ABC-style carbon dioxide
This has to be some kind of joke, right? China, which depends on coal for something like 70% of it’s entire energy requirements, and which is building a new coal fired power station every two weeks, has apparently stated that it will cut its emissions by 40% on 2005 levels by 2020:
“This is a voluntary action taken by the Chinese government based on its own national conditions and is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change,” the statement said.
It added that China faced “enormous pressure and special difficulty in controlling greenhouse gas emissions”.
The announcement marks the first time China has put specific numbers on a September pledge by President Hu Jintao to cut carbon intensity by a “notable margin”.
So what is “carbon intensity”? And here is the get out clause:
Carbon intensity refers to emissions per unit of economic activity. Emissions would continue to grow under China’s plan as economic growth is expected to continue. Beijing is not offering an absolute cut in carbon dioxide production.
So it’s nothing like a 40% cut in emissions. It’s a 40% cut in emissions tied into economic growth, which isn’t a cut at all. The ABC fails to mention that in it’s headline, of course.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
I think you are mis-reading this. They agreed to reduce their carbon intensity by 40% That means that if they double their GDP in the next 10 years (not unreasonable for their growth rates) rather than double their CO2 emmisions, they will only increase by ~20%. Considering the amount of hydro power, nuclear and wind they are installing, it is a stretch but conceivable.
Thanks for the comment – I did understand the GDP issue – the point is that emissions from China will still increase.
It’s also worth noting that a decline in carbon intensity would generally occur as a developing economy develops a larger service sector.
This graph shows US intensity per capita GDP has been dropping since 1800 – “FIGURE 5 Diminishing carbon intensity of per capita GDP in the United States, 1800-1988. Carbon intensity is carbon consumed for energy divided by annual GDP in constant 1985 dollars. SOURCE: After Gruebler and Fujii (1991).” – .
Can’t vouch for it – the first graph I found.
Political spin. China is taking “voluntary action”, as I understand it this means they are not going to sign an international treaty and they are not therefore going to be accountable to the ‘global community’- how could they be, when as you note, their emissions are going to still be increasing. It is in other words political spin designed to satisfy the demands of the ‘global community’ whilst minimizing the harmful effects of co2 reduction on the Chinese economy.