China Meteorological Administration: Climate Adaptation “More Realistic and Urgent” than Mitigation for Food Security
06 December 2009
Writing in Qiushi, the official magazine of China’s Central Committee of the Communist Party, China Meteorological Administration (CMA) chief Zheng Guoguang has asserted that “it is more realistic and urgent” for China to adapt to the effects of climate change, rather than focus on mitigation, in its efforts to enhance food security.
Terming climate change “an objective fact”, Guoguang notes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, projected that “extreme meteorological disasters” would become more frequent as well as more acute, and that such events had already increased 500% in frequency by the 1990s as compared to the 1950s.
| The drought situation in China in early February 2009. Source: CMA. Click to enlarge. |
Guoguang estimates that drought in China creates, on average, losses of 30 billion kilograms of grain per year, or about 60% of all of the agricultural losses attributed to natural disaster in China. The drought that has been prevalent in northern China for the last thirty years is not expected to ease for at least a decade, and seasonal drought has appeared in some of the normally “rainfall-abundant” southern provinces.
While CMA has observed the effects of climate change producing “some favorable factors to grain production in parts of China”, such as increased warming in the colder high latitudes, warming is expected to reduce the country’s overall food production. Absent any changes in China’s “grain production mechanism”, crop farming production could fall by 5 to 30 percent.
Adaptation strategies recommended by Guoguang include the banning of biofuels, stockpiling of larger grain reserves to offset annual production fluctuations, and a rapid increase in weather modification strategies such as cloud seeding.
In 2007, China announced that it would increase its artificial rain output to 50 billion tons of rain per year by 2010. At the time, Chinas weather modification efforts, were estimated to employ more than 30,000 people.
Late last month, China announced that it would reduce its carbon intensity per unit of GDP by 40-45% by 2020 against a reference year of 2005, rather than the widely recognized 1990 reference year, but would not set overall greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
Reality check from China?
Will this convince our own naysayers and Gate-fabricators that the world has to do more to try to offset the current climate change trend?
Using (any) productive land to produce biofuel is not one of the best solutions. Using corn is even worse.
Massive electrification of transport vehicles, HVAC, domestic, commercial and industrial usages may be the best way to go.
Massive clean power (Wind, Sun, Waves, Hydro, Geothermal and Nuclear) electrical energy production may also be one of the best solution.
It can be done.
Copenhaggen is just a beginning. The children of the world will demand and get it.
Posted by: HarveyD | 06 December 2009 at 07:52 AM
"Massive electrification of transport vehicles, HVAC, domestic, commercial and industrial usages may be the best way to go."
"Massive clean power (Wind, Sun, Waves, Hydro, Geothermal and Nuclear) electrical energy production may also be one of the best solution."
I agree...but implement through incentives, not taxing & mandating. Allow all companies in the sectors to operate tax-free until further notice. Eliminate sales taxes on their products. For diversified conglomerates (like BP, Chevron, etc.), no taxes on that portion of their operations that are clean & renewable.
Posted by: ejj | 06 December 2009 at 08:26 AM
Harvey did you even read the article? China isnt gona focus on preventing the change they are focusing on dealing with the changes.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 06 December 2009 at 10:00 AM
For each individual country, it is probably indeed more realistic to focus on adaptation than on mitigation. "Let the others focus on mitigation, while I focus on adaptation". But for the international community as a whole, it's probably different. That's why they invented worldwide conventions.
Posted by: Alain | 06 December 2009 at 11:34 AM
In the Chinese technical and scientific politico-jargon, adaptation means a lot more than what we are used to because that's all they are allowed to say.
It is the only way they are allowed to express their findings and warnings. There are no lobbies in China but law and order are supreme, not heresays.
For their scientists to say the environment is potentially affecting current and future crops is going further than they are used to.
To recommend major changes is not in their job description or attritions.
It is not a free for all wild market place society. Gate makers and fabricators are not welcomed.
Posted by: HarveyD | 06 December 2009 at 02:33 PM
.
Gate makers and fabricators are not welcomed.
Whoa!!! We agree! The "scientists" who fabricate data, have models that don't match actual temperatures, and violate the law by not complying with FOIA should be shunned. These corrupt "scientists" have created a mess out of the scientific method with their Climategate fiasco.
It's FINALLY getting through to some of the GLobalwamists. Oh, happy day! Real data (not intertwined data sets in order to make it fit one's wants and/or income stream demands), real science, open/public data. It's not that difficult.
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." - Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading authors of the IPCC report on climate change.
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 06 December 2009 at 03:38 PM
No Harvey.
In the Chinese technical and scientific politico-jargon, they claimed to, but never actually intended to expend any Chinese wealth to help the world fight global warming.
Now they have changed course.
They no longer pretend to believe their efforts could affect climate change.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 06 December 2009 at 04:46 PM
Tom has it right. China gives the finger to "climate change." "We're not gonna starve to satisfy your socialized extortion scheme. We'd rather adapt to higher CO2 levels (reap higher crop output) than slit our manufacturing throats."
What they may not be facing is the incredibly high cost of health care coming to a Chinese clinic near you. The real SO2-4 NOx and particulate pollution from dirty coal plants WILL kill em. But hey, they're starting with a large herd so...
Posted by: Reel$$ | 06 December 2009 at 06:20 PM
"What they may not be facing is the incredibly high cost of health care coming to a Chinese clinic near you. The real SO2-4 NOx and particulate pollution from dirty coal plants WILL kill em. But hey, they're starting with a l"
Herd,
I think you and the likes live in a well and are too paranoid of the the Chinese. They do aspire to a higher standard of living. Just look at how much they copy the western model of living in terms of estate planning. It's just the way to go and it's got nothing to do with communism.
So much for McCarthyism.
Posted by: Peace Hugger | 06 December 2009 at 10:50 PM
The problem with some americans is that everything about communism is bad. Then, maybe we should tell them not to buy our treasuries and bonds and chastise Jimmy Rogers and Warren Buffet and just worship DalaiLamar.
Posted by: Peace Hugger | 06 December 2009 at 10:53 PM
Harvey is still right:
It is already something relevant to read "Terming climate change “an objective fact” ". (see, Goracle? Even communists who see us as corrupt capitalists agree with AGW)
Plus, nobody wants to be seen as revolutionary in this kind of country. Talking about the fact of climate change and talking about its cost is as far as any "normal" citizen can go.
The big shots will then do or not do something worthwhile to fight climate change, but I think they will, because they want to stay diplomatically relevant and it's losing diplomatic capital stupidly not to agree on a plan (especially now Obama said he would come)
Posted by: Simodul | 07 December 2009 at 12:05 AM
Um no they DONT agree with agw they just agree with climate change...
As far as the chinese are concerned its far more prudent to prepare for climate change then it is to spend all that money on fighting what frankly may not be something we can control anyway. They dont want to weaken china just as climate change hammers the world.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 07 December 2009 at 03:49 AM
Hope (work) for the best, but plan for the worst. Has anyone considered that the Chinese may just be pragmatic enough to recognize the Global Warming is coming and that they MAY not be able to stop it while still satisfying their people's economic expectations?
They may just recognize the "tragedy of the commons." They may do all they can to delay climate change, but still prepare for the worst.
Meanwhile Goracle and others are so focused on proving that man does not cause global warming, they would prefer to deny global warming entirely. In the long run, they will be proved wrong, or right. Either way, in the long run we will all be dead. Hopefully, our grandchildren will not.
Posted by: JMartin | 07 December 2009 at 08:11 AM
If you live North (where temperatures have been going up at twice and three times the average global rate) or close to high mountains and/or glaciers and your eyes are still in relative good shape, you cannot avoid to note that things are changing.
Of course it is not everybody who lives in those areas or is capable of seeing the difference if they do live nearby.
Many of us have their eyes wide shut or see only what we want to see.
Unfortunately, it is often an uncurable desease of the mind and they may never change.
Posted by: HarveyD | 07 December 2009 at 12:08 PM
It's CO2 AGW that people now know for a fact is BS. A small handful of self-anointed globalists (a polite term) thought they could convince the conscious world it was all their fault. They have been outed. They are frauds. Common criminals in as much as extortion is a criminal act.
There are still real toxic pollutants. There is real man-made climate variation (clearing rainforest, land use,) but nothing in science confirms man-made CO2 causes global temp rise. Now the Met Office has admitted their data is corrupted - global temp analysis must start anew.
China is simply being very realistic. They want to grow without restraint and will self-regulate real pollution. The health costs of not doing so outweigh the revenue from polluting factories. Don't need a big climate meet in Kobenhaven to grok that.
Posted by: sulleny | 07 December 2009 at 12:33 PM