[Khar]

Boots beat me to the punch, looks like!

It, unfortunately, does stand up to examination. As the lists themselves show, there is a bent towards developed nations to the North and nations with large transportation routes at the top. Regardless of where people live in these nations, goods, services, and travel involved in these nations require significant amount of transport and hence significant use of GHG. Moving a good from Ontario to BC and corporate transport routes are significantly longer than other nations, and the problems of a sizable nation are well documented in various fields. For example, regional disparity, energy transport to the States rather than other provinces, and the movement of oil south demonstrates that transport is such as issue we often end up sending things to the States rather than trading between provinces, since distance is a significant barrier to trade.

I live in Alberta, as an example. The vast majority of my food alone comes from outside of my province, and faces 60 hours of driving time from Ontario or 12 hours of driving time from even the more fertile areas of BC. Even then, most of my food does not come from there (and often faces refinement or refrigeration before purchase), and foodstuffs is only one good. Feeding, clothing, entertaining, housing, protecting and providing for a population of

In addition, to even go to another city, I cannot use a public form of transportation beyond public transit, and this is true for large portions of the Canadian public. I often have to go to Calgary, and often my only viable choice is to drive.

If Spain uses more transport overall, I would seriously like to see how this was carried out. I know they are an important international transportation hub but I would contest their domestic values. Likewise, I would like to remind you that the Nordic countries have and continue to face significant issues when it comes to heating their nation, especially given antiquated technologies present in much of older European buildings. I would not be surprised if a significant barrier to their GHG reduction would be heating (or was factored into consideration when signing), and I also remind you that some nations, like Iceland, had their expansion capped to reflect this necessity. A large proportion of these nations do not face the simple logistical challenge of having a large nation with long transportation lines as well, like Russia or Canada. It is the combination of both which gives us trouble, as I mentioned in my previous post.

I was also going to note the differences in temperature and duration of seasons, but... it looks like bootslegga has once again beat me to the punch, as I look at the post preview page.

China's plans were for an expansion of its coal plants by that number. While closing down old plants is a wonderful thing for efficiency, it does not change that overall their output has risen, the amount of plants they have has risen, and they have taken a larger chunk of coal use overall. Remember, as of the beginning of this year they make use of 27% of the world's coal plants, a significant rise over the last couple of years indeed. Regardless of shutting down some plants, should that be true, it is clear to be that their expansion of GHG producing facilities have increased markedly.

While their use of solar panels is laudable, I would like for them to actually use it. The mass majority of solar energy in China is not actually used, but transported elsewhere (which is generally inefficient as well) -- China continues to retain it's reliance on coal power for itself. 99% of it's solar production goes out of country -- only roughly 70-80 MW of it's power is kept for use locally, due to it's relative economic inefficiency. This is 1 tenth of 1 percent of domestic solar production. While there are plans to expand this, it would still make up a massively minor portion of the overall production, and indicators so far have demonstrated they are not on path to reach these goals.

Ironically, the fact that it is moved out of country is a function of it's ease of transport, since these facilities are often far from the major metro areas where they were be less effective and closer to neighbouring nations. In a roundabout way, the Chinese solar system effectively demonstrates the importance of transportation.

Unfortunately, while China does make use of photo-voltaic cells and produces a quarter of the world's supply, they also have a nasty habit of dumping the side products, causing significant pollution. In developed nations, these side products are refined at a higher cost for safe removal and reuse. Unfortunately, this is not something Chinese firms would like to do, and so they produce it at a quarter of the cost -- one of the only reasons why solar energy is so popular in China (or rather, for neighbouring nations interested in buying solar power). For more information on this, search for "silicon tetrachloride" for further information. There are several academic studies effectively demonstrating that this is a green-washing strategy, due to it's significantly adverse impact on the environment and social development overall. Ironically, China's solar industry is also an excellent example of a dirty resource, especially since it directly impacts the world in a strongly negative manner.

As a final note on this, the fact that so little of their solar energy is used domestically can easily be used as further evidence that they have likely expanded GHG production immensely to improve energy production capacity. Even with the minuscule amount of solar energy used, Wind makes up only a third of that at 25MW, for example. 70% of their energy requirements comes from coal alone, not to mention other GHG emitting sources, especially those for the growing amount of vehicles on Chinese (and Indian) roads as every year passes. Even as plans are made for 2020 with solar energy, other reports state there will be 200 million cars in China by 2020 as well -- tripling the amount there. China is already facing transportation issues -- it will not be long before the added cars will significantly add to this problem.

As you yourself mentioned, there is a significant disparity between India and China and nations like Canada, and as they develop at the rapid pace they are, their thirst for energy will only grow. This effectively demonstrates the necessity for the Indian and Chinese people, in fighting poverty and working on development, to make use of and continue to expand GHG use. Per capita, energy use in both China and India are expanding at a rapid rate, and while they may use less now, this is due to their development status. Everyone expected it to continue rising, hence why they had no real restrictions or problems accepting the Kyoto Protocol. The problem is that they are still developing, and still need access to efficient energy sources to fuel this expansion. Overall, I am afraid that this does run contrary to your stance on how they are handling dedication to the Kyoto protocol, and the salient point here is that they simply are not strongly dedicated domestically to reducing GHG emissions.

Personally, I can understand their reticence to take part in Kyoto overall given the significant issues facing both nations in the future as they continue to develop, expand and fight social and economic disparity within their nations.

Even should we use the values of 25% and 24%, the salient points of my post remains -- China and the US are close in production, and Chinese GHG use is expanding and will continue to expand rapidly, as will India's (hell, in CO2 China is definitely in the lead, by something like 5% over the States 18% right now). If the USA does not become involved (which are the first four talking points for ratifying the next step of the Kyoto Protocol and considered important in the next round of talks) then I doubt we will see China entering based on that alone, although if the USA had entered in I would expect China not to take part in actual reductions. I too do not expect US involvement in the next Kyoto Protocol, nor Russian, Japanese or Canadian involvement (at least not significantly) given dropped hints over the last couple of weeks from both sides of the discussion. While India and China would like to continue Kyoto, as mentioned, India has already stated no interest in caps on itself and China has avoided the topic, even though it has been broached to them for some time now.

[eureka]

Boots did indeed beat you to it. In an excess of enthusiasm his perceptions ran away from reality.

The Transportation sector is not unusual in Canada for the reasons that I gave. The widespread population means only that commercial transportation in Canada is small compared to many countries. Most is within a relatively short distance. And domestic air travel is tiny compared to many countries.

Food imports do not all get charged to Canada's account but to the country of the carrier. As with a great deal of the production of emissions in India and China that are for exports to the developed nations. Their emission reductions have, in some part, been a cause of the increase in the new manufacturing nations.

The climate of Canada is a 'crock' in this. The great bulk of the Canadian population lived in cities that have no more severe climatic conditions than are to be found in Central Europe, Central and Northern USA, Central Asia. The heating season is actually shorter in Canada than in parts of Northern Europe.

Interestingly, and a worrisome statistic, is that the emissions from the raising of livestock are greater than from transportation.

China does use its production of solar power and I have no idea how you think it does not. The grids in China are not interconnected with those of other nations. The salient point there is that China is at this time installing a huge quantity of solar potential.

I do not excuse China or India. I do put them in context. The context that they are doing more than the major emitters in the developed world for whom there is no excuse. Even those countries in Europe that are meeting their Kyoto obligations - there are a few - do so partly because some of their production has been shifted to China.

I did, btw, have a breakdown of those transportation statistics at one time but do not have them now. They can be found in some of the papers on "Science Direct' but I do not feel like paying for them for this argument that is merely peripheral to the problem of CO2 emissions in total.

[Khar]

$1:

China does use its production of solar power and I have no idea how you think it does not. The grids in China are not interconnected with those of other nations. The salient point there is that China is at this time installing a huge quantity of solar potential.

I'll begin here, because I think this is the first big and primary example of asymmetric information in this discussion. Largely because, according to the Chinese government and independent observers, what I have stated is true, regardless of how incredulous you are of this fact. Not only does the Chinese government admit to this, but also this article echoes their plans of what I have stated before.

In other words, according to the Chinese government themselves, I am right and you are wrong -- they are not using the mass majority of their solar power. The key line is "At the end of 2008, solar power capacity attached to the grid was less than 100 MW, or 0.01 percent of China's entire installed capacity." You will note that they only plan to reach a larger amount. As of yet, they have only increased it by 70 MW from the initial 100 MW starting point. That China is so much of a leading factor in solar energy is more due to their exports and the relative weakness of solar power than anything else -- they simply don't use it domestically in a significant fashion. The country is simply so large that, while it is a larger program than most nations, when you put it in context of per capita it's not all that impressive.

The salient point here is that China is not dedicated to the Kyoto Protocol, as I have repeated twice. Trying to change what I came here to debate does not change that, nor has anything you've said effectively changed my initial conclusions -- solar power simply is not a driving force in China, save for green-washed dirty energy alternatives, which you have yet to reply to.

Hopefully this gives you an idea of why I said it was not using it domestically -- because it is not. Now, where does all that power go?

I never did state that power systems were integrated (even though even Kazakhstan has joint electricity ventures with the Chinese, not to mention Russians -- the majority of nations DO have several connections cross borders for this purpose). There could be other means. I said it was transported to other nations as exports. The Chinese import Russian electricity for the far East of their nation, and exports energy elsewhere. Somehow, this happens, which runs contradictory to your position on this topic. They exported 17.39 billion kWh in 2009 (even there solar energy is the vast minority) WHILE importing energy from the Russians, so transport and distance is a factor. This means that, yes, you are wrong there as well. There are literally hundreds of articles on Chinese electricity imports and exports.

I don't know where you managed to come up with the idea that a widespread population means goods don't have to travel much (small compared to other countries comment) but that is wrong on an intuitive level alone, let alone a factual one. Our climate and transportation issues are recognized problems in Canada. Perhaps some of these articles would be illuminating. Also, the transportation of goods across Canada does fall into our lap, since it must be transported domestically.

Indeed, together with the States, we contribute a third of all CO2 due to transportation according to the paper "Reframing automobile fuel economy policy in North America: The politics of punctuating a policy equilibrium." Overall? We rank sixth -- behind other members of the G7 with, surprise, mostly long transportation routes, in addition to China. Because we are such a sparsely populated and widely distributed nation, we are number 2 in transportation CO2 per capita, behind the States. Hence, you are wrong -- it isn't tiny when we have to produce so much of our GHG on transportation.

Speaking of articles, I have access to almost all available academic databases used in Canada and cannot find this paper of yours about Spain's transportation network, which is key to this discussion -- it is a requisite and important part of your dismissal that Canadian transportation is a problem, which you dedicated a sizable chunk of your posts to. Mind, as the above paper alludes to, it is irrelevant -- Spain does not even compare to us, either in per capita or via aggregation, according to that paper. I did, however, find interesting articles such as "The Potential for Premium-Intermodal Services to Reduce Freight CO2 Emissions in the Quebec City-Windsor Corridor," "An economic analysis of Canada's ground transportation sector," "An exploration of issues related to the study of generated traffic and other impacts arising from highway improvements," "Reframing automobile fuel economy policy in North America: The politics of punctuating a policy equilibrium," and "Carbon monoxide emissions from passenger vehicles: predictive mapping with an application to Hamilton, Canada." They build on the evidence that our transportation sector is a SIGNIFICANT aspect.

The climate bit is not a "crock." Only Finland and Estonia of Europe proper really get comparably cooler in any way but are more recognized for extremes, not getting as consistently cold, or as thoroughly as Canada does (parts of Finland are what get cooler, and Estonia is a minuscule country of 1.3 million) and a simple google search would have demonstrated this. Russia, who is below us on the list in general, is large, cold, and has the same trouble as we do -- hence why they have high GHG problems as well. This is simple reality from readily available information, hence why I agreed with boots.

The context you are putting India and China into is incredibly narrow for them to match your conclusion. Indeed, you have not yet put India in any kind of context, and your only defense of China is a singular program built on top of serious expansions of GHG production, with no real aim in reducing emissions, or slowing emissions. What programs the Chinese do have are green washed, as their solar plans have significant and dangerous pollution as a side effect of their creation, which you did not reply to. Neither will likely take place in the next phase of Kyoto in a productive manner, and neither have made large strides in fighting emissions. In short, they are no less black sheep than we are. In aggregate, they do not have a pillar to stand upon.

[eureka]

I don't know where you get that information from but try this. A 2000 MW Plant under construction and more on the way.

http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2009 ... power.html

The idea that China is not dedicated to the Kyoto Accord is your own perception not the reality. China has ratified the Accord and is several years ahead of its legal obligations under the Accord. What happens over renewal negotiations is anybody's guess at this time. It depends very much on whether America and Canada, its proxy in that, can be forced to negotiate in good faith.

Your position on interconnectedness does not contradict mine. China both imports power and exports it. The amounts are not great since the infrastructure is not there. "All that power" does not go very far because there is not very much of it. But the actual salient point is that China is constructing it and it is for use in China to replace power from fossil fuels.

I will finish this later when I have time.

[dino_bobba_renno]

Scott Yee Scott Yee:

dino_bobba_renno dino_bobba_renno:

Scott, the only thing the UN is capable of passing is "passing the buck". Do you honestly think countries like China and India would go for a more expensive alternative considering they wouldn't even step up and take a more active role in Kyoto?

These are all great warm and fuzzy ideas but they're not overly realistic and I personally think that is part of the problem with many people on the environmental side. They set unrealistic goals. There may be a day when we achieve some of the goals you've mentioned but it will happen ever so slowly and in very small steps.

I looked into how Trans Canada was making out today and they've already started construction on the water crossings and wouldn't ya know it Michels got the contract. I wonder if Trans Canada plans on using any Canadian contractors? OJ and Waschuk should automatically be given a couple of spreads on the Canadian side. Could you imagine the reaction in the US if a big Canadian contractor went down south to build part of this pipeline.

I know, and competently agree with what you said. When I said that, I was referring to something else, which I will not get into here, as this is about the environment. But yes, it will take an international law, (which the GA does not have the power to pass, and which countries can't even agree, to disagree) to save our world.

If Texas is an environmental waste land, it has zero affect on the rest of the world. But if all of America, Canada, India, China, etc, become an environmental waste land, then it does affect the rest of the world.

That is why, we need an international environmental law. Which nationalists will bitch about. But countries continue to either not agree to something, or when they do, they can back out of it, because there is no punishment, if they do.

You know Scott, I agree with you that there needs to be some type of global initiative/regulation but I just can't see it happening. Christ we can't even get all the world bodies to agree on matters that should be pretty much no brainers. It's a great idea but sadly there are just way too many countries that are more intent on putting their own self interests ahead of global interests. Another example (I won’t use Kyoto because are misinterpreting me on that) would be some of the global fishing and whaling pacts. We’ve had agreements in place for years but there’s always a couple of countries that completely ignore them and just bald face lie about doing so.

Even if we achieved some sort of consensus on the matter by the time it was all spelled out it would be so watered down and have so many loop holes it wouldn’t be worth the paper it was written on.

Personally I think the best we can do is look inward and try regulating within our own country and try to set an example. Unfortunately how that is achieved is where we may disagree because I don’t personally believe shutting down the Oil Sands or banning things is the way in which we can effectively achieve that goal. I think we would be better served by developing and marketing our resources and using the proceeds from which to advance an alternative energy policy. In order to do that we need to keep more of the profits from the sale of our resources and the economic spin offs as far as profits from things like construction here in our own country. Thats why I have such a beef with Trans Canada awarding these big contracts to companies based in places in the US, we have companies right here in Canada who are just as capable of doing the same work who could be utilized in the future to help build projects to advance the end goal of an alternative energy policy.

[ShepherdsDog]

Bootlegga Bootlegga:

I guess your globe must be very different from mine.

in case you guys haven't noticed, his 'reality' is completely divorced from that of everyone else. Gramps is so far off his rocker on so many issues it's not even funny.

[Khar]

eureka eureka:

I don't know where you get that information from but try this. A 2000 MW Plant under construction and more on the way.

http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2009 ... power.html

The idea that China is not dedicated to the Kyoto Accord is your own perception not the reality. China has ratified the Accord and is several years ahead of its legal obligations under the Accord. What happens over renewal negotiations is anybody's guess at this time. It depends very much on whether America and Canada, its proxy in that, can be forced to negotiate in good faith.

Your position on interconnectedness does not contradict mine. China both imports power and exports it. The amounts are not great since the infrastructure is not there. "All that power" does not go very far because there is not very much of it. But the actual salient point is that China is constructing it and it is for use in China to replace power from fossil fuels.

I will finish this later when I have time.

Sourcing from a very much skewed blog when confronted with academic articles and non-directly related newspaper sources seems very sketchy to me most of the time. It's always better to source from a place without bias, and luckily I was able to find some other articles from 2009/early 2010 to corroborate. This is not a criticism, but rather a recommendation for down the road.

Considering that this facility is still not built, what I said continues to be factually correct. Had you followed through in researching it, you'd have discovered that the 30 MW test should have been done by now (it has not happened), and you'd also find out that First Solar plans to use supply chains present in China, notwithstanding aforementioned problems (especially related to pollution) I have provided.

There is nothing in that article which says that China will use that power domestically, nor is there any evidence that they will not be using their own highly questionable and polluting method of creating photo-voltaic cells in this deal, even though they are using First Solar Incorporated.

Ironically, given that this is being built in Ordos City, it relates to the topic of one of China's many ghost cities (source 1, source 2), it's further evidence that China is not taking it's aim seriously -- concrete is a major part of Kyoto Accord (not to mention all the GHG to build it) and the placement of this facility in such a place is hence highly ironic. For the record, Ordos City is in Inner Mongolia, a Chinese nation. If China was actually serious as you claim, they would stop building Ghost Cities, would stop massive expansions of their GHG producing facilities right after signing on to international treaties on the topic, and respond to questions about renewal.

This is green washing and ignores other actions China has taken. As I said, aggregate -- you are only taking solar into account, and solar power is a tiny aspect of this problem. Not only Canada and America, but China and India must negotiate in good faith, and all evidence I've presented demonstrates a China with, in reality, little interest in the Kyoto Protocol (ghost cities, massive GHG expansion which dwarfs anything the Chinese do solar-wise, massive transportation expansion, and polluting methods in creating their green washed solar program), and an India uninterested in being chained by it. Unless you provide something of academic substance (so far you have not, and have actually been wrong in the reality of academic consensus more than once thus far) or an argument beyond weak solar discussion (while ignoring what has been discussed), then I have really little reason to return as this discussion will simply be circular.

To be frank, if it was for use in China, it would be used in China. It is not -- it is exported. The evidence stands before you now, in not just what the Chinese government states, but in what independent corroboration has found. You also said that the power systems are not interconnected specifically. You stated that the "grids in China are not interconnected with those of other nations," so stating my stance on "interconnectedness does not contradict [yours]" is incorrect -- the articles agree there.

... and for the record, the amount exported from China would power, for a year, 18579060 homes (that is eighteen and a half million in a high use country) in the US, given average use reported by the EIA down there. So, once again, you are wrong -- it does go far, and there is a lot of it. That is not a small amount. Canada produced 587 million kWh in 2000. China exported triple of that. Would you like to retract that statement?

In this context, that solar farm doesn't sound so impressive, does it? After all, if Chinese energy exports did not go far (and they are a fraction of energy actually USED in China), then that new facility of yours is going 0.000115008626% as far. Remember, China is increasing energy capacity by hundreds of new GHG plants -- do you think one solar farm is going to be comparable on that scale?

Hence why I am unimpressed at this article, and solar power as "evidence" for China being ahead of it's goals.

[eureka]

I was mistaken in you, khar. I thought you had something to discuss but now I find that you are simply a good example of the Dunning/Kruger effect. Your patronising tone does not take away from your complete inattention to what is being discussed.

We can talk of China's progress in Carbon Capture and Storage; of its Wind and Hydro developments. We can shatter your pretense over the import and export where you shift from solar production exported to total exports, ignoring imports and that it is the normal exchange between neighbouring states.

We can talk of its electric car production; electric car production that will in one year be equal to American plans for the next ten years, and argue about that as well as the concrete production that you bring up as though it were relevant to what was under discussion.

You talk of academic articles as against the more easily understood posts from blogs that are actually run by scientists. Skewed? In your opinion but not in that of those who really investigate these matters.

You can say that China is not committed to Kyoto when what it actually says is that it will no commit further unless the Americans take responsibility for their share.

The original point of this stands. No amount of obfuscation from you alters it. China is doing far more than America or Canada and is ahead of its Kyoto obligations.

If you want "academic," I can give you all the academic you can handle. That, though, is not the point of a forum on this. I can give you Google Scholar or I can give you some very prominent academics in this that I know well.

I doubt that anyone here wants to see such exchanges.

[ShepherdsDog]

No...it's sort of cruel to watch you make an even bigger ass of yourself when you're unable to argue science.

[GreenTiger]

Absolutely yes ! I would rather us purchase Canadian oil rather than Arab or African oil any day of the week.

[SprCForr]