# Wow, China takes the bull by the horns!



## webbie (Aug 9, 2010)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/business/energy-environment/10yuan.html?src=busln
"The current Chinese five-year plan calls for using 20 percent less energy this year for each unit of economic output than in 2005."
"President Hu Jintao  late last year called for China to reduce its carbon emissions per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels."

Sometimes there are benefits, as GW so famously stated, of having a dictatorship!

I would wager, though, that the USA could do better if we all got behind a plan. However, as it stands now, the conflicting interests are stopping us dead in the water.


----------



## Jags (Aug 9, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> However, as it stands now, the conflicting interests are stopping us dead in the water.



Agreed - I really wish we would get off of dead center and make it happen.


----------



## fossil (Aug 9, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> ...as it stands now, the conflicting interests are stopping us dead in the water.



As they are on pretty much _every_ issue of import to the people of this country.   :shut:


----------



## pyper (Aug 9, 2010)

In the House of Representatives the leadership seems rather disinclined to pass any legislation that has any chance of attracting more than the bare minimum number of votes in the Senate.

They also seem woefully ignorant of basic economic concepts. In the short run, it's going to cost money to get greener. What we need is an equitable way to pay for it.


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2010)

This was covered from another perspective in our Sunday paper. There is a huge technology expo going on in Shanghai. Wish I could attend. China is telling the world and showing them that they will have the technology of the future. In the meantime we squabble over racism, sordid affairs and political posturing. Our country continues to lose traction here while the rest of the world pulls ahead in the green economy. 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2012565355_chinatech.html


----------



## Wallyworld (Aug 9, 2010)

Wasn't China building a coal fired power plant a week for awhile? I'll believe they'll do anything about their carbon emissions when I see it. 
Here's an article from a couple of years ago, suddenly they see the light?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/chinas-2030-co2/


----------



## pyper (Aug 9, 2010)

Wallyworld said:
			
		

> Wasn't China building a coal fired power plant a week for awhile? I'll believe they'll do anything about their carbon emissions when I see it.



Maybe that was all part of the previous five-year plan: build a bunch of dirty coal plants and then sell carbon offsets for cleaning them up. :lol:


----------



## semipro (Aug 9, 2010)

fossil said:
			
		

> Webmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And it will always be so unless we can keep PAC money out of the pockets of politicians.  Money and legislative votes shouldn't be dependent upon each other.


----------



## Wallyworld (Aug 9, 2010)

pyper said:
			
		

> Wallyworld said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They probably have Al Gore telling them how to make money


----------



## Flatbedford (Aug 9, 2010)

"As China has become increasingly dependent on imported oil and coal, its *national security establishment has become more visibly involved in* energy policy and energy security, including *efforts to improve energy efficiency*."

Maybe we could learn a lesson from them? Imagine other energy solutions than invading oil rich, sovereign states or "Drill Baby Drill"!


----------



## jharkin (Aug 9, 2010)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> This was covered from another perspective in our Sunday paper. There is a huge technology expo going on in Shanghai. Wish I could attend. China is telling the world and showing them that they will have the technology of the future.



You must be thinking of the Shanghai World Expo. Same thing as the old World's fairs of years ago.  

I got the chance to go to it for a  I was in Shanghai for work in May.  Unfortunately I couldn't see many exhibits, due to the enormous crowds the waiting lines for most country pavilions was 3 to 5 hours. the China pavilion, where they are showing off their exploits, is pretty much impossible to get into unless you know some official or go at 5am to wait in line.

What I DID experience of green tech there was a ride on electric buses they are using to ferry people around the expo sites. I think I almost died in the shoving crowd trying to get on said bus however.

http://en.expo2010.cn/

Shanghai itself is a blast to visit. The place is growing like gangbusters and everywhere you look you are surrounded by gadgets. New  skyscrapers go up yearly, the subways are amazing, heck I even rode in a taxi with touch screen LCD entertainment for the passengers.

But on the flip side, the air has the same stink of smog that Mumbai does. And this is with the local factories *shut down* (just like they did for the Olympics) Don't forget that in spite of all their green efforts they still burn more coal every year than all the western nations combined.

-Jeremy


----------



## jharkin (Aug 9, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> Don't forget that in spite of all their green efforts they still burn more coal every year than all the western nations combined.



Actually, I was wrong.  Going by EIA data China uses not just more than the western nations, but more than all OECD nations combined. 3.4 billion tons a year vs 2.5 billion for OECD (inc. ~1billion USA)

Total world coal usage is 7 billion.


----------



## begreen (Aug 9, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> BeGreen said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, the article focuses on the green technologies being shown at the fair. It's great that you got to visit the expo. 

I wonder if Shanghai smog is more industrial and not quite the same stink as Mumbai? If it's like Delhi, their smog comes in part from a lot of cow dung fires.


----------



## btuser (Aug 9, 2010)

Everything that comes out of China has to be taken with a grain of salt.  Our own media leaves much to be desired, but from talking with people who struggle to verify "official" data in that country the real story is not always the real story.


----------



## zknowlto (Aug 10, 2010)

jharkin said:
			
		

> jharkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not trying to go out of my way to stick up for China, but there are a few things to keep in my mind about it's coal consumption.

1)  China has around four times as many people as the US.  Calculated on a per capita basis, USA is still the number number one coal burner.

2)  China produces about half the world's steel.  USA produces less than 5%.  If you're talking about producing new steel (not recycling old steel) burning coal is the way it's done.  

3)  China has a much less diverse energy portfolio than much of the world.  By US standards, China greatly lacks natural gas and petroleum reserves.  

While I agree that Shanghai's air quality is terrible and the country's investment in green technology may be overstated, I hope that the Chinese are able to reduce, or at least slow, their carbon emissions.


----------



## begreen (Aug 10, 2010)

Good observations blue.


----------



## lowroadacres (Aug 10, 2010)

“President Hu Jintao late last year called for China to reduce its carbon emissions per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.”

When it comes to talking about reductions in emissions in the terms above, unless I am reading it incorrectly, there are two ways to meet the target they are discussing....

A direct cut in emissions right here and now....

or ....

Increase the number of "units of economic output" without adding more emissions.  I would suggest that this is well underway at the rate at which China's economy is growing.

Given that China has built coal fired generating stations like "Quads" cuts firewood it isn't a stretch for them to reduce their emissions per "unit of economic output".

China is playing the game and people will fall for it.

Its a little bit like the look people give me when I tell them I have lost more than 200 pounds over the past 10 years...

The same 20 pounds .... TEN TIMES!


----------



## begreen (Aug 10, 2010)

China is playing the capitalist game of making money. They clearly see the market trends and needs of the next decade. Developing cleaner technologies makes sense given their growth. They benefit solving internal problems of growth and external needs of the world. This is just smart business. Don't be surprised by the number of Chinese cars that start showing up on our shores soon. One of them is already here - Volvo.


----------



## Flatbedford (Aug 10, 2010)

The Communists are getting pretty good at Capitalism.


----------



## begreen (Aug 10, 2010)

The Chinese are a pragmatic society. Communism is a new experiment for them historically. If it doesn't work, they will change it or drop it.


----------



## Wood Duck (Aug 10, 2010)

China works the same way the US and the rest of the world does. The government will set 'goals', but when it comes down to the decision of whether to build a coal plant or a 'green' plant in a city or province, the decision is based on economics unless there is a strict regulation requiring green energy. Did the central government actually require a reduction in CO2 output, or merely set a goal? Without regulations, a government goal in China wouldn't have much more impact than Obama declaring his wish to reduce carbon emissions in the US.

I have visited a bunch of Chinese cities, and the air quality is bad in all of them. I think Shanghai is actually better than average, probably because it is near the coast.


----------



## webbie (Aug 10, 2010)

Check out the article! Apparently, they are shutting down polluters! 

I have little doubt that China will succeed in their efforts to go green...at least on a comparative basis when compared with our per capita directions. 

BG, it's not just capitalism which is driving their economy - it is LACK of laziness and sloth. It's hard for us to compete without hundreds of millions of people willing to work hard. We might be able to survive using the "multiplier" effect - that being one Steve Jobs can prop up perhaps tens of millions of others. At this point, it is the brain power of a relatively few which holds the most promise for holding up the US Economy....or so it seems.


----------



## btuser (Aug 11, 2010)

I have to disagree with China's reasons for wanting to go green. I feel it has less to do with character and more to do with an almost total lack of native resources. They import food, raw material, and most of all OIL!! They're leaning heavy on the green train because its do or die. 1.3 billion people all looking for 2 cars, meat 3x day, and a better life for their children. 

One thing to think about with China is the NEED for growth, because there is no alternative for them other than starving.  With the fallout of the 1950's encouragement of as many babies as possible, followed by the 1-child policy they are looking at a demographic nightmare that is 4x the size of our baby boomer problem.  Soon 1 in 7 Chinese will be producing for those either too young or too old. Their rapid change towards a market economy has everything to do with this and less to do with some inherent ingenuity they may have.


----------



## webbie (Aug 11, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with China's reasons for wanting to go green. I feel it has less to do with character and more to do with an almost total lack of native resources. They import food, raw material, and most of all OIL!! They're leaning heavy on the green train because its do or die. 1.3 billion people all looking for 2 cars, meat 3x day, and a better life for their children. .



Is that different from US?

We don't have much oil, last time I looked. 

China can buy oil just as easily as the next country, and they have been making deals all over the world.

No, they aren't doing it because they want to sing Kumbaya - but from a business and political and common sense viewpoint, it seems like the smart thing to do. I'm pleased to use the USA heading in the same direction, but we seem to be continually torn about going there - we have massive forces in this country fighting against increased energy efficiency and more investment in alt energy. 

As I mentioned, a dictatorship can be an advantage in such cases - because they can TELL the a-holes what to do (shut down or clean up that factory).

In 20 years they might be selling us all the machines they invent. That would be sad.


----------



## begreen (Aug 11, 2010)

China can plan ahead and make commitments for the next 5, 10, 20 years. The US can no longer plan for more than a year or two if even that. It's all based on the next election cycle or next FOX broadcast now.


----------



## webbie (Aug 11, 2010)

Yeah, that's the problem.

I'm a bit depressed about it at this point. Looking around I truly feel that the politics, which is really BUSINESS, is unlikely to change in this country during my lifetime. It's pretty much over - the corporations have won. Sad, but true.

Sure, this country is big enough that there will be some good advances happening on a local, regional or state basis - but as a whole I really doubt that our current chaos can solve anything.

Some big accomplishments do take cooperation - and we are at a disadvantage because divide and conquer has been the name of the game for the last 20 year or so (maybe longer).


----------



## btuser (Aug 11, 2010)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> China can buy oil just as easily as the next country, and they have been making deals all over the world......
> 
> In 20 years they might be selling us all the machines they invent. That would be sad.



As long as they're still using American dollars to do either or both it won't matter how much they buy or what they sell us, and as long as we control a majority of the world's reserves either through financial or millitary force that will continue to happen.    Just wait untill they invent the Chinese soccer mom, then they'll be getting a tatse of a TRUE dictator!  Neither politial system is based on choice.  They have a one party system, and what we have is an appearance of choice.   Ok, sorry to veer off track.

I don't think we're making serious turns towards renewables.  I think its about getting rebates and gifts from federal and state governments.  Just look at what happened to 1 trillion dollars in spending-GONE!   What could we have done with that other than pay for bloated budgets.   It also equals about the total of our currency's reserves China holds over our heads.


----------



## webbie (Aug 11, 2010)

Do you think we control a majority of the worlds reserves? 

As to rebates, etc. that is exactly how Germany just installed solar electric with the power of 4 Nuclear plants. How did you picture that things actually get done - where the rubber meets the road? 

As I have said and shown before, we have been subsidizing private vehicles (cars and trucks) and their infrastructure for almost a century.....and also giving tax credits to oil and gas drilling companies. The fact is that government, by either commission or omission, DOES create the playing field which moves energy policy. It would have been very difficult to build the TVA or Hoover & Bonnevile Dams without Government paying for them. 

Bt, I think you are coming at this with the typical conservative ideal - that is, first starting with the premise that any government spending must be bad, and then making the facts fit your view! History shows otherwise. Many (maybe even MOST) major advance in our country have been due to all that pork you so lament. Examples include:

1. The Steamboat - state monopolies as well as military contracts given to Fulton and friends.
2. The Erie and other canals - financed and built by the state.
3. The Transcontinental RR - a project of the Federal Government.
4. The Telegraph (and by extension the telephone, the internet, etc.) - Again, financed by Congress.
5. The US road system - interstates - financed by government of states..and then the federal.
6. TVA, Hoover Dam and hundreds of similar power and development project - yep, Government again.
7. Other inland and port navigation and dredging - yep....big bad government.
8. Space - Government pork project
9. Public health, disease prevention, vaccination - yeah, government meddling again.

I could go on, but you get the picture! Oh, and BTW, which Trillion are you talking about? If you are talking about the 2009 Obama stim:
1. total amount was about 800 billion.
2. over 300 billion of that was tax cuts, which went into your pocket and mine.
3. Vast sums are for infrastructure - roads, bridges, etc. which are still being worked on and will last for many years or decades.
4. Other sums kept teachers on the job as well as police, etc.
5. Other sums provided business incentives and tax credits
6. Large sums went for medical and health care

I'm sure there are many other parts, and the money given out so far is only about 1/2 of that - here, keep track of it:
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

The problem I see is exemplified in your critique of rebates, etc.
This is like complaining about hiring a painter, but then lamenting that your house is not painted! There has to be somewhere where reality translates into action, and rebates to consumers is one. Tax credits to business is another. Loan guarantees are yet another. All of these are happening to a small extent - small in relation to our overall economic and energy picture. 

This is no Manhattan Project of energy...and IMHO that is the scale we should be thinking along. 

The idea that we still control the worlds oil through American dollars and military might seems dated to me - but I could be wrong.


----------



## lowroadacres (Aug 11, 2010)

While I may not be a particularly learned individual regarding the finer points of world politics I would suggest that concerning anything that China says it is doing regarding pollution and the environment needs to be tempered.

It was not that long ago that Beijing hosted the Olympics.  If I recall correctly there was much to do about the fact that in order to get air that was breathable during the games there were entire tracts of the country where the industrial areas were shut down for weeks prior to the games to ensure that the smog would drift off.

This was also the country that painted lawn areas to make certain that the venues "looked" perfect.

Now don't get me wrong, Western Culture is in decline and has been for a significant amount of time.

History shows us that no culture can successfully navigate periods of either prosperity or power forever. North America, Europe, Asia are not exempt from this reality.

When our part of the country, and this would be the prairie region of Western Canada, began the positive move towards electrification of every home things began to change rapidly.  Suddenly things like true central heat were possible and conveniences began to appear.

While I am not a luddite at all I would suggest that much of North America's challenges, particularly with the environment, are because of the concentration of waste and emissions around those areas where population has clustered in unsustainable numbers.   The other places where the environment is at risk are those areas where we draw hard upon resources (ie/mining, oil production, large scale livestock production) to fuel, feed, and take care of the large population concentrations.

I am still of the firm belief that this quote from Eisenhower can also be said about Energy use and production......

"Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field."  ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Without trying to sound trite as I point to myself...... How about we North Americans learn to buy less from polluters, try to use less power ourselves, grow more of our own food and quit empowering the corporate machine that churns out the Hollywood pap that makes the rest of the world want to be just like us.

There is a reason that the Amish are some of the healthiest people in the world.  And trust me this morning I am pointing at myself as I am in need of a good reminder.


----------



## jharkin (Aug 11, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> One thing to think about with China is the NEED for growth, because there is no alternative for them other than starving.



I seemed to have stirred up things with my comments about China and coal. I was just making some observations of what I saw when I was briefly there.


The bigger problem is that this NEED FOR GROWTH is eventually going to kill us all. Its not just CHina, its the US and all the rest of the world too. OUr eceonomy needs growth to function. Without growth you have contraction, recession, hyperinflation or deflation and then hte whole sytem comes apart.

 So what happens as our natural resources - oil, coal, precious metals, topsoil, etc each start to run out one by one? Might be next year, or next decade, or maybe next century but it is going to happen.

Contrary to what economists seem to believe you cant keep economic growth going indefinitely with finite resources.


----------



## begreen (Aug 11, 2010)

Unlimited growth is a fallacy and a coverup for outright theft from the next generations. Without sustainable growth or stasis, we will soon run out of resources necessary for growth and eventually, survival. Then it will be the bacteria, viruses and cockroaches that carry on. Soylent green tea anyone?


----------



## yanksforever (Aug 11, 2010)

pyper said:
			
		

> In the House of Representatives the leadership seems rather disinclined to pass any legislation that has any chance of attracting more than the bare minimum number of votes in the Senate.
> 
> They also seem woefully ignorant of basic economic concepts. In the short run, it's going to cost money to get greener. What we need is an equitable way to pay for it.



You mean the party of "NO"! You'll be hearing more about them in about a year to a year and a half. They say NO to everything...thats why nothing gets done!


----------



## midwestcoast (Aug 11, 2010)

Well I was starting in on a big long post full of stuff that most in this forum have heard before, but instead, here's my take.
The only way we can get our $#*@ together enough to tackle our energy problems is if we recognize an outside threat that's menacing & immediate enough to scare us into setting aside petty differences & getting down to work (hard and fast). Through-out history that's the most common way that people have been brought together in large scale.  
If you ask me, global climate change, resource depletion, on-going mass-extinction... should be more than enough to bring most of the globe together, but it sure ain't happening in this country.  So if America needs a scarier enemy than the possible collapse of human society, hey, why not China?  They are huge, powerful, growing quickly and even Communist!! (sorta).  America, China will kill us (economically speaking) with wind turbines and electric cars!! Uncle Sam Needs You! So pitch-in to increase efficiency, build an alternative energy infrastructure and innovate the technology of the future
Keep pounding those drums for a while & maybe we'll finally get rolling on this. Hopefully we could manage it without purges & internment camps...


----------



## btuser (Aug 11, 2010)

We have no energy problems.  We have (use) more than anyone else.


----------



## begreen (Aug 12, 2010)

btuser said:
			
		

> We have no energy problems.  We have (use) more than anyone else.



Right. But just in case, keep some candles and flashlights handy. 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/08/09/smart.grid/


----------



## btuser (Aug 12, 2010)

b


----------

