The US-China climate deal announced in December 2014 generated big news. It was yet another diplomatic success for the Obama administration and John Kerry’s State Department. Nothing I say below takes away from that success. In terms of climate action success, the deal ranks pretty low to me. I’ll quickly summarize what I understand of the deal and then share why I think it isn’t a significant climate deal.
Here is a quick summary (emphasis mine):
China, the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, pledged in the far-reaching agreement to cap its rapidly growing carbon emissions by 2030, or earlier if possible. It also set an ambitious goal of increasing the share of non-fossil fuels to 20 percent of its energy mix by 2030.
Obama announced a target to cut U.S. emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 – eight years after he leaves office — the first time the president has set a goal beyond the existing 17 percent target by 2020.
The bolded portions highlight the agreement’s big news. China agreed to a carbon emissions cap and the U.S. pushed its emissions reduction target out 5 years and increased the target by ~11% below 2005 levels.
Those are good goals. Are they sufficient goals? It depends on what you consider sufficient. I consider goals that will actually achieve the stated climate target of <2C warming by 2100 as sufficient. These goals won’t achieve that target. But then, as I’ve written for some time now, I don’t think we can set goals that achieve the <2C by 2100 target. There are technical and political hurdles that we chose not to surmount during the past 30+ years. Why won’t this agreement achieve that target? Let’s take a quick look from the same International Business Times article:
China completes a new coal plant every eight to 10 days, and while its economic growth has slowed, it is still expanding at a brisk rate exceeding 7 percent.
The scale of construction for China to meet its goals is huge even by Chinese standards. It must add 800 to 1,000 gigawatts of nuclear, wind, solar and other zero-emission generation capacity by 2030 — more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today and close to the total electricity generation capacity in the United States.
And to meet its target, the United States will need to double the pace of carbon pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average from 2005 to 2020 to 2.3 to 2.8 percent per year between 2020 and 2025.
Who out there truly believes that China can deploy 800 GW of zero-emission generation capacity in less than 15 years? Remember before you answer in the affirmative that China’s deployment of coal-fired plants exceeded anything in history and that coal remains an extremely cheap energy resource. All the other technologies currently cost more in terms of deployment. What incentives does China, as a developing nation, have to spend more money for intermittent power sources? They’re more interested in growing their economy, as the U.S. is. Speaking of the U.S. – I emphasized part of that quote quite purposefully to highlight the scale of the issue. China must, in 15 years, deploy as much generation infrastructure as exists in the entire U.S. today. Our infrastructure took decades and decades to build out. China needs to do the same thing, with more expensive infrastructure, in 15 short years!? I will be among the first to congratulate China if they accomplish this daunting task and I don’t think China should shy away from working towards it. I just don’t think they have a realistic chance of actually accomplishing it.
What about the U.S.? We need to more than double the decarbonization rate of our economy to achieve our emissions goals. Remember that most of the decarbonization achieved since 2005 was due first to the Great Recession and second to the natural gas boom. The Great Recession is finally behind us, though effects linger. The natural gas boom? It’s currently experiencing strong headwinds as OPEC pushes the cost of oil down to the $50 range from the $100-110 range last year. It’s economically unfeasible to frack for natural gas with $50 per barrel of oil. While the natural gas industry won’t collapse (at least I hope it doesn’t), it won’t support additional decarbonization for the foreseeable future either.
I believe we are well on our way toward 3-4C warming by 2100 and must plan and act accordingly. This deal, while diplomatically ambitious, is not climate ambitious enough to drive us away from those thresholds.