cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/54371015
Analysts criticise a damaging precedent after Beijing made an accounting adjustment in an effort to avoid missing a UN commitment.
China has made an accounting adjustment to how it counts carbon emissions, making its climate change targets easier to meet.
The world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide was previously due to fall far short of the 2025 target it set for UN climate change negotiations.
However, a significant revision to how it measures emissions means China has now officially come close to meeting the goal.
[…]
The shift also means Chinese leaders can claim to have met their international climate commitments for 2030 even if the country’s emissions rise. Previously they would have had to fall.
[…]
The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a Helsinki-based think tank, said the timing of the change was “obviously motivated” by the need to reduce the shortfall for the climate target for last year.
Lauri Myllyvirta, the centre’s lead analyst, estimated the accounting shift had erased about half of China’s growth in emissions between 2020 and last year. The reduction in emissions is big: 700 million to 730 million fewer tonnes of CO₂ a year, or about twice Britain’s annual emissions.
China is responsible for more than a third of the world’s carbon emissions because of its sheer size and reliance on polluting coal, so its decisions are crucial for determining future global warming. The country has positioned itself as a green leader, exporting wind and solar power components and electric cars to the world.
Most rich countries including the UK have committed themselves to absolute reductions in emissions as part of their international UN climate commitments.
[…]
Chinese officials recently quietly announced changes to how they defined the carbon intensity metric.
Under the new accounting, China now includes CO₂ from industrial processes, such as cement and metals production. Crucially, it excludes the non-energy use of fossil fuels. This means that coal, oil and gas used as raw materials in the country’s growing chemical industry are no longer factored in.
[…]
The result is much lower emissions. Official statistics previously suggested China’s emissions rose by 14 per cent between 2020 and last year. Under the revision, the growth appears to be only 7 per cent.
China would previously have missed its target of reducing carbon intensity by 18 per cent by last year, with only a 12.4 per cent reduction. The new accounting method allows the government to claim a 17.7 per cent reduction.
Myllyvirta said: “China’s decision sets this precedent where if your progress is lagging, you just come up with a way making the numbers look better. That’s a potentially very damaging precedent. To me that’s the most concerning part about it.”
[…]
Isn’t that what already happened to the “westerners”. They followed the “Tokyo Accord” until it wasn’t working and they came up with a new one to follow (“Paris Accord”?).
This is outright disinformation apparently aimed to distract from China’s bad faith actions and has nothing to do with the topic.
Wow. I’m an influencer? Buy Pepsi!
It’s hilarious when that account calls others propagandists as they push any source that says China bad no matter how terrible of a source it is.
It’s Kyoto Protocol not Tokyo Accord. Anyhow these agreements are basically useless. In the end it’s cheap solar/wind and expensive oil/gas that drive the energy transition.
I used to remeber that.
Under the new accounting, China now includes CO₂ from industrial processes, such as cement and metals production. Crucially, it excludes the non-energy use of fossil fuels. This means that coal, oil and gas used as raw materials in the country’s growing chemical industry are no longer factored in.
The accounting change is suspicious but this new definition looks fair. If oil is used to make some chemical and the carbons remain inside the product (not released in the process) then it should not count as emission.
A physicist would tell you that burning oil to heat up a furnace or to push a tractor is energy use. But an economist would say, that’s not energy. The new rules also don’t include emissions from incinerating plastic waste.
A physicist would tell you that burning oil to heat up a furnace or to push a tractor is energy use. But an economist would say, that’s not energy
Powering a tractor definitely requires energy. I have never seen economists denying that. Why would they? Also heating up a furnace 100% falls under industrial use in my book.
The new rules also don’t include emissions from incinerating plastic waste.
Does it not? I looked at the page linked in the Times article but they don’t say anything concrete there. Do you have a better source?
This one
I kinda skimmed, might have misread, but I think that’s what’s going on.
Thanks. This is a much better source but still confusing. The first figure is saying incineration is included in the new scope but “end uses sector and waste” are not. I think this means the carbons are trapped in mostly plastic that end up in landfills. Plastic last forever so it is a way to sequester carbons lol.
I realize the west likes to shit on China, but they are supplying the world’s solar panels and are making more nuclear reactors than the entire world, x5. They made affordable EVs.
It’s nice to put on a fresh pair of socks, slip into those comfy Birkenstocks, tie the hair up into a bun…but you can’t offload the world industry to one country, then blame the country for emissions used to make the millions of tons of cheap plastic shit we can’t seem to get enough of.
This makes neither sense nor is it fair, and it is done in bad faith. The Chinese government has been cooking the books for its trade and economic stats for a long time (just look how Beijing changed the way at the start of the pandemic how they ‘measure’ the country’s trade, for example), and so it does with climate actions. Next year, Chinese propagandists will report how gloriously they are fighting climate change, while falsely accusing independent scientist of being biased who prove that China’s climate actions are highly insufficient.
[Edit for clarity.]
Retained carbon is not emitted carbon. I don’t see why that’s not fair.
Btw you should add the article linked by @Grail@multiverse.soulism.net’s comment below to your post. It contains a good bit more details on this new accounting.
And what’s the name of that western country not cooking books for trade and meeting emissions targets of any of these accords?
Knowing nothing about the hierachies in the PRC government …
