There have been a few news stories out of Durban suggesting that China (the worlds largest CO2 emitter) has turned a corner on carbon emissions and has tentatively agreed to limit them, with Bloomberg running an article titled “China Climate Plan Makes ‘Excited Buzz’ as U.S. Lags: UN Envoy.” What did China actually say?

Ron Bailey, Reason magazine science correspondent reports:

So here’s what China apparently wants the rest of the world to do: (1) agree that China’s greenhouse gas targets can be different from those imposed on rich countries, (2) agree that for the next 9 years rich countries will continue to cut their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol while China’s continue to grow, (3) agree that no negotiations take place on targets until a scientific review is finished in 2015, and (4) agree that rich countries begin showering poor countries with $100 billion in climate reparations annually. If the rich countries will just do that, China will consent to begin negotiating some kind of “legally binding” treaty after 2020. Frankly, with these preconditions, it seems that China’s current position actually remains pretty much what it has always been: It will accept legally binding limits on its greenhouse gas emissions when Hell freezes over.

China’s best offer is to consider limiting emissions after 2020, still almost a decade away, and only if all the other countries continue to play this game until then. Who can blame them — they are rapidly industrializing and getting wealthier, which requires massive amounts of fossil fuels.

What if future negotiations aren’t successful? China is currently ‘negotiating’ with other countries regarding their annual emissions, it just so happens they are offering zero emissions reductions. Where is the evidence that they will agree to anything sufficient in 2020, when their per capita incomes will still be markedly lower than other developed countries?

‘Clean-tech’ advocates depict China as a model for U.S. policymakers, because Beijing subsidizes the manufacture of wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles.

In February, China announced plans to manufacture 1 million electric vehicles by 2015. To make green cars affordable, Beijing would pay automakers to cut the price of a battery car by $8,785 and a plug-in hybrid by $7,320. Of course, the announcement did not mention that millions of Chinese people who are still too poor to own cars would be taxed for the benefit of their wealthier brethren.

Not to be outdone by this visionary plan, President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, also called for incentives to put 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

Neither prognostication is likely to come true.

As Jonathan Watts reports in today’s UK Guardian:

But hopes that the country will also become a pioneer in the shift towards “clean car” technology have suffered a setback as the Chinese show little sign of interest in electric and hybrid vehicles despite ambitious government plans. Last year, Toyota managed to sell only one Prius – the world’s most commercially successful hybrid car – in the fastest-growing market. Sports utility vehicle sales, by contrast, are surging.

Of 13.8 million new motor vehicles sold in China in 2010, a whopping 850,000 were SUVs, and 425 were Hummers.

It’s not even clear that the one Prius sold was purchased by a consumer:

 It is not known who made that solitary purchase – industry analysts said it was unlikely to be an individual as there is little technical support for the model. “It may be a domestic rival that bought the hybrid to strip it down and see how it works,” said one industry observer who did not want to be named.

What do Beijing’s Reds and U.S. greens have in common? They refuse to learn that if a technology is commercially viable, no government support is needed, and if it is not commercially viable, no amount of government support can make it so.

1. Ethanol Mandates: In an effort to further “energy independence,”* major agricultural producing countries have enacted Soviet-style production quotas for ethanol, a motor fuel distilled from food.

This year, about a third of the U.S. corn crop will be used to manufacture 13 billion gallons of ethanol. By law, that will increase to 15 billion gallons every year after 2015. The European Union mandates that ethanol distilled primarily from palm oil and wheat, constitute an increasing percentage of the fuel supply, ultimately 10% by 2020.

Global ethanol production is a new and tremendous source of demand for food that has had a significant impact on the price of grains and oilseeds. According to a report commissioned by the World Bank, global demand for fuels made from food accounted for nearly 70% of the historic price spike in wheat, rice, corn, and soy during the summer 2008.

2. Rainforest Protections: Burning rainforests is an important link in the global food supply chain. In Brazil, farmers are clearing the Amazon rainforests to meet rapidly growing global demand for soybeans. In Indonesia, they slash rainforests to harvest palm oil seeds for export to Europe.

Rainforests are an important source of food supply, but they are also revered by environmentalists as symbols of ecological diversity. In late 2009, a group of wealthy countries, including Australia, France, Japan, Norway, Britain and the United States, pledged $3.5 billion over the next three years to stop the destruction of the rainforests. It’s the first installment of a proposed $25 billion.

As I explain here, there will be no Malthusian famine, despite these stupid, anti-human policies

There are tremendous gains in production to be made in the developing world, especially in China and Brazil. And technological advances to improve productivity, such as biotechnology, will mean greater yields-per-acre and enhanced crops that can grow in previously inhospitable regions. In the long term, the world’s farmers will meet demand.

In the short to medium term, however, the global supply chain is going to be a problem. A natural disaster in America or in any other major food-exporting country could send the market price of food spiraling upward.

The most adversely affected by these boneheaded policies are poor people in developing world capitals that are dependent on the global grains and oilseeds market. The developing world has been urbanizing for decades, resulting in unprecedented concentrations of the poor in the world’s cities. There are no sustenance farms in urban areas; Instead, many of these cities depend on international trade for food.

*So-called “Energy Independence” is empty political rhetoric, as my colleague Iain Murray demonstrates in this paper.

Has the EU met its emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol? Not if emissions associated with goods Europe imports from Asia are taken into account. So finds a study published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The study, Growth in emission transfers via international trade from 1990 to 2008, calculates the net increase in global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from developed countries’ imports of goods produced in developing countries. The study provides additional evidence of Kyoto’s futility, although the authors, a team of Norwegian, German, and U.S. researchers, don’t draw this conclusion and would likely deny it.

Some key findings:

• Global CO2 from the production of traded goods increased from 4.3 gigatons (Gt) in 1990 (20% of global emissions) to 7.8 Gt in 2008 (26%).
• Emissions from production of exports increased 4.3% annually, faster than the growth in global population (1.4% per year), CO2 emissions (2.0% per year), and GDP (3.6% per year), although not as fast as the dollar value of international trade (12% per year).
• Global emissions increased 39% from 1990 to 2008. At the regional level, emissions from developed countries (classified as “Annex B” countries in the Kyoto Protocol, with quantified emission limitations) largely stabilized, but emissions from developing countries (non-Annex B) doubled.
• However, territorial emission inventories don’t take into account “consumption-based emissions” — CO2 emitted in developing countries to produce goods consumed in developed countries.
• The “net emission transfers” via international trade from developing to developed countries increased from 0.4 Gt CO2 in 1990 to 1.6 Gt CO2 in 2008 — 17% per year average growth. 
• Developed countries ”imported” more emissions than they reduced domestically via efforts to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.
  • “For comparison, if the average emission reduction target for Annex B countries in the Kyoto Protocol (~5% reduction of 1990 emissions) is applied to CO2 emissions only, representing ~0.7 Gt CO2 per year, then the net emission transfers from non-Annex B to Annex B countries is 18% higher on average (1990-2008) and 130% higher in 2008.”
  • “Because estimated Annex B emission reductions from 1990 to 2008 are only ~ 2%, representing only 0.3 Gt CO2, the net emission transfers from the group of non-Annex B countries is 520% higher in 2008.”
  • “Collectively, the net CO2 emissions reduction of ~2% (0.3 Gt CO2) in Annex B countries from 1990 to 2008 is much smaller than the additional net emission transfer of 1.2 Gt CO2 from non-Annex B countries . . .”
• China’s emissions accounted for 55% of the growth in global CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2008. Chinese exports accounted for 18% of the growth in global emissions and for 47% of the growth in Annex B consumption-based emissions.
• Curiously, “International trade in non-energy-intensive manufactured products dominates the net emission transfers (accounting for 41% of the growth), despite the policy focus on energy-intensive manufacturing.”

In the discussion section of their paper, the authors observe that the increase in consumption-based emissions “may benefit economic growth in developing countries, but the increased emissions could also make future mitigation more costly in developing countries.” Right, but that has two obvious implications the authors do not mention: (1) Developing countries are unlikely to accept mandatory emission limits in the foreseeable future; and (2) Kyoto-like controls on developing country emissions could be harshly disruptive to global trade and investment.

The authors argue that the rapid growth in “imported” emissions is not a case of “carbon leakage” — the flight of capital, jobs, and emissions from countries with CO2 controls to countries lacking such controls. They find, for example, that “both the United States and European Union have had a large increase in net emission transfers, but only the European Union has a broad-based climate policy.”  

Undoubtedly multiple factors contribute to the rapid growth of China’s export sector. However, one factor boosting investment in China is low energy cost. A closely related factor is the regulatory certainty that Beijing will not slap a price on carbon in the policy-relevant future or erect political roadblocks to the development of energy resources and infrastructure. How very different is the political climate in the USA! 

America may not have a “broad-based climate policy,” but we have an EPA bent on ‘legislating‘ climate policy via the Clean Air Act, an EPA implementing a panoply of non-climate regulations with the same (or even greater) potential to suppress electric generation from coal, regional greenhouse gas policies, state-level renewable energy mandates, an environmental movement hostile to fossil fuels and natural resource development, politicians in Congress and the White House imbued with the same mentality, and countless NIMBY activists determined to block construction of all energy-related infrastructure.

The researchers, methinks, take too narrow a view of the policy-related risks that can cause or contribute to carbon leakage.

Not content with destroying coal in the United States, there are ongoing assaults on allowing U.S. companies to export coal. It’s one thing to destroy coal in favor of more expensive energy in an advanced economy where consumers have more disposable income to absorb the blow of rising energy costs, but to deny developing countries access to electricity is an absurd form of “liberalism.” See a recent GW.org post on similar plans at the World Bank to discontinue funding coal-fired power plants.

China and other developing countries might be flirting with solar panels and windmills (mostly to sell them to the United States), but these renewables aren’t going to actually power any significant portion of their ever growing demand for energy anytime soon. And remember, despite the fact that you might want to protect the environment, you might not feel that way if you’ve never driven a car or turned on a light switch. As this report notes:

China, on the other hand, has emerged as a leader in developing clean, renewable energy, but its demand for coal is still staggering, and growing, and China is predicted to build 2,200 new coal-fired electric plants by 2030.

The report is full of suspicious economic analysis, like the idea that shutting down coal exports (economic activity) can somehow help our country reach long term prosperity because the funds could be used for investments to focus on diversifying our economy, whatever that means. Ending coal exports would somehow help our economy’s diversification. Note that coal exports would also help lower the trade deficit, which groups like CAP seem worried about.

It’s not completely clear to me that the port being used for exports is being subsidized by any governmental bodies (hopefully its not), but they don’t specifically mention any subsidies, so I suspect its mostly being completed with private sector money. Perhaps the authors think our omniscient government should confiscate those private dollars and pick their own pet project instead.

Finally, we get to the real question:

Though Washington state officials are considering the effects of climate-change-causing emissions stemming from shipping the coal across the western United States, there are no legal requirements to consider the carbon pollution from burning the coal half a world away.

Can we also control the climate policies of other sovereign nations? Liberals have proudly discussed the possibility of a carbon tax on imports from countries that have not adopted emission reductions strategies, but they have yet to publicly propose an export ban or tariff on coal. Perhaps its in the pipeline.

Finally, from a Washington-state based blog:

Certainly not least among our concerns should be the moral decision of whether to feed the growing coal addictions of other countries even as we combat climate change by gradually eliminating large-scale sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S

Breathe easy, Seattle. Coal exports will certainly be helping some of the 1.4 billion people on this earth who don’t have access to any electricity at all.

I almost choked on a complimentary pretzel during a recent flight when I read the final page of the April edition of Scientific American, this country’s premier science periodical for mainstream audiences. The page was titled “Clean Tech Rising” and the subtitle read, “China outshines the U.S. as the top investor, while Europe is a close third.” It featured bar graphs indicating what different nations are spending on so-called clean energy, like biofuel, wind, and solar power. The attendant text warned that “The U.S. has been a major player in clean energy technologies, but China is now the leader.” It recommended that, “…stepping up U.S. investment could enhance the country’s competitiveness…”

Now, it might or might not be true that China is spending more than the U.S. on “clean” energy. The ruling Communist government is not known for openness and transparency, so I take “official” investment data with a grain of salt. However, it is unequivocal that the Chinese are building coal power plants at an unprecedented rate. Estimates vary, from 4 new coal plants every week to 1 plant every week. All we know for sure is that coal, and not renewable energy, is powering the Middle Kingdom’s meteoric economic growth. This is why China, which became the world’s number one emitter of greenhouse gases only three years ago, now has a carbon footprint 40 percent bigger than the next largest emitter (the United States).

The task of science is to present the truth, no matter how it might offend one’s sensibilities. By highlighting only China’s clean energy investment, Scientific American’s presents an unscientific half truth. It then compounds this error by making a policy recommendation (“Stepping up U.S. investment [in renewable energy] could enhance the country’s competitiveness…”) based on this half truth. The whole truth is that China’s competitiveness is predicated on its building coal power faster than has ever been done in human history.

Using Scientific American’s logic, the inescapable conclusion is that the U.S. should embrace coal, too, in order to enhance our competitiveness on the international market.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, last week released a new minority report, titled, “The Real Story Behind China’s Energy Policy-And What American Can Learn From It.” The report shows that, regardless of its wind and solar production, China is predominantly relying on coal, oil, and natural gas, along with hydro and nuclear power, to fuel its economy.

In discussions of trade and economic policy, China increasingly plays the role that Japan once did — simultaneously vilified and lionized as both threat and model.

In the 1980s, ”trade hawks” warned that Japan would “hollow out” our economy unless we adopted Japanese-style industrial policy to counter Japan’s “unfair” trade practices. Today, “progressives” warn that China will “eat our lunch” in the “clean tech race” unless we aggressively subsidize domestic manufacturers of wind turbines, solar panels, and the like, to counter China’s clean-tech subsidies, which, we are told, constitute “unfair” trade practices.

If there is any consistency in these discussions, it is that subsidies are always either good or bad, fair or unfair, depending on whether they rig the market for “our” companies or “their” companies.

Oh yes, there is one other point of consistency — everybody agrees “clean tech” can’t compete without subsidies. This came out during a conference earlier in the week at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Sun Guoshun, first secretary of the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C., defended his government’s use of subsidies as necessary to having a clean-tech sector. 

As reported today in Climatewire (subscription required), Mr. Sun said: “It is the consensus of the international community that renewable energy is not in a position to compete with fossil fuel energy. So if you’re not going to subsidize renewable energy, there will be no renewable energy.”

In a story today about the surging profits of Peabody Energy (a major American coal producer), Climatewire (subscription required) quoted Peabody Chairman and CEO Gregory Boyce as saying that coal is entering a “demand super cycle” due to exploding Chinese growth. According to Mr. Boyce, “China now forecasts that 290 gigawatts of coal-fueled generation will come online from 2011 to 2015.” He calls the demographic trends in China “overwhelming.”

Two quick snap responses:

1. There’s a silly meme being bandied about by the mainstream media that China is winning some sort of green energy great game with America. In fact, China is building two coal fired power plants every three weeks, while in the U.S., environmentalist lawyers recently celebrated the scuttling of 100 coal fired plants. We are losing an energy game with China, but the prize isn’t green energy. Rather, it’s affordable, reliable energy. They are building it. We aren’t.
2. Peabody is looking for a west coast port to increase the export of low cost coal from Wyoming to China. That is, China is welcoming the coal our country is spurning. As a result, we are heading towards a future where the U.S. buys expensive green energy from China (because it is cheaper to manufacture there), while China buys cheap coal from the U.S. Guess whose energy future is more promising?

Richard Morrison, Jeremy Lott, and Jerry Brito bring you Episode 90 of the LibertyWeek podcast. This week we take a look at Robert Bryce’s work on the myths of green energy. Segment starts approximately 10:25 in.