Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Podcast

The Big Reveal in China’s New Five-Year Plan

Rob checks in with Lauri Myllyvirta, an expert on China’s clean energy economy, on the country’s emissions goals and how the Iran War factors in.

•
Chinese pollution.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

The new draft of China’s five year plan is here, and the news isn’t all good for climate advocates. Although China vows to expand its gigantic “clean energy bases” in the plan, it has actually walked back some of its biggest climate goals since 2021. The new plan also contains a mysterious — and politically convenient — change to one of its most important emissions estimates.

On this episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Lauri Myllyvirta, the lead analyst and co-founder of the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and one of the world’s top experts on Chinese emissions outside China. Rob and Lauri discuss whether China is creating a new kind of energy hegemony, what really drives the country’s energy strategy, and how the new war in Iran could affect its plans.

Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.

Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.

Here is an excerpt from their conversation:

Robinson Meyer: Let’s get into this question about the Chinese emissions target. So China, I think, has a reputation internationally for always meeting its emission targets, and for setting emissions targets that it can hit. And when it’s sometimes conservative in its targets, there’s a sense that, okay, well, it is being conservative, but that’s because it’s very focused on setting targets that it can hit. But it sounds like in the run up to this report, it became clear that China was not going to hit its 2030 target under the Paris Agreement. And so, as you write, it basically revised its own accounting metric. Can you just describe what happened there and how it was able to change its accounting midstream, basically?

Lauri Myllyvirta: I’ll start with what is known. China has been reporting on reductions in carbon intensity. Carbon intensity is the amount of CO2 per unit of GDP. And so if emissions stay flat, GDP goes up by 5%, carbon intensity falls by a bit less than 5% in a year.

Meyer: My understanding — and maybe this is wrong — is that up until 2030, the bulk of its emissions targets under the Paris Agreement, its nationally determined contributions, are phrased in the terms of carbon intensity, not in the terms of like, here’s what our national emissions target is going to be. They were primarily talking about, our big target is reducing the carbon intensity of our economy, rather than hitting some kind of tons per year goal that the U.S. and Europe and a lot of other countries adopted.

Myllyvirta: For sure. So for 2020 and 2030, China has had a few different targets, but the one that is most closely related to emissions — and in that sense, the cornerstone target — is carbon intensity. And so until 2020, China was overachieving that target. But then during the COVID and Zero COVID period, China went through a period of very energy-intensive and carbon-intensive growth with the service industries and other less energy-intensive industries were obviously not doing great. So that meant that carbon intensity started falling much more slowly. CO2 emissions grew faster during that period, at least according to the numbers that China had reported.

So they had been reporting carbon intensity reductions every year. And if you take the numbers from 2021 to 2025, they add up to a reduction of about 12% in China’s carbon intensity over that five-year period. And the target was 18% — that’s what they needed to get on track to, or stay on track to the 2030 carbon intensity target, and so that means that if you have a shortfall of six percentage points during these five years, then the target for the next five years becomes very demanding.

But so then along comes this new five-year plan, and it says that we achieved a reduction of 17.7% instead of the 12-point-something percent. So that is a huge revision. If you rephrase that in emission terms, it means that earlier China had said that their emissions over this five year period had increased about 13% in absolute terms. And now they say the increase was only 6%. So half of the emission growth disappeared. So this is what we know for a fact. The less clear part is what is this revision based on?

You can find a full transcript of the episode here.

Mentioned:

Previously on Shift Key: Have China’s Emissions Already Peaked?

China’s 15th Five-Year Plan — Implications for climate and energy transition, by Lauri Myllyvirta and Belinda Schäpe

China Can’t Decide If It Wants to Be the World’s First ‘Electrostate’

This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …

Accelerate your clean energy career with Yale’s online certificate programs. Explore the 10-month Financing and Deploying Clean Energy program or the 5-month Clean and Equitable Energy Development program. Use referral code HeatMap26 and get your application in by the priority deadline for $500 off tuition to one of Yale’s online certificate programs in clean energy. Learn more at cbey.yale.edu/online-learning-opportunities.

Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.

🔒

You’ve reached your free article limit

Subscribe to Heatmap News for unlimited access to daily energy and climate coverage.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
A data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.

My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has a fascinating story today about Net Power, an energy and power development company whose technology once seemed key to decarbonizing the country’s electricity grid.

Keep reading...Show less
Energy

Net Power Surrendered Its Clean Dreams to Data Center Demand

The zero-emission pioneer is doing the dirty work for the AI boom.

A gas plant and a data center.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

All kinds of companies have refashioned themselves to exploit the AI boom. A bitcoin miner became a data center developer, a shoemaker is building GPUs, and an electric vehicle company is integrating its powertrains into server racks.

Now, a company that once aspired to build one of the lowest-emitting power plants has pivoted to building one of the dirtiest in order to meet data centers’ requirement for speed to power above all. Net Power was founded to pioneer a new form of natural gas power plant with zero emissions, but it has given up on that technology and recently acquired 10 natural gas reciprocating engines that it plans to co-locate with a data center on the site intended for its first commercial plant.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

The Surprisingly Exciting Race to Be California’s Next Insurance Commissioner

Ben Allen wants to reform the existing market. Jane Kim wants a revolution.

California Insurance Commissioner candidates.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images, Ben Allen, Jane Kim

From Crescent City to Coronado, California voters are facing decisions on a down-ballot strewn with over a dozen propositions and a series of statewide Democrat-versus-Republican races with mostly foregone conclusions.

And then there’s the insurance commissioner.

In the race to oversee California’s insurance market, a $452 billion-in-premium-volume monster imperiled by insurer defections and disaster risks, Democratic State Senator Ben Allen, whose district includes Pacific Palisades, is facing off against Jane Kim, a progressive former San Francisco supervisor.

Kim has the support of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders — it’s the first thing you see about her when you Google her campaign. She previously served as his California political director during the 2020 presidential race, and she appeared earlier this month at an event with the senator in support of the state’s proposed billionaire wealth tax.

Allen, by contrast, won the endorsement of the state’s Democratic Party and its two incumbent senators.

There has been little public polling of the race, but one September survey showed Kim leading Allen 25% to 18%, with more than half the electorate undecided.

“My opponent and I are not even running for the same office,” Kim told me. “He’s running for what this office used to be, and I’m running for what this office could be.”

Allen wasn’t worried about Kim’s characterization in my interview with him, telling me, “I want to fix the market that we have and make it work. My opponent wants to build a new state insurer that nobody has priced.”

Keep reading...Show less