When China Makes Goods for the US, Who’s Responsible for the Emissions?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When researchers rack up the carbon emitted across the world, the standard trends emerge: Europeans put less CO2 into the atmosphere than Americans, but China’s rapid ascent is sending its emissions shooting past those of the United States. However, this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Stanford University researchers attempt to rejigger the numbers to reflect not just where the emissions are produced, but who is responsible for them—who’s buying and consuming the products that cause those emissions. After study global trade databases, Steven Davis and Ken Caldiera say that in 2004, 23 per cent of global CO2 emissions – some 6.2 gigatonnes – went in making products that were traded internationally. Most of these products were exported from China and other relatively poor countries to consumers in richer countries [New Scientist]. The researchers say that developed countries outsource about a third of the carbon dioxide emissions connected to their consumption.

When you look at the numbers this way, the per capita emissions in Europe don’t look quite as good: If those emissions were tallied on the other side of the balance sheet, it would add more than four tons of CO2 per person in several European nations [TIME]. The United States saw a lesser increase of 2.4 tons per person, though that’s not really a cause for celebration. Part of the reason is that the country has more carbon-intensive exports than Europe, the study says, and under the new accounting those emissions are going on somebody else’s books. The United States also takes in the lion’s share of China’s: 22.5% of China’s emissions are generated during production of goods and services consumed overseas, and 7.8% are embodied in exports to the US alone [BBC News].

This isn’t the first time that climate change experts have raised the question of how much responsibility consumers bear for carbon emissions produced on the other side of the globe. Other studies are trying to crack this same problem, tracking “consumption” emissions rather than just the “territorial” emissions produced inside a country’s borders. What they find could shake up how the world goes about trying to reduce emissions. The U.N. system is built around the idea of capping carbon emissions from individual nations. But which country is responsible for the carbon emitted in global trade? The buyer or the seller? [TIME]

link

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Europeans put less CO2 into the atmosphere than Americans, but China’s rapid ascent is sending its emissions shooting past those of the United States.

It's a good thing Bush killed Kyoto. Exempting China was always a bad idea.

[luckytxn 2,264]

It's a good thing Bush killed Kyoto. Exempting China was always a bad idea.

And India.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And India.

Indeed. However, this article is about China so I was attempting to stay somewhat on topic.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Oh goodie, so suggesting that consumers are responsible is just one more way to push the "Carbon Credit Allotment" cards....

joyful....

[mawilson 2,133]

not just where the emissions are produced, but who is responsible for them—who’s buying and consuming the products that cause those emissions.

Great, so then China is responsible for the emissions on everything they buy that is made in the USA and other countries?

They do buy a LOT of stuff from us... heavy machinery, power generation equipment, air- and spacecraft...

[NickD 203]

My many pine trees love carbon emissions, but prefer emissions generated here than in China.

By millions of our own people losing jobs to China, will no longer have money to buy their #######, it will work out.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Easiest question of the day. Democrats are responsible.

By implementing the taxes that forced American companies to move manufacturing overseas to avoid the taxes, we simply shifted the manufacturing to a country with less environmental regulation. Brilliant move. Had they stayed here where the emissions were always lower and they employed Americans, it woul dbe easier to regulate emissions which business would tolerate if they were also not taxed to death. We should end all taxes on corporations now and bring those jobs back here (plus many more as we would be THE tax shelter for all manufacturers) and reduce those emissions. This would also fix the health care problem for the largest part and the illegal immigration problem. All without the government doing a thing except eliminating taxes.

Liberals won't favor that either. They really don't care about the environment because they really know global warming is a hoax. They are only concerned with increasing the role of government and increasing employment is not a good way to do that.

[justashooter 430]

manufacturing can be done in an environmentally friendly or an environmentally hostile manner. chinese mamnufacturers are choosing to manufacture for lowest cost, without concern for the environment. making other countries responsbile for their choice is moot.

[mawilson 2,133]

manufacturing can be done in an environmentally friendly or an environmentally hostile manner. chinese mamnufacturers are choosing to manufacture for lowest cost, without concern for the environment. making other countries responsbile for their choice is moot.

Very good point

[Texanadian 10]

I don't see how it couldn't be the responsibility of the producer to be responsible for pollution. The benefits of polluting industries (typically high paying jobs) comes with the price of localized pollution. Here in Houston, we produce 1/7th of the world's plastic. Plastic requires oil and all sorts of factory pollution. It's obviously going to pollute more than people who grow flowers for a living. But working someplace like the Goodyear tire plant will pay way more than a flower shop.

The majority of the pollution in Houston comes from the smaller incorporated cities of Baytown and Pasadena (think south-east Houston). The jobs there all pay really good. The real estate there is really cheap. But when you drive through there on the highway, you can see nothing but refineries and factories that go on and on seemingly forever. Driving 70 mph, you can see factories for 45 minutes. The air stinks out there. And when they release benzene at night, it feels like the air is burning.

I live in West Houston. The air here is much cleaner. But the EPA is constantly cracking down on our "city" for not being compliant. If you take away the factories and refineries, the city is actually quite clean from an energy/environmental point of view. Yearly emissions tests for cars keeps the old clunkers off the road. Lots of new cars where I live. Anything older than 15 years old seems rare. Cold start emissions from vehicles are always the worst polluting times....We don't have that here. You might see a day or two during the year where the exhaust pipe on the car in front of you has visible vapour coming off it. (only happens on cold days which we don't really get). Meanwhile Fairbanks Alaska has the same amount of carbon monoxide as Los Angeles. Carbon monoxide is a byproduct from cars when the engines are too cold (catalytic converters only turn that into CO2 when they're HOT)

Every home has central air here (heat pump technology). The air temperature at the peak of summer is 20-25° warmer than the indoor temperature. So your energy use is very low. Contrast that to living in the north-east of the US where the winter temps are 50-70° below indoor temp and coal is the major electricity producer there. (Natural gas is the main producer of electricity here although we do have nuclear, wind, and hydro)

China is essentially the same benefits (lots of jobs, albeit poorly paying jobs) but they don't take the same responsibility with their pollution that we do. If China wants to pollute less, they can shut down their polluting factories or downsize what they currently have. But they're not doing that. Heck, they're building 3 coal fired electricity plants a week in China.

[Dan J 277]

Easiest question of the day. Democrats are responsible.

By implementing the taxes that forced American companies to move manufacturing overseas to avoid the taxes, we simply shifted the manufacturing to a country with less environmental regulation. Brilliant move. Had they stayed here where the emissions were always lower and they employed Americans, it woul dbe easier to regulate emissions which business would tolerate if they were also not taxed to death. We should end all taxes on corporations now and bring those jobs back here (plus many more as we would be THE tax shelter for all manufacturers) and reduce those emissions. This would also fix the health care problem for the largest part and the illegal immigration problem. All without the government doing a thing except eliminating taxes.

Liberals won't favor that either. They really don't care about the environment because they really know global warming is a hoax. They are only concerned with increasing the role of government and increasing employment is not a good way to do that.

Taxes or not, manufacturing is going where labor is the cheapest since most of the work is repetitive and easily to train for. The only time it stays here is if the shipping costs outweigh the savings on labor.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

When China Makes Goods for the US, Who’s Responsible for the Emissions?

Obama, naturally.