Below are four different maps showing global emissions totals. All data graphics are by Stephen Rountree.

Current Emissions (millions of tons): Rapidly-growing China has surpassed the U.S. as the world’s top contributor of greenhouse gases. Manufacturers in the U.S. are pressuring Congress not to commit to emissions cuts — thus forestalling higher energy costs in the future.

Per Capita Emissions (tons per person): Compared to industrialized countries, less developed nations contribute relatively little to global emissions. But some developing countries such as India, with the world’s second highest population and rapid economic growth, could see sharp per-person emissions increases.

Cumulative Emissions (millions of tons): Using totals from the mid-19th century up to the present day, the U.S. and E.U. far surpass other countries in their historical contribution to global warming. The original 1992 UN climate change convention in Rio de Janeiro, which paved the way for the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, called for developed nations to take the lead in cutting emissions.

Emissions Intensity (tons per million dollars of GDP): In many developed countries, increased energy efficiency has resulted in a reduction of greenhouse gas intensity (emissions per unit of gross domestic product). China is pledging to cut its energy intensity but will need to take even more drastic action to prevent disproportionate contributions to future global warming.

- Ben Piven

Pollution in northern China. Photo courtesy of Flickr user AdamCohn under a Creative Commons license.

It’s good to be back. Some recent bits of news on China and climate caught my attention. First was Todd Stern’s admonition in Tuesday’s FT that China and India risk protectionist measures in the U.S. Congress if they do not agree to bind themselves in Copenhagen to curb carbon emissions.

Politically, this is certainly true. But it made me wonder whether tactically we should decouple China and India on climate in the run up to the negotiations in Copenhagen. Todd Stern has forgotten more about these issues than I will ever know, and, of course, in the long run we absolutely need all the major economies on board. Emissions from India and Russia could potentially catch up to China’s one day.

But, today, the real problem (other than us) is China. That fact is reinforced by a two-year study conducted by Chinese government thinktanks, released Wednesday, that said if China’s energy usage structure remains unchanged, its emissions of greenhouse gases would represent 60 percent of total global emissions and three times China’s current production. Of course, China’s usage IS changing, and that’s the encouraging news. China is massively investing in clean and efficient technologies.

That said, China is the largest emitter in the world and will be for some time to come. The U.S. and China account for about 20 percent each of global emissions and India is currently only at 5 percent. A 2006 study [PDF] from the Department of Energy has that disparity continuing until 2030. Even if India catches up, much faster, or China slows its emissions growth dramatically, China will still a much bigger part of the problem well into the future.

Moreover, the critical political point for today is that the largest emitter, China, has refused to commit to binding targets at Copenhagen for reducing its emissions. Without that commitment, the international community can’t forge a deal. Lumping India and China together offers China political cover in the negotiations. It reinforces China’s strategy of aligning itself with truly poor developing countries, like, say, Chad, that really cannot be asked to bear the costs of climate change. Further, while the Chinese government can likely deliver on an international commitment, its not clear that the Indian government currently has the capacity.

Right now, it may make sense to isolate China as a unique case. Particularly when by China’s own measure this week, it is no longer a low-income country, but a middle income one. I am not suggesting bilateral negotiations — the current set of mechanisms is fine. And we need the other emerging economies signed onto any treaty with as good a commitment as possible. But pressure where pressure is due — the real challenge of the coming months is the PRC.

- Nina Hachigian

Climate change was on the agenda this week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy marks a break with the Bush approach on many counts, but none more visible than energy and climate change. These issues now animate our relationship with China, and not a moment too soon.

Climate is now central to U.S. diplomacy for three reasons:

• The administration rightly views global warming as a serious threat to national security;
• A treaty to succeed Kyoto is to be negotiated at the end of this year in Copenhagen under the auspices of the U.N.;
• Science tells us that time is running out to contain the increase of average global temperatures, avoiding the potentially castastrophic limit of 2°C.

The big enchilada on climate and energy diplomacy is China. China is now the largest yearly emitter of greenhouse gases, having just surpassed the U.S. Together, the U.S. and China account for 40 percent of worldwide emissions. China is the largest coal producer in the world, and coal accounts for 70 percent of China’s energy use. Energy demand in China is growing wildly. From 2001 to 2007, energy demand in China alone grew by the same amount used in all of Latin America put together.

Thus, last August, when the Center for American Progress released a report (which I co-authored) making recommendations about the future of U.S.-China relations, we called for the new president to make climate and energy a central focus of the bilateral relationship. We argued that the urgency of global warming demanded that step, but that elevating an issue on which China and the U.S. had much in common could have other positive spill-over effects. At the time, this was not a run-of-the-mill recommendation. There had been very little positive interaction between the U.S. and China on climate and energy, with both countries in a “suicide pact,” refusing to act until the other got serious.

The administration is now putting a new approach to the test. On her first trip as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton went to Asia and highlighted energy and climate change in Beijing. President Obama brought up global warming with President Hu in their first meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in April. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was in China earlier this week, having made climate change — and not human rights, as many expected — the focus of her trip.

As a result of this diplomatic focus, and the fact that the Obama administration is clearly serious about cleaning up America’s act on energy and climate, the U.S.-China game of chicken over global warming is giving way to a more positive dynamic. Both sides, while still demanding unrealistic progress from the other, are doing a lot themselves, realizing that the more steps they can say they have taken domestically, the more leverage they will have in Copenhagen.

Last week, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, or ACES, sponsored by Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA), passed through committee in the House. This legislation would, for the first time, create a cap and trade system in the U.S. Some environmentalists have assailed the legislation because its stated targets — 17 percent under 2005 levels by 2020 — come lower than many would like. But, as my colleagues and I have pointed out, if you measure the full effects of the legislation, the numbers actually look a lot better. In fact, in contrast to what The New York Times reported (and then retracted) about our piece, we think the ACES, if it passes before December — in combination with other environmental measures the administration is taking, like imposing strict mileage standards on cars — will give President Obama the leverage he needs with China, and with others, to make the Copenhagen treaty the best it can be.

- Nina Hachigian

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Speaker Pelosi under a Creative Commons license.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, may take a major post in the Afghan government.

The Good

Tough new fuel economy standards for U.S. vehicles. In terms of international diplomacy, this is more palpable evidence that the U.S. is finally getting serious about global warming. The more the U.S. shows it is willing to take tough steps, the more leverage we will have to get others, particularly China, to commit to limits on their global greenhouse gasses.

The Indian elections. Voters in India handed a victory to the current ruling Congress party, paving the way for economic reforms that are likely to boost the Indian economy in the long term. India has roughly as many people living below the poverty level as the entire population of the United States.

The Bad

The swine flu vaccine is proving difficult to produce.  

The Interesting

The New York Times reports that Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, may take a major post in the Afghan government.  He’s a powerful operator, by all accounts, so maybe he’ll be able to make the trains in Kabul run on time — or at least get the trains on the tracks.  But I wonder about situations where the interests of the Afghan government and U.S. government diverge…

- Nina Hachigian

Photo courtesy of Flickr user US Army Korea - IMCOM under a Creative Commons license.

Germans have been asked to eat less meat for the sake of the environment.

The German government has recommended that citizens eat less meat in order to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming and production.

Germans are among the highest consumers of meat in Europe. Meat consumption is expected to double globally between 2000 and 2050, and yet agricultural emissions are just beginning to come under scrutiny.

A blogger at “Transatlantic Politics” worries about state-planned eating schemes and rationing that could infringe on personal freedoms.

Elsewhere in the world, other governments and scientists have taken steps to lessen the environmental impact of methane emissions from livestock and energy-intensive production.

Australian researchers suggested going on a kangaroo diet, as the creatures emit less methane as a part of their digestive processes than do cows or sheep.

British researchers recommended rationing meat, restricting citizens to four portions a week.

A British blogger at “Eco Curious” describes her decision to eat less meat, but also provides advice on where to find the most environmentally-friendly meat in the United Kingdom.

The “Inhabitat” blog writes about a Dutch power plant that converts poultry waste into reusable energy, which prevents the manure from seeping into the ground and releasing emissions.

The “Ethical Eating” blog urges people to become vegans, as meat production in Brazil is contributing to Amazon deforestation.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user dmscvan under a Creative Commons license.

Former Vice President Al Gore speaks at the U.N. climate conference in Poznan, Poland.

In Poznan, Poland, about 11,000 people from more than 190 countries met this week to lay the foundations for a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that will extend beyond the Kyoto Protocol agreement, which expires in 2012.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) hopes to finalize the new climate protocol at a conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009.

This week’s conference has focused largely on convincing emerging economies like China, Brazil and South Africa to curb their emissions, and negotiators have agreed to free at least $60 million for developing countries to combat effects of climate change.

Stavros Dimas, the European Commissioner for Environment, writes in his blog from Poznan that he is optimistic although even more stringent targets are necessary.

British conservative politician and blogger Roger Helmer, also in Poznan, writes that he has witnessed “knee-jerk alarmism” at the conference and fears the third world will blackmail Western countries over climate change.

Blogger Andrew Light writes at the “Wonk Room” blog about “the American problem” — fear that the Obama administration will not support the forthcoming treaty in Copenhagen if the U.S. Congress cannot agree on a cap and trade system.

Blogger Matt Maiorana of “It’s Getting Hot in Here” expresses anger at statements from developed countries and writes about efforts of the youth movement in Poznan.

Esther Neuhaus, affiliated with Brazilian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), demands that leaders stop talking and take action on the last day of talks. Brazil plans to cut its deforestation by 70 percent by 2017.

OneClimate’s “Virtual Poznan” Web site provides videos from the conference and allows users to pose questions for conference participants.

In the following video, Daniel Nelson of OneWorld asks Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo De Boer some user-submitted questions via a Second Life virtual world.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user benkamorvan under a Creative Commons license.