Will China lead the green revolution?
Filed under: Energy, Technology, Economy
For anyone who watched the recent speeches by U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao at the United Nations, the difference between the character of their content was remarkable. Obama failed to give specific promises on just about anything. Instead, he boasted that his stimulus package had returned the U.S. to a leadership role in the global climate change debate. How's that? It showered $80 billion in U.S. funds on cleaner technology development and production facilities, he said. Hu was more concrete, saying China would plant 150,000 square miles of trees, an area roughly the size of Montana. He also said renewable sources would produce 15 percent of the Middle Kingdom's energy by 2020, according to the AP. What's more, Hu also pledged to slow the growth of China's emissions. Although this last pledge was a bit squishy, it looked positively robust compared to Obama's lack of specificity on things green.
China's political and economic star has been rising for some time. The UN Climate Summit that precedes the big climate-change summit in Denmark later this year has led observers to ask whether China will lead the green revolution and leave the U.S. in the dust?
It certainly is beginning to look more that way. According to a McKinsey report, China reduced carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions for every unit of GDP output by 4.9 percent per year on average over the past 15 years. That compares to a much smaller 1.7 per cent per unit decrease by the United States. China achieved this through government initiatives and industry-wide efforts that can only be achieved through a command economy.
Or can they? A quick look back through U.S. history clearly shows a number of massive infrastructure initiatives that changed the economic course of this country. The Homestead Act, a huge subsidy for pioneers willing to stake a claim far from population centers on the Atlantic Coast in the 19th century, created a population diaspora that later shaped the rural landscape of America.
In the wake of World War II, President Dwight D. Eisenhower mandated the construction of a massive highway system with nearly 50,000 miles of pavement covering the landscape in all 50 states. The goal of the system was to enable the U.S. to easily move troops and equipment across the country. The net effect, however, was to create an economic artery system that allowed for the easy transport of huge quantities of goods via trucks, a key growth driver for the U.S. economy.
Cut-rate leases on large tracts of federally controlled land and sea, as well as other government bennies, have spurred the development of the current U.S. energy infrastructure, a system that still, by some measures, favors coal and oil producers. These producers get greater subsidies than their cleaner, greener counterparts in solar, wind and geothermal.
And then there was the Internet, a large program sponsored by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. This early computer network later morphed not only into a national Internet, but also provided a model for the global Internet that girdles the world in a river of valuable information.
Granted, these examples are selective. But they do imply that perhaps free markets are not the best mechanisms for achieving the wrenching structural change. That's essentially what's required to move away from an oil-based economy and towards renewables that don't rely on politically unstable or hostile trading partners.
Hu definitely gets that part. The Chinese government has offered massive subsidies to municipalities mounting solar energy power plants. Such subsidies, in part, are why China, and not the West, is boasting some of the largest renewable energy installations. China will also be an early adopter in things like clean coal technology, a field where U.S. utilities have trailed the Middle Kingdom, as they awaited more firm information from the government on carbon credits markets and cap-and-trade laws.
Legal uncertainty can be better than command economics that lead down a blind alley. And subsidies do encourage inefficiency. But China, with its enormous foreign currency kitty and massive trade surplus, can afford to play around.
The U.S., running massive deficits and paying for two expensive wars, has already voted with its wallet by fighting Al Qaeda phantoms and propping up failing banks rather than investing money in a new green power grid. The weaknesses in the U.S. political system are also on full display in this arena. Riven by bipartisan bickering, the U.S. Congress has significantly lagged other countries in its ability to pass meaningful climate-change legislation.
This is why Obama was unable to offer up any real plan before the UN this week. In the past, a politician like Eisenhower would have been able to convince Congress that a big highway spending bill (the federal government covered 90 percent of the original cost) was, in the long run, good for everyone. Those days appear to be gone.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Hu has no problem whatsoever, not only communicating, but also following through. For that reason, it is entirely possible that China, and not America, will lead the world towards a greener future -- and possibly speed the ongoing hegemonic power shift from west to east.
Why is Oprah going to cable? Hint: It's nothing to get teary about
Kisses from Hershey: Candymaker may court Cadbury with $17 billion bid
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-23-2009 @ 11:57PM
Phil said...
So?
(1) It is arrogance to assume we need to be a world leader at EVERYTHING.
(2) America's environmental consciousness began over forty years ago. China's was just a few of years ago [and then only because of a massive influx of CAPITALIST ideas that stirred the supply and demand market ideas of capitalism rather than communism, the concept of which this article seems to be extolling].
(3) It is easier to cut where ther have been on cuts and only growth in the past. It is more difficult to cut in areas where general care is already practiced, and where cuts have been considered in every area practically possible over the past four decades.
So of course China will be able to decrease their carbon outputs better than any other country. It has been a vile offender for the better part of the past fifty years!
I do applaud the current effort in China at improving the quality of air and water and foods now in China. I also applaud the United States for continuing to seek was to improve.
But to say China is now better at it is to ignore the consciencious factories and consumers of the United States for the past forty year! Unfair to say the least, deceptive to be more precise.
GO, China! Go USA! Everyone who strives to improve should be encouraged.
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 12:07AM
Phil said...
Sorry...that should have read:
(3) It is easier to cut where THERE have been NO cuts and only growth in the past.
I do applaud the current effort in China at improving the quality of air and water and foods now in China. I also applaud the United States for continuing to seek WAYS to improve.
9-24-2009 @ 1:33AM
phloridaphil said...
It is sad that we have old relics like republicans stuck in the 50s and determined to see Obama fail. If we dont get moving on becoming the green leader in production terms, we will see jobs being created in China at our expense. The Chinese aren't stupid. They know where future profits will come. But no, we have the Palins of the world and the Boehners of the world living in a cave while Obama tries to drag them into the 2000's never mind 2009. Sad.
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 6:58AM
MyKisa said...
....net metering is accepted and encouraged nationwide in China....in US it is in some states and limited at that
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 8:14AM
Richard Hoder said...
The writer and some comments have been politicizing this issue. I have had a presence in China for 14 years and had been a guest professor at Suzhou Invironmrntal Protection College in the late 90's. They were just in their infancy in training young people to enter the field. They were well aware of the polution and the need for change at that time, but needed properly trained people to lead the changes. These same young people are now in positions of influence to make decisions on cleaning up the polution that definately exists, but it does require government support.
During that same time the government shut down over 1200 businesses in Wuhan for polluting in one fell swoop. The businesses had to rectify their problem or they couldn't continue doing business. The chinese government will make dramatic moves to show examples of the desired result they want, but I can't imagine our government doing such a thing. Can you imagine the field day the attorneys would have and after ten or twenty years the problem still wouldn't be resolved.
It will take years before the Chinese will get to the level of green that we are presently at. Go to their cities and look at the Canals you can't see below six inches of the surface. Breathe the polluted air and then let them catch up to the level of Japan or the USA before you start comparing apples to apples. Right now the author is comparing apples to pears.
Reply