China Greenhouse Gases May have Already Peaked

March 7, 2016

Following the US/China climate agreement, I created this much under-viewed video, on why China is highly motivated to reduce Greenhouse gases sooner, rather than later. Not the first time, but turns out, might have been quite prescient.

Washington Post:

In November 2014, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping shook hands on a historic agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions in both countries. The United States pledged to bring national emissions at least 26 percent below their 2005 levels, while China vowed to put a peak on its growing carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2030. These pledges would go on to become part of each country’s national commitments for the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was adopted during the United Nations’s climate conference in December.

It seemed an ambitious set of targets at the time, particularly for China, which overtook the United States as the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitter in 2007. Yet experts are now saying that achieving its goal is not only possible for China — the country may have already done so by the time the climate deal was made.

A new paper, released Sunday night by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, argues that a changing economic and energy landscape in China will help the nation’s emissions to peak by 2025 at the latest — if it didn’t already happen in 2014. The report, which will be published in the journal Climate Policy later this month, was released just two days after the Chinese government announced it would cap its annual energy consumption at 5 billion metric tons of standard coal equivalent by 2020 and reduce its carbon dioxide intensity by 18 percent between now and then.

“We’re reaching a point in much of China where the cities have been built, the roads have been built, a lot of the demand for cement and steel is essentially slowing,” said Joanna Lewis, an associate professor of science, technology and international affairs at Georgetown University and an expert on China’s energy landscape, who was not involved with the new paper. “You can’t build indefinitely.”

Below, one of the new paper’s authors, Lord Nicholas Stern, in a 2013 interview, in San Francisco. Also Vox, on China’s war against coal.


The most important global warming story over the past two years has arguably been China’s struggle to suppress its once-insatiable appetite for coal.

Lately, those efforts have begun paying off. Recent data suggests that China’s carbon dioxide emissions fell in 2015, driven by a sharp drop in coal use. There’s always plenty of uncertainty with China’s energy stats, but this shift does look significant:


As I’ve written before, a sluggish economy can explain part of this dip — but not all. China is making a long-term transition away from heavy industry. The central government is trying to clamp down on air pollution and setting aggressive targets for clean energy sources like nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar. There’s a major push to green the economy and hit peak CO2 emissions by (or before) 2030.

And yet… with China, nothing’s ever that simple. Over the past year, as a recent report from Greenpeace details, some of China’s regulatory agencies have also approved permits for 210 brand-new coal plants across the country — which, if built, would make it harder for the country to meet its climate targets. Many of these plants are being urged on by coal-mining provinces that have been hit hard economically of late.

These 210 new coal plants aren’t (yet) guaranteed to be built. In fact, key officials in Beijing are lobbying to cancel many of them. But the controversy around the plants helps illustrate just how tricky it will be to clean up the world’s largest CO2 polluter. The government is trying to throttle back on fossil fuels — but it also has to be mindful of high unemployment and potential unrest in its key coal regions.

8 Responses to “China Greenhouse Gases May have Already Peaked”

  1. Well, that’s pretty good news. If the world managed to match that near 2 percent emissions decline rate then we might have a decent shot at around 2 C warming this Century. Looks like global emissions may have plateaued. We really need them to be hitting a 2-3 percent consistent annual decline rate from here on out. Preferably faster.

  2. indy222 Says:

    China massively over-built – “ghost cities” and all the rest. It is entirely to be expected that we’d see a pullback in energy use of all kinds. Just like stock markets overshoot on the up and downside. If you look at oil use per capita for the past 40 years, you see similar small dips downward at every recession. We’ve had a recession in the emerging markets for a year now, and in Europe as well. Let’s see what happens when we emerge from recession.

    • Sir Charles Says:

      I cannot see China being in a “recession”. 6.5% annual growth still means doubling all 11 years. Doubling of production, and doubling of consumption, that’s what exponential growth means. If you spin the maths a bit further you come to 510 fold growth after 99 years. That would mean a new smart phone every day, a new TV all three days, and a car won’t last much longer than a week.

    • Maybe the ghost cities were not as silly as they seemed, two birds with one stone, employment and skills and housing for the future population growth and for those that will be displaced by Climate Change, where are other countries going to house their displaced persons, cities do not spring up overnight.
      As technology improves and techniques such as vertical farming are further developed, they can be incorporated into the unoccupied ghost cities simply and economically while the rest of the world struggles with the complexities of making those upgrades and changes in the context of population and their investments

  3. Sir Charles Says:

    “Anyone who believes EXPONENTIAL GROWTH can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist” (Economist Kenneth Boulding, early ’70’s)

    “The term ‘SUSTAINABLE GROWTH’ is an Oxymoron” (Albert A. Bartlett, 2000)

  4. ontspan Says:

    No comment from Dumboldguy yet? Well, that’s a surprise…

  5. […] (A new study by Glen Peters estimates that China’s greenhouse gas emissions may have fallen by 1.9 percent during 2015. This potential reduction is thought to have been precipitated by a shift away from coal use and toward a larger adoption of renewable energy. Image source: Glen Peters via Climate Crocks.) […]

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: