China: rich nations must cut emissions by 40 pct

May 22, 2009 By ELAINE KURTENBACH , AP Business Writer

(AP) -- Wealthy nations, as history's biggest polluters, should cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, China says in a policy document on climate change. The government also rolled out fresh help for solar power and other "green energy."

The reductions China is calling for are based on the principles of "historical responsibility and fairness," the position paper says, and set a hard line ahead of international negotiations on addressing global warming.

A U.N. conference set for December in Copenhagen aims to draft a new agreement on controlling carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases that scientists say are causing the Earth to warm. Delegates will meet in Bonn, Germany, next month to begin discussing the text of that agreement.

China's position paper was posted Thursday on the Web site of the National Development and Planning Commission, the country's main economic planning agency.

Meanwhile, the government announced new support for solar and wind power and other .

In a meeting Thursday with provincial officials, the Ministry of Finance promised 38 billion yuan ($5.6 billion) in subsidies to promote wider use of wind and solar power and encourage the use of energy efficient cars and appliances, state-run media reported Friday.

China, which relies on heavily polluting coal for about three-quarters of its electricity, has sought to spotlight its efforts to improve and cut emissions, but has not committed to specific targets in climate talks.

The policy document issued this week gave no specific targets for China or other developing countries, but instead reiterated demands for technology transfers and other support.

Rich countries should provide at least 0.5 percent to 1 percent of their annual gross domestic product to help developing countries upgrade technology, cut emissions and adapt to the consequences of , the document said.

China has welcomed President Barack Obama's commitment to tackle climate change and re-engage in the international negotiations to come to an agreement in December.

But despite that shift, "the developed world has yet to do its due part in tackling climate change," the official newspaper China Daily said Friday in a commentary.

"No solution to fight global warming will be genuine enough, and thus practical enough, if developed countries keep glossing over their historical responsibility on this issue," it said.

The U.S. - which also has not issued targets for reducing emissions - has said that any agreement to combat global warming should require developing countries like India and China to reduce emissions.

Together, the U.S. and China are the world's two biggest emitters of , accounting for 40 percent of the global total.

While visiting Prague this week, Premier Wen Jiabao shrugged off pressure from the European Union for China to commit to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, though he backed EU efforts to reach a new global climate change accord to replace the U.N. Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The EU says it will reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and will go to 30 percent if major world nations will make similar cuts.

Experts say emissions must peak in 2015 and then fall by half by 2050 to limit .

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Predicting bioavailable cadmium levels in soils

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

US in spotlight as UN climate talks resume

Mar 29, 2009

UN talks tasked with forging a global climate treaty by year's end were set to resume here on Sunday, with all eyes on the debut appearance of US negotiators from the administration of US President Barack ...

US more optimistic about climate deal after talks

Apr 28, 2009

(AP) -- The top U.S. negotiator on climate change said Tuesday that he is slightly more optimistic about striking a new international agreement to curb global warming after a two-day meeting with the world's largest emitters ...

Recommended for you

Predicting bioavailable cadmium levels in soils

14 hours ago

New Zealand's pastoral landscapes are some of the loveliest in the world, but they also contain a hidden threat. Many of the country's pasture soils have become enriched in cadmium. Grasses take up this toxic heavy metal, ...

Oil drilling possible 'trigger' for deadly Italy quakes

18 hours ago

Italy's Emilia-Romagna region on Tuesday suspended new drilling as it published a report that warned that hydrocarbon exploitation may have acted as a "trigger" in twin earthquakes that killed 26 people in ...

Snow is largely a no-show for Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race

18 hours ago

On March 1, 65 mushers and their teams of dogs left Anchorage, Alaska, on a quest to win the Iditarod—a race covering 1,000 miles of mountain ranges, frozen rivers, dense forest, tundra and coastline. According ...

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

18 hours ago

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Study shows less snowpack will harm ecosystem

19 hours ago

(Phys.org) —A new study by CAS Professor of Biology Pamela Templer shows that milder winters can have a negative impact both on trees and on the water quality of nearby aquatic ecosystems, far into the warm growing season.

User comments : 9

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Velanarris
4.3 / 5 (6) May 22, 2009
So China just said: cripple yourselves so that we can thrive in a manufacturing market free of competition.

I replied: F- Off. Regulations on pollution should not be based upon chronology, but uniform across the board for all residents capable of effecting change.
John_balls
1.8 / 5 (5) May 22, 2009
Dude, if we dont' do anything we'll be hurting ourselves in the long run anyway. Lets beat the chinese to the punch and we won't have to worry about competition. But if we let them get a head start ,you can kiss our ass goodbye. Their won't be no catching up if we let them lead in manufacturing electric cars and solar panels.

It behooves us to be in the forefront in the same way we have been with many other technologies.

And their is no way we are going to cripple ourselves , it would be against our national security. This just fear mongering.

It's like when we tell the chinese we are concerned with the amount of money they are spending on their military all the while the U.S. spends more then the world combined. They are just giving it back to us.
Velanarris
4.2 / 5 (5) May 22, 2009
Dude, if we dont' do anything we'll be hurting ourselves in the long run anyway. Lets beat the chinese to the punch and we won't have to worry about competition. But if we let them get a head start ,you can kiss our ass goodbye. Their won't be no catching up if we let them lead in manufacturing electric cars and solar panels.
John, China wants the US to adhere to manufacturing limitations so they can become the lead manufacturer. If we do not limit our manufacturing then we can retain lead manufacturing status on those devices and many more.

China is not calling for a reduction in "old" manufacturing, they're calling for severe limitations on all of their competitors, in all fields.

And their is no way we are going to cripple ourselves , it would be against our national security. This just fear mongering.
You currently produce 4000 solar panels at a "carbon cost" of 5 megatons yearly. This legislation limits you to 1 megaton of carbon cost. This in turn, cuts your ability to manufacture down by 80%. So now you have 800 solar panels produced yet have to ensure that you generate enough money to stay open. What do you do?

Lay people off and increase the price of your product. So now less technology gets into the hands of people because they can't afford it, or they don't have a job.
It's like when we tell the chinese we are concerned with the amount of money they are spending on their military all the while the U.S. spends more then the world combined. They are just giving it back to us.
John, if the US was telling China they cannot spend that amount of money on their military, I'd agree with you, however, China is telling us to produce less and leave them out of our self imposed restrictions so they can dominate the manufacturing market.

If this isn't clear let me know and I'll attempt to clarify further. The aim here has nothing to do with pollution other than the Chinese government attempting to use "green propaganda" to have the citizens of the western world sink their own countries.
theophys
2.5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2009
Our crap sucks anyway. I just bought my first new car and was all excited because i was going to buy American and do my part to keep money in the States. Then I did my research, saw that most affordable American models are crap, and bought a VW. Since we seriously need to improve products manufactured in the US anyway, wemight as well see what we can do about emissions.
John_balls
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2009
Dude, if we dont' do anything we'll be hurting ourselves in the long run anyway. Lets beat the chinese to the punch and we won't have to worry about competition. But if we let them get a head start ,you can kiss our ass goodbye. Their won't be no catching up if we let them lead in manufacturing electric cars and solar panels.
John, China wants the US to adhere to manufacturing limitations so they can become the lead manufacturer. If we do not limit our manufacturing then we can retain lead manufacturing status on those devices and many more.
China is not calling for a reduction in "old" manufacturing, they're calling for severe limitations on all of their competitors, in all fields.

And their is no way we are going to cripple ourselves , it would be against our national security. This just fear mongering.
You currently produce 4000 solar panels at a "carbon cost" of 5 megatons yearly. This legislation limits you to 1 megaton of carbon cost. This in turn, cuts your ability to manufacture down by 80%. So now you have 800 solar panels produced yet have to ensure that you generate enough money to stay open. What do you do?

Lay people off and increase the price of your product. So now less technology gets into the hands of people because they can't afford it, or they don't have a job.

It's like when we tell the chinese we are concerned with the amount of money they are spending on their military all the while the U.S. spends more then the world combined. They are just giving it back to us.
John, if the US was telling China they cannot spend that amount of money on their military, I'd agree with you, however, China is telling us to produce less and leave them out of our self imposed restrictions so they can dominate the manufacturing market.
If this isn't clear let me know and I'll attempt to clarify further. The aim here has nothing to do with pollution other than the Chinese government attempting to use "green propaganda" to have the citizens of the western world sink their own countries.

Well I guess my point did not come across. Let me be more clearer. They can rant and rave all they want but the U.S. has always done and will do whats best for their national security. I hope that is clearer for you.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2009
They can rant and rave all they want but the U.S. has always done and will do whats best for their national security.

That's haalf of the problem. This should not be viewed as a security issue. This is a logistics and economics issue. Get national security out of the picture and realize this is a political war, not a land war. This is ideological conflict in which the only way to win is by morale. If the will of the nation's people do not support the nation's aim, then the aim goes unrealized.
GrayMouser
5 / 5 (1) May 25, 2009
They can rant and rave all they want but the U.S. has always done and will do whats best for their national security.


That's half of the problem. This should not be viewed as a security issue. This is a logistics and economics issue. Get national security out of the picture and realize this is a political war, not a land war. This is ideological conflict in which the only way to win is by morale. If the will of the nation's people do not support the nation's aim, then the aim goes unrealized.

The term is Economic Warfare. The US and Britain had Economic Warfare organizations during WWII. The Communist Bloc engaged in it after WWII (and if you think about it, so did the US with SDI/StarWars.)
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (1) May 25, 2009
One problem with the American economy is the false ideology of the so-called "invisible hand," along with capitalism in general.

I'm not a communist, but anyone who examines the economic collapse in America will realize that capitalism has led to an absurd aristocracy in America where banks in certain corporations and tyccoons control everything, and are allowed to continue to do so even when they show themselves to be inept. WE also have entertainers and circus clowns (a.k.a. professional atheletes,) who make dozen or even hundreds of times the income of people who actually have engineering and production jobs. This is completely backwards, and quite frankly, it is total foolishness on the part of our citizens, both individually and collectively.

Americans can't afford to pay their rent or mortgage, yet somehow they can afford to wear designer jeans, have the latest MP3 player, and of course buy all the latest songs and albums by Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus, etc. All the "excess" money gets funneled by fools into the hands of these clowns, most of whom live in California and gets spent on "wastes" on properties that are sold for ten times their reasonable value, and houses that are 2-10 times the size of what anyone needs, and yachts and etc. While these excesses also end up giving people a "job," i.e. "yacht maker" or "maid" or whatever for the obscenely rich circus clown, these jobs are all functionally "useless".

As long as people are willing to spend more money on useless or extravagant things like entertainment, drugs, cigarettes and alchol, rather than their own well being or that of their fellow countryman, the "real" economy will always suck, regardless of what the "markets" show.

So our government and analysts define "economy" apparantly almost exclusively in terms of "how much money people are willing to spend". Women have 50 pairs of shoes, wealthy people have 3 houses 5 cars and 2 boats, etc, etc, "spending for the sake of spending."

Is this "economy"?

Why is spending for the sake of spending considered a good thing?

Who cares if you produce 1 million new jobs, if the jobs are doing mostly useless things, or producing goods and services that only seem to be in the realm of excess and extravagance?

Miley Cyrus doesn't help fight cancer one bit compared to if all the money spent on her dolls and music was spent on medicine.

Nor does Madonna adopting a child or two make much difference compared to the outrageous amount of moeny people are willing to spend to watch her concerts and music videos, or listen to her music.

The circus clowns make as much money as small nation/states entire budget, and then the fools who gave them this wealth applaud them when they give a few dollars back to some charity or foundation, all the while living in mansions and owning their own private jets, etc.

Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama have shown themselves to be economic morons, as have countless of our recent senators and representatives (and citizens) in really the past several decades.

In my entire lifetime, the American "economy" has been anything but wise, efficient, or "economical," and this from the top down.

This is literally what the "invisible hand" does.

A lawyer or engineer or construction worker who lives in Hammond, Louisiana drives 40-50 miles each way every day to go to work for a firm in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Meanwhile, a person in the same field who lives in Baton Rouge makes the reverse trip every day to work for a firm in Hammond...Thier wives also work in still other cities. Each uses several gallons of gasoline each day just to go to work and back, and puts 80-100 miles worth of wear and tear on a vehicle. While there are cases where this system is advantageous to certain individuals, collectively, scale this up for all the work force in the country, and you have an OBSCENE waste of energy resources and other materials resources in (generally needless) transportation wastes alone. This has been going on at least since the 1950's.

This degree of waste cannot be sustained. Both in terms of the physical resources, as well as giving all the wealth to circus clowns, or even to CEOs who largely get paid millions of dollars to sign their name to something, while the people who actually make it work only get enough wage to basically afford to get back to work the next day...

Regardless of how many "dollar bills" it may make for certain individuals, usually only large business owners and CEO, as middle and lower class people typically end up working for the first person willing to hire them; this system is headed for total disaster, and on many, many economic, social, political, and moral levels.
Velanarris
not rated yet May 26, 2009
QC, problem is, although our resource systems are capitalist, our economic systems are not. Mismatched resource distribution matched with poor acocunting and transportation of goods leads us to where we are today.

More news stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Patent talk: Google sharpens contact lens vision

(Phys.org) —A report from Patent Bolt brings us one step closer to what Google may have in mind in developing smart contact lenses. According to the discussion Google is interested in the concept of contact ...

Wireless industry makes anti-theft commitment

A trade group for wireless providers said Tuesday that the biggest mobile device manufacturers and carriers will soon put anti-theft tools on the gadgets to try to deter rampant smartphone theft.