Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Here’s a Title We’ll Gladly Relinquish
A+ A- Text Size

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: April 15, 2008

The United States is always held up as the leading polluter of carbon dioxide—the most important greenhouse gas. Well, no more, according to researchers at the University of California. Their calculations indicate China’s releases began exceeding ours more than a year ago—or 14 years earlier than many scientists had initially predicted.

Projections of China’s likely greenhouse-gas emissions have tended to start with data from around the 1990s. Then computer modelers applied some escalator factors to account for the expected growth in incomes and smokestack industries since the ‘90s. A growing economy would be expected to drive a fairly predictable increase in CO2 pollution, especially in a fossil-fuel-based economy like China’s.


The problem: China’s economic development has skyrocketed. The growth in personal and industrial incomes has far exceeded the roughly 5 percent per year that had once seemed reasonable, report Maximilian Auffhammer of UC Berkeley and Richard T. Carson of UC San Diego. Indeed, the growth since 2000 in China’s gross domestic product has been closer to 11 percent, they point out in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.


China
’s “abandonment of energy efficiency programs in favor of economic growth has resulted in an unprecedented increase in emissions of local air pollutants and correspondingly greenhouse-gas emissions,” they report.

The UC researchers modeled China’s releases based on province-level data that is annually updated and publicly available. They argue that “This feature is a main advantage over forecasts using infrequently updated sources of data.”


However, one “concern” in using such official statistics from developing countries, such as China, Auffhammer and Carson acknowledge, “is that chronic underfunding of data collection agencies may lead to fabricated data.” The UC team attempted to evaluate the likelihood that it was relying on particularly skewed data by communicating directly with Chinese officials. Those officials had been reporting releases of a composite pollutant described only as “waste gas emissions.” The UC researchers found out how the officials calculated these, and then used this value, which is based on fuel use, as a “proxy for CO2 at the province level.”

Westerners might have predicted that the biggest emissions would trace to activities in Beijing. Not according to the new analysis. Based on projections from 2004 waste gas emissions, the top greenhouse-gas polluting provinces were Inner Mongolia, followed by, in order, Shanghai, Shanxi, Ningxia, Hebei, Liaoning, Tianjin, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Guangxi.

Of course, it’s misguided to lay all of the blame for China’s skyrocketing greenhouse-gas emissions on China. After all, consider who has been buying the goods that China’s burgeoning manufacturing industry has been churning out? Can U.S. consumers even lay their hands on a new kitchen appliance, television, pair of sneakers, or lamp from anywhere but China, these days?

America, in a sense, has shifted the pollution associated with its consumption patterns from smokestacks at home to smokestacks overseas. Sure, China’s growing middle and upper classes will soon put plenty of pressure on the production of these goods for their own use. But we gave them a good head start.
 

As with so many things, pollution has a multinational cause in addition to a global effect. It’s time we all evaluated how much we need and whether there are relatively low-resource options to meeting those needs.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Auffhammer, M. and R.T. Carson. 2008. Forecasting the Path of China's CO2 Emissions Using Province-Level Information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management (in press).

Comments (1)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • The article in a recent issue of Science News on the personality disorders of "conspiracy theorists" is so base and juvenile it is hard to choose an entry point to begin ripping it apart. Articles like these are usually fed to various media outlets, by Pentagon agencies that have billion dollar budgets (as reported in mainstream news) to diffuse the vast amount of credibility that some movements have gained via the enormous volume of evidence gathered and disseminated by activists and researchers. The term "conspiracy theorists" itself has no meaning but serves as a convenient way of dismissing evidence or theories that are counter to the prevailing "conspiracy theory" that has been created by the conspirators. Yes, there are all kinds of people who are drawn to theories other than those disseminated by governments and the media. One such example, Mentioned in the article, is, the 9/11 "truth" movement. It would have been much more informative for Science News to have published the 40 page article by Professor Stephen Jones, of Brigham University that details the physics of the implosion of WTC 7 indicating that it could not have fallen the way it did without having been the result of a controlled demolition. Dr. Jones has been published by the magazine, Scientific American. He is hardly a misanthropic thrill seeker as the article in Science News implies. I myself approached an editor at Science News a couple of years ago about publishing something about the discrepancies that exist within the official 9/11 report. Is it psychologically deranged to wonder why the official 9/11 report failed to mention, even once, the implosion of WTC 7, the third and little known building that fell? Is is psychologically deranged to wonder why CNN and the BBC reported the collapse of the same building 20 minutes before it happened? One only has to possess a shred of critical thinking to wonder about those events yet Science News, which should be promoting science and critical thinking seeks to corner those who seek and question into a psychological diagnosis.' Within the same movement are hundreds of architects and engineers who have signed on to the website "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". There is also, "Pilots for 9/11 Truth" and over a hundred military brass, ex-intelligence operatives, political leaders, government employees and people from all walks of life who don't fit the psychological profile that Science News would have us believe that wonder what really happened. To be fair Science News should share the website: [Link was removed] so that readers and thinkers can make up their own minds.
    [Link was removed]
    plummer theielen plummer theielen
    Dec. 28, 2009 at 11:59am
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us