24
China Confronts Europe Over Climate-Based Trade Restrictions (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Days ahead of the U.N.’s global negotiations on climate change, China and other developing countries said trade restrictions should be part of the talks.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

China is absolutely right here. They won't meet their commitments with their trade restricted like so, and the rest of the world won't meet their commitments with China constrained by EV tarrifs.

The "developed" world, in particular, has shot itself in the foot here. Who gives a fuck about "losing ground economically/industrially" if the expense of "staying ahead" is the survivability of the planet itself?

Don't answer that question. Anyone who thinks they are rich or whatever enough to "escape earth" and the consequences of failure here is of an idiocy beneath noting.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 days ago

It really does not matter too much to the planet, if products consumed in the EU produce emissions in China or the EU. However the EU has well working emission trading sytem, which in the coming years, will make carbon intensive manufacturing all but impossible in the EU. That becomes useless, if companies just end up producing in China instead, using old fossil fuel based factories. So having a carbon tariff is a great option. If China indeed cares about the planet, then they can produce in a sustainable fashion and export with no carbon tariff to the EU. Also the from the EU carbon tariff is lowered by the cost of carbon in the producing country. So China can just increase their carbon price to meet the EU level.

If China goes green, then the carbon tariff is zero. If Chinas carbon price is as high or higher then the EUs, then the carbon tariff is zero.

As for cars there is the option for manufacturers to show how high Chinese subsidies are. If they do not get subsidies, then they do not have to pay tariffs. Btw the EU has a fossil fuel car phase out date in law, unlike China.

China is the biggest emitter in the world. If they do not lower their emissions, which this clearly shows they have no intresst in doing, then we are all fucked.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 3 points 6 days ago

When did China surpass the US to become the biggest emitter? I thought that wasn't going to happen until 2050, as per https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/interactive/2023/global-warming-carbon-emissions-china-us/

I'd dispute that China has no interest in reducing their emissions. See this other post by the OP, https://slrpnk.net/post/14732947 showing that they're on track to reduce their emissions this year.

[-] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

More EVs sold by China in Europe or the US means more EV's made. No other country is producing enough EV's, let alone cheap ones, to make up the difference. More EV sales would mean more money those companies have to research and produce other Green products.

Also, the tarrifs I'm complaining about aren't Carbon-related, nor imposed by China(where on earth did you even get that absurd idea?), but they would stack in an awful manner.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 days ago

The EU is a massive car exporter and the car industry in Europe is not doing that great right now. That is due to European companies producing EVs in China and then bringing them into the EU. So the EU trying to force them to keep car factories open is just logical. Hence the probe and the targetted tariffs, based on the subsidies they recieve from the Chinese government.

Also, the tarrifs I’m complaining about aren’t Carbon-related, nor imposed by China(where on earth did you even get that absurd idea?), but they would stack in an awful manner.

The article you post under is literally called: "China Confronts Europe Over Climate-Based Trade Restrictions". Also I have no idea, where I wrote anything about China imposing tariffs. Just that those are not fixed, but flexible based on certain criteria.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 2 points 1 week ago

It's a good article. Considering that China is still considered a developing country, it makes sense that it would still not yet be included in that list of rich countries.

I was thinking that perhaps a trade could be be concluded here. Places like China gets credits in recognition of having to bear that accelerated burden, which it can exchange in place of climate-changed related tariffs. So, China would - for a limited time - continue to get tariff free access to the EU, but would have to deliver on climate change in order to avoid tariffs completely.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 4 points 6 days ago

China is richer then the global average and at this point about average in terms of per capita cummulative emissions. It does not need special protection anymore.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 6 days ago

The point was not about need but fairness. By total GDP alone, China could certainly fit whatever criteria to be included in the list of rich countries - but it seems that it's understood that this isn't particularly fair.

Likewise, the rich countries on the list have had over a century since their respective industrial revolutions to take advantage of it and use it to accumulate the wealth needed to go green. China, however, would have to change much faster than the rest. This is the unfairness being addressed (as opposed to need), and the credits were just one idea to address that.

[-] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

A lot of high income countries did not have their industrial revolution less then a century ago. That was a bit post WW1, so it was mainly Western Europe besides the Iberian peninsula, US, Canada and Australia, which were industrialized a century ago. Japan did really start to grow in 1960, as did Spain and Italy. South Korea went up in the 1980s. Many already have had peak per capita emissions some time ago. Then you have problems like South Africa and Russia, which both have high emissions, but are not that rich. Russias per capita emissions are above those of the EU since 1951 for example. Time is also a problem, as in countries have falling emissions and others have increased, so that needs to be included. Also technology changed. Things like solar, wind turbines, electric cars, even electric trains, nuclear power plants and so forth are well developed technologies today. That was not the case a century ago. Besides that global climate change and knowledge of human impacts of it, are relativly recent, it only started being a somewhat discussed political point in the 70s.

Point is, that it is complex and there honestly should be a formular to determine each countries contribution and that should include new emissions. Depending on how it is calculated that can absolutly include China.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 6 days ago

I think we're agreed here. With China being the largest emitter of current (as opposed to cumulative) emissions, a formula - which would indeed likely be quite complex - is needed here that can fairly take that into account along with the other points (like the accelerated timeframe required as compared to the rich countries).

The article makes a good point - which I think you allude to - about the definition of rich countries perhaps needing to be updated as part of this (for example, you include South Korea, who isn't on that list, though weirdly, Japan is, despite having a post WW-II date of the 1960s). Probably should be "advanced economies" instead of "rich countries" - so China would be rich via total GDP measures but perhaps not an advanced economy yet due to the low average per capital GDP or low average individual citizen's income, for example, while the US would be advanced and rich while (for example) North Korea wouldn't be either.

this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
24 points (96.2% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5222 readers
530 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
silence7@slrpnk.net