cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/4928706
While developed countries have used the majority of this budget, the analysis shows that China’s historical emissions reached 312GtCO2 in 2023, overtaking the EU’s 303GtCO2.
China is still far behind the 532GtCO2 emitted by the US, however, according to the analysis.
The findings by Carbonbrief come amid fraught negotiations at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, where negotiators have been invoking the “principle of historical responsibility” in their discussions over who should pay money towards a new goal for climate finance – and how much.
[…]
Historical CO2 emissions matter for climate change, because there is a finite “carbon budget” that can be released into the atmosphere before a given level of global warming is breached.
For example, in order to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, only around 2,800GtCO2 can be added to the atmosphere, counting all emissions since the pre-industrial period. (This is according to a 2023 study updating figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)
Cumulative emissions since 1850 will reach 2,607CO2 by the end of 2024, according to Carbon Brief’s new analysis, meaning that some 94% of the 1.5C budget will have been used up.
[…]
I mean…duh. When Europe and the US outsource so much of their heavy manufacturing to China, that’s effectively offloading a colossal amount of their emissions. Since China has few energy resources other than coal, it amplifies the issue.
As I said multiple times, this is one reason among others why we need transparent supply chains. It is exactly China which opposes this. This is bad for world (and bad for China, too).
I think both of you are overlooking that a significant portion of China’s CO2 emissions are solely caused by their wasteful construction of useless buildings that solely exist as investments and will never be occupied by anyone.
I may have overlooked but I did not find specific data in the article on the breakdown of building construction and/or cement production versus emissions for other categories. Can you cite the source with data that helped you reached your conclusion?
I’ve read this a number of times over the years, but here’s a good article on the topic of cement:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46455844
A recent article (one of many) on how the wasteful building and deceptive investment practices that are rampant in China are impacting ordinary people:
This statement from a former official illustrates the absurd scale of the problem:
I feel like the blame game just causes paralysis.
This is not a blame game. Humanity is failing as a whole as the climate doesn’t know borders or politics as we know. It is important that we track numbers, though. As the report says:
Historical CO2 emissions matter for climate change, because there is a finite “carbon budget” that can be released into the atmosphere before a given level of global warming is breached.
For example, in order to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, only around 2,800GtCO2 can be added to the atmosphere, counting all emissions since the pre-industrial period […] Cumulative emissions since 1850 will reach 2,607CO2 by the end of 2024, according to Carbon Brief’s new analysis, meaning that some 94% of the 1.5C budget will have been used up.
We are all doing too little (and too late?). Climate change has already been affecting all countries across all continents for some time. What we needed imo is more global collaboration, but it doesn’t seem to happen.
This is not a blame game.
I would find this more believable were it not for the fact that a huge amount of your posts are about China. From my perspective, your motive for posting this looks less like “Climate Change is a serious issue, and many countries – including China – are not fixing it” and more “I hate China, so here’s another article shitting on them.”
It’s important to measure emissions.
But assigning blame isn’t usefull towards reducing emissions. I only see it as a usefull distraction for those preferring non-action.
Again, this is not about assigning blame. This is just a simple fact.
Isn’t the whole idea of a finite carbon budget per country to assign blame?
It’s the total emissions that matter. Even if it’s only latvia emitting.
The only way to measure it is where it is produced. This is what this and other reports are doing. Governments could reduce their emissions, especially in countries where they are high. It’s not the case, though.
The only way to measure it is where it is produced.
How so? Airborn particles can be measured regardless of origin. Even satellite estimates are quite accurate.
Governments could reduce their emissions, especially in countries where they are high.
Again, placing blame.
Governments could enforce laws to reduce their emissions, but they don’t.
In addition to that from another source, the Climate Action Tracker for China:
Policies and action against fair share: Insufficient
NDC (nationally determined contributions ) target against modelled domestic pathways: Highly insufficient
NDC target against fair share: Insufficient
Net Zero Target = Year 2060: Comprehensiveness rated as Poor
Overall rating: Highly insufficient
At this rate their per capita emissions will never catch up with Europe’s.