by Owen Martin
Ireland now imports a record € 5.3 billion of goods per year from China, higher than during the peak boom year of 2007 and double that of 2011. China is the biggest emitter on the planet so these imports come with a very high carbon footprint. Based on calculations made for other countries, I have calculated CO2 emissions of 6.1 million tonnes (MT) associated with our Chinese imports for last year.
CO2 emissions from electricity generation in Ireland in the year 2000 was roughly 17 MT. This has now reduced to around 12 MT . Imports from China since 2000 have increased by € 3.8bn, a consequent emissions rise for these imports of almost 4.3MT.
So at a global scale, Ireland's efforts to reduce emissions in the electricity sector have been mostly offset by our increased outsourcing of emissions to China.
This is something that's completely overlooked by the climate change advisory panel which essentially treats Ireland as an isolated entity with a separate climate to the rest of the world. In their most recent report, international trade only gets a single mention while carbon tax gets mentioned 57 times. China fails to get even a single mention.
Sources:
1) https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/externaltrade/goodsexportsandimports/
https://www.cso.ie/multiquicktables/quickTables.aspx?id=tsa01
2) USA imports from china was approx $400bn in 2012. Associated CO2 emissions was 512 MT according to carbonbrief.org. Which works out at 1.28 MT per $billion of imports, converted to euros is 1.14 MT per € 1 bn. Emissions in china are up since 2012 according to the Guardian, so these emissions are actually understated.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anaswanson/2014/11/12/heres-one-thing-the-us-does-export-to-china-carbon-dioxide/#6f80b8e16a1a
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/342862/ukcarbonexports7.png
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/this-is-what-the-us-imports-from-china/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/dec/05/brutal-news-global-carbon-emissions-jump-to-all-time-high-in-2018
3) EPA emissions from Electricity :
Figure 3: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/air/airemissions/ghgemissions2017/Report_GHG%201990-2017%20November%202018_Website.pdf
Perhaps "Climate Change" should be differentiated from "Climate Action". The former is conventionally defined as anthropogenic global warming whereas the latter seems to be an opportunity for investors to leverage wealth transfer from the more hysterical members of society and one which dares not rake over its true origins.
ReplyDeleteSociety in general is only too happy to have its cake and eat it; a warm and cuddly "Extinction Rebellion" on a sunny O’Connell Street bridge is far more attractive than dealing with uncomfortable truths. One of which is the correlation between global population growth and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
So lets step forward my friends - you first!
An excellent and timely analysis by the Irish Energy Blog. The question is whether the myopia by Ireland's climate change advisory panel is deliberate or misguided, as its members are highly intelligent pillars of society who have been appointed to dispense government doctrine. There is a clear, if unstated, policy in place over the past decade to concentrate the population in the larger cities as evidenced by the lack of rural infrastructure development, obstacles to obtaining planning permission for housing and the concentrated siting of FDI employers on the east coast.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of climate change, this scenario requires maximising divestment of CO2 liability to other countries, easily managed urban infrastructure (EVs and broadband), and the generation of as much renewable energy in the depopulated countryside as possible to power the urban centres. Divesting 4.3MT of emissions without a blink is quite an accomplishment.
That divestment has come at the cost of increasing electricity unit prices for consumers. Moving from somewhere near the middle of the EU range to close to the top.
DeleteThe strategy here is one that is commonly seen from the institutional state - incrementalism. Move in small steps so people won't really notice. Until the boiled frog jumps. Have we reached this point with carbon taxes?
We didn't do too well with water charges, so maybe we will all get a fat pre-election carbon refund cheque in advance of paying the tax?
DeleteThe reductions in carbon emissions in the electricity generation sector are primarily the result of substituting coal and oil and peat generated electricity for gas generated electricity which has lower carbon emissions. Also by including the electricity imports via the electricity Interconnectors as having zero carbon emissions which is quite disingenuous as coal generated electricity is in the U.K. energy mix.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, ever since Brexit has been on the horizon various state organisations such as Enterprise Ireland have been helping Irish companies to diversify into the Chinese market.
Even leaving aside the actual carbon footprint of Irish export companies, one really has to shine a light on the increased carbon emissions that will result from transporting more and more goods and services over much greater distances to countries in the Far East, Australia etc.
How many more mega tonnes of CO2 emissions is that going to add per annum?
Diversifying and expanding the Irish Export Market into far flung places strongly conflicts with and makes a mockery of a national energy policy that supposedly aims to reduce carbon emissions.
Why then should Irish citizens suffer punitive carbon taxes when there are so many conflicting government policies at play that are actually causing increases in carbon emissions?
In this particular instance we have a growing export market with increasing transportation carbon emissions.
We also have the IDA encouraging Big Corporate fossil fuel guzzling Data Centres to be installed in Ireland having negotiated favourable electricity rates.
We also have numerous government bodies promoting the uptake of unsustainable unethical electric vehicles and highly dangerous Battery Energy Storage Systems in Ireland that despite all the sustainable renewable rhetoric will surprisingly only further serve to seriously increase carbon emissions.
It certainly does seem that carbon taxes are nothing but some veiled excuse to raise more taxes. And the more ways that the government can find to increase carbon emissions then the more carbon taxes they will seek to collect from gullible citizens.
'Focused on promoting the innovative capabilities and competitive offers of Irish companies to international buyers, in sectors including fintech, consumer goods, healthcare, international services and digital technologies, the trade mission is critical to helping Irish companies to diversify into the Chinese market in the context of Brexit.'
'Enterprise Ireland client exports to the Asia Pacific region grew by 9 per cent to €1.97 billion in 2017 and Ireland continues to build its export footprint in the Asia Pacific region. In 2017, Enterprise Ireland client exports to Greater China grew by 9.7 per cent to record levels of €1.03bn, with China now accounting for 52 per cent of client exports to the Asia Pacific region. Building on this strong growth trend and market potential, Enterprise Ireland has set ambitious targets to grow exports to Greater China by 40% to €1.44bn by 2020 and to increase exports to the Asia Pacific region by over 50% from €1.97bn to €3bn by 2020. Expanding the reach of Irish enterprise in diversified export markets is a key strategic priority for Enterprise Ireland and international trade missions and trade fair participation is key to delivering on this.' (31st Oct 2018)
https://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/News/PressReleases/2018-Press-Releases/Minister-Humphreys-leads-45-Enterprise-Ireland-Clients-on-Trade-Investment-Mission-to-China-to-Highlight-the-Irish-Advantage.html
'Enterprise Ireland Market Advisers work with you to find a tailored solution to help you accelerate your company’s exports....'
https://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en/export-assistance/international-office-network-services-and-contacts/china.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars
Production based accounting V Consumption based accounting
ReplyDeleteThe present production based [PB] accounting system for CO2 emissions is making a mockery of the sustainability principle. It allows unlimited consumption of products with no responsibility for the CO2 content provided the goods are produced abroad and imported.
The EU is outsourcing or simply off-shoring its carbon emissions to China etc.
Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, countries are not responsible for carbon emissions consumed within their borders, only those produced within their borders.
Around 25% of global CO2 emissions stem from the production of goods that are, ultimately, consumed in a different country. National emissions only account for CO2 emitted within national borders this excludes large CO2 transfers associated with trade. These transfers have grown dramatically since the early 1990s, accounting for a growing share of total consumption emissions of most developed countries.
Embodied carbon imports are significant for many developed economies. Major developed economies are typically net importers of embodied carbon emissions. UK consumption emissions are 34% higher than production emissions: Germany (29%) higher, Japan (19%) higher and the USA (13%) higher. For some economies with very carbon efficient production processes, the relative importance of imported carbon is even greater. The high levels of net imports in France (43%) and Sweden (61%).
In 1992, the UK imported an additional 7% emissions (net) embodied in trade; by 2004, this had grown to 34%. Net UK imports of emissions are projected to continue to grow to 73 – 96% of production emissions by 2025.This will result in the UK potentially importing as much carbon as it produces at home by around 2025, making imported carbon a significant issue. This is only one of about 5 major anomalies in the CO2 accounting system.
Chinas economic growth, just like Japans after the 2nd world war, is essentially based on currency manipulation.Left wing economists in the west used to credit the MITI as being the architect of the Japanese economic miracle.The MITI were a hindrance not a help.Toyota could sell cars in the eastern USA many thousands of dollars cheaper than Detroit made cars. Even thought the Toyotas were shipped from Japan. In the late 70's the Yen close to 300 to the US dollar. The Japanese were/are more sophisticated in management technology than the Chinese. Labour efficiency was higher and the use of capital was better in Japan. The Japanese economic miracle ended when the yen was forced to float against the US Dollar. Ending up at 100 yen to the US Dollar.Toyotas made in Japan were then double the cost of those US models made in Detroit.You had what was called the great run out of Japan. Cheap manufacturing was no longer possible in Japan.Chinese use of capital from their so called economic miracle is very poor, speculative construction and the massive subsidisation of inefficient state run enterprises. The current trade talks between China and the USA could end up in China having to float its currency.Which will end the period of cheap manufacturing in China. Forced labour and in some cases the use of virtual slave labour will be an inadequate counter to a floating currency. The offshoring of carbon emissions of course will end also. All this alleged clever talk from idiot greens will grow into hysterics.Just ignore them . Their cosy parallel universe will have come to and end. Global temperatures have been dropping since 2004. Using Satellite data which covers the whole world is more accurate than manipulated low quality data produced by the IPCC.
ReplyDeleteThanks , I've recently been searching for info approximately this topic for a while and
ReplyDeleteyours is the best I have came upon so far. But,
what about the conclusion? Are you sure concerning the source?