think it can't be the type of coal because Japan uses Australian coal and their single representative in the top 100 is considerably more efficient.
