China’s Commitment to Green Tech: Six Out of Seven Ain’t Bad
Every day we read about the global dominance that China is achieving in cleantech, and wish the US could get on the stick as well. Here’s a link to a wonderful presentation by HSBC that explicates China’s commitment to green technologies nicely.
China’s 12th Five Year Plan includes seven Strategic Emerging Industries (SEI), six of which are related to clean energy and sustainability. While we in the US are arguing about trivia and eviscerating our environmental regulations, the Chinese will be investing as much as $1.5 trillion between now and 2020 in:
1) Energy saving and environmental protection
2) New energy, e.g., renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture
3) New materials (LED lighting, building materials)
4) High-end equipment manufacturing, e.g., high-speed railway
5) New-energy vehicles (EV, PHEV, energy-efficient vehicles, batteries)
6) Next generation IT, e.g., smart grid
Coincidentally, our July 2011 survey of 2GreenEnergy visitors dealt with China, and the report summarizing the results will be available soon.
In preparing the report, I note that there are two main currents running through participants’ responses. First, it’s clear that respondents are acutely aware of and excited about the business potential that China represents generally. The majority of participants are very interested in the prospects of entering large markets that seem to be expanding without limit. And in addition to the obvious business benefits to be realized, there are social benefits as well, as growth in clean energy is good for everyone, regardless of its source.
To a great degree this enthusiasm is fueled by the lethargy that respondents perceive in the US. “China is where the real money and the real action is,” someone told me recently. “While the US is sitting around arguing, the Chinese are becoming world leaders.”
However, respondents express a great number of different and very serious concerns. For all the upside potential that China represents, respondents see a great deal of practical limitation: poor quality; issues with communication and cross-cultural understanding, and contract law that make conflict resolution quite difficult and intellectual property hard to protect.
And this is more than a practical issue. Although there wasn’t a single question in the survey that provoked this type of thinking, many volunteered moral issues. During the course of conducting the survey, several people wrote in and amplified what they had written in the questionnaire:
- “Why aren’t you asking about sustainability or human rights?”
- “Americans want to make money, and are unconcerned about dealing with a culture that has no regard for the value of a human life.”
So where will this all go, given this fairly complicated calculus? And why is the US hell-bent on sitting on the sidelines while other countries lead the way to our energy future?
I’m still looking for insight, and reason for hope. As a “citizen of the world,” it’s hard to disagree with those respondents who say: “If the US doesn’t understand the value of clean energy, that’s too bad, but we need to be cheering for any country that is making renewables happen.” Yet as an American, I bow my head in shame and sadness at the fact that we have no energy policy, and no voice of centrist reason moving clean energy forward in a calm, fair, and reasoned way.
I’m reminded of the cartoon in which a scientist is presenting his audience with two equations, between which he’s scrawled: “MIRACLE OCCURS HERE.” Apparently, that’s what will be required.
American investors wants to try new technology abroad and does not support the propagation of brown technology. Innovation of technology are supported in China hence they will prosper more. American capitalist does not have foresight on which technology will eventually domineering the near future.
Some regions “get it” For example, while Rep. Joe Barton whines about the demise of 100 yr-old lightbulb tech, the mayor of San Antonio is leading his city in all the directions – for clean air and cleantech jobs. Check out Science Friday for details.
I do not approve of totally phasing out incandescent light bulbs.
Although incandescent light bulbs should not provide more than a small fraction of our lighting, incandescent lighting is the only type of lighting that makes sense in places where the lighting is used only briefly or seldom, such as in closets.
Rather than making incandescent lights unavailable, it should be made easier for the public to identify very high quality compact fluorescent lights and traditional fluorescent tubes. That would eliminate the legitimate complaints that the public has about the quality of fluorescent lighting and would cause the public to purchase fluorescent lamps (both CFLs and traditional tubes) by choice.
The National Electrical Code does not allow incandescent light bulbs in closets because they constitute a fire hazard in such locations.
Craig,
Notice that #1 in the list is “Energy Saving & Environmental Protection”. This deserves first position and neither necessarily mean promoting renewable energies. We could cut huge amounts of our current conventional energy usage without any RE.
The US most common policy and practice since 2000 (what I call “new wave”) is to promote and subsidize RE whether or not there is any reduction in energy use or pollution. That’s why we’re not seeing much reduction in coal or oil burning despite the record-breaking pace of RE implementation. If we actually demanded and measured progress by how much less coal and oil was burned, we’d be implementing and doing quite differently from the current methods. Instead the RE lobbying and advocating in the new wave is focused on measuring and reporting progress according to how much RE in implemented, not by how much conventional energy use results. This is wrong from an energy standpoint, but lobbying is abt jobs and profits, not smart energy engineeering or wise planning.
My 2nd point is that it is definitely not sustainable or affordable to borrow and borrow, then borrow even more to implement any kind of so-called sustainable future. USA is hugely in debt and getting more so daily. China is not in debt, instead sitting on huge surpluses. So it makes perfect sense for China to invest its surpluses wisely.
I have paid cash for 100% of all the conservation, efficiency and renewables I have implemented in my last 2 homes and my business. I had to do it in phases to make the cash outlays affordable. I cut how much I used first, since that’s the lowest cost way to achieve conventional energy reductions AND to reduce RE cost. Reducing how much you use is the best way to reduce how much RE you need. This truth has just abt disappeared in our current policies and programs which rely on subsidies instead.
John, you may be the exception. There are many academic reports, repeated over time, that on a macro scale show increases in demand in response to successful energy efficiency projects. It may seem counter-intuitive, and many of the authors or analysts give a number of reasons. It also follows other economic behavior related to commodity supply, etc.
It has been at least a year and a half since I’ve seen much real data on China. But, it’s my recollection that for all they spend on renewable energy technology in total, they will still be the dominant and fastest growing consumer of coal for years to come. Sure, since the country centrally plans all of its industry, it is able to easily force the direction as it chooses. However, the “leaders” are still being realistic about factors that control other, more open systems, primarily cost. So, again, it’s my recollection that predictions are that China will be the prime future market for many fossil-fueled facilities and especially nuclear facilities. They must deliver reasonably priced energy in order to support an exploding economy.
Their planners are smart, however, in fostering their local markets as you describe in order to pull through technology to be leveraged globally. But, that has been the Chinese way for at least a generation. It is the way they have extracted other industries from the grip of the Japanese, the consumer electronics market being a prime example. And the Japanese fought hard to minimize the transition. Can we implement enough protectionist regulations to compete? Doubtful.
Where I think the U.S. has a strong advantage is in technology innovation and creation. Following the Japanese model, we should be as adept as they at staying ahead and taking advantage by participating in the most advanced end of an industry. The Chinese, to date, have proven they are not as interested in “playing” in the early stages of the product/technology maturity cycle. Rather, they prefer to manufacture and build, as that is where they can employ greater numbers, requiring lesser skills. It’s not to say they don’t develop and invent, but they rarely are very influential or competitive in the most innovative phases. Said another way, they will always win by improving existing on existing technology and building many units.
Meanwhile, our politics still focus primarily, though not exclusively, on rewarding cronies and subsidizing installations. Much of that money has benefited others, including the Chinese. Our policy should be focused much more on fostering the early stages of product development.
Finally, how can you cite “eviscerating environmental regulations” as a factor in our lack of competitiveness, when China has a horrible record and is arguably using their “green” investments as a shield for now?
China is committed to dominance in everything important, including green-tech. The U.S. is committed to blathering about green-tech the environment and politics and spending as much time as possible in front of the boob-tube watching professional sports or some other type of idle entertainment. It’s very clear to me that the U.S. is in free fall decline and there isn’t enough grit, gumption, pioneering spirit nor understanding of the peril we are in left to fill a single covered wagon like the pioneers once used to travel across the west in.
I cannot agree more. Ban computer games, texting, Facebook, Tweeter, cellphone use in classrooms, brain-washing reality TV shows – and make young generations to really learn something useful in life and use computers and TV for education not endless entertainment.
Look what happened in the Middle East. They claim their stupid revolutions were driven by too many young educated people they have, using social media to organize. Educated in what? Now they realize they are not able to govern a country because they know nothing useful and constructive. Just texting, tweeting, etc.
America failed to parenting and educating young generations. Consequences are yet to come.
Absolutely, back to learning by rote! Corporal punishment! Why should lazy children, be denied the right to work at the age of 7? That’ll get the labour cost’s in factories and mines back to being competitive!
Montgomery Burns
Institute for Curmudgeonly Misers
If you want alternative energy to happen you need a National Energy Policy that will tax gasoline and dirty coal generated electricity so that Status Quo becomes more expensive than newer alternative energy. You do not need the US taxpayers going into further debt when a tax will provide the funds needed to invest in the technology PLUS the People will want it. Why invest billions when energy is so cheap and people can choose lower cost status quo. China can do what they want because it is not a democracy. The Government runs everything.
Craig, In the last 14 years I have participated in facilitating over $4.7 Billion in trade with the PRC.
The PRC does have some far sighted and intelligent leaders in every sector of its economy and society. Unlike the USSR after Stalin, the PRC after Mao was fortunate to have a reformist leader like Deng Xiaoping. As a result of his influence the PRC began the social, political and economic reforms necessary to create a relatively free market economy.
However, it’s a mistake for the US and western nations ,to imagine that PRC decision making processes bear any similarity to Western culture. Consider the following:
1)The PRC legal system is not just a bit different. The PRC legal structure reflects completely different basic tenets.. These differences are not created by just corruption, or ‘communism’, they are much older and deeper, and are the product of a fundamentally different set of principles, which some westerners, in their well-meaning conceit, think they understand.
2) The PRC is suspicious of innovation of individual creativity. Conformity is a trait rigorously encouraged educationally. The concept of getting the right proscribed answer, instead of intellectual curiosity, is the hallmark of the student of merit in the PRC system.
3) Internally, the Peoples Liberation Army is not answerable to the PRC as a nation, but is an organ of the Communist Party. So are the Security Agencies.
4) Vast differences and tensions exist between many of the PRC provinces. The citizens of the PRC seldom allow foreigners to become aware of just how deep these divides are. Not just for fear of reprisals from the central government, but more from an age old Chinese cultural dislike of allowing outsiders into Chinese affairs.
5) Over 70% of all the PRC’s manufactured exports are controlled by citizens of the ROC, (Taiwan). Attempts by the PRC authorities to rectify this situation have resulted in enormous losses, by the PRC.
6) The PRC is undertaking a major expansion and modernisation of its naval fleet. The strategy is to secure supply of raw materials. The PRC is contemplating a Naval base in Cuba.
7) The PRC authorities have no moral or social conscience in relation to ‘Green’ technology. PRC leaders see ‘green’ technology investment as having only two purposes. The first is of immeasurable propaganda value, to a gullible West who really want to believe that PRC claims are true. The second is that some ‘green’ technology will serve to relieve certain pressures on the PRC economy and provide a potential to control a new and rapidly expanding industry.
8) PRC is building the world’s largest capacity for coal-fired power generation. ‘Green’ technologies and all environmental practises are simply ignored in any economic consideration, propaganda is cheaper! Pollution is rampant in North and Western China to a degree unimaginable in the west.
9) The world’s largest single climate change polluting industry is shipping. The PRC is the most active major nation demanding ‘waivers’ for any restriction of the use of bunker oil in new ship design. The PRC simply fails to report at least 40% of all its merchant fleets emissions. (The equivalent of the pollution 5 billion+ cars!)
The concept of any sincere consideration by the PRC government of environmental considerations is ludicrous. But with an economy given a free ride by the west, for so long, and more than 600 million people entering then consumer middle class, it’s hardly surprising that the PRC seems a saviour to resource exporting nations, and traders wanting to do business in this huge expanding market.
Whether the USA understands it or not, the US is locked into the beginning of a long trade war with the PRC. There can be no appeasement. Beijing sees no value in anything but a pretence for western values. The US must strengthen it’s allies, and take the lead in imposing a new level playing field with its trading rivals, before India joins the field of conflict!
Sitting ’round saying how nice everything is in the PRC, and hoping the Wolf will be a benefactor, is foolish. Morality doesn’t count. The PRC Wolf is at the US door. At the moment, the US has loyal and strong allies, but US ineptitude and compromise will weaken those bonds, and the US isolated will become too weak to exert the moral and economic leadership the planet desperately needs.
Holy mackerel, Marcopolo. That’s fascinating — and extremely credible to me. I learned a great deal from this.
No wonder you use a pseudonym!
Craig, don’t get me wrong, I like the Chinese!
If I were a young citizen of the PRC, I would consider my governments determination to see the PRC as the pre-eminent nation of the world admirable. Perhaps it’s fortunate that some of the PRC’s power brokers took fright at the direction the former President Jiang Zemin, was headed and decided that his erratic cult of personality, corruption, and military belligerence was dangerously counter-productive.
Even so it’s difficult for more moderate and conservatively pragmatic leaders like Hu Jintao, to reverse some of the disasters perpetrated by Jaing and his supporters. The threat of military action against the ROC, brought a belligerent response from hard line anti-communists in South Korea. While South Korea is a relatively small nation, the PRC would be very loath to enter into conflict with such a heavily armed and determined opponent.
Jaing, along with his most ardent supporters, brutally suppressed the otherwise harmless, Falun Gong movement. It is a measure of the difference in PRC thinking from the West, that although both Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, originally opposed the persecution, correctly assuming that the suppression was all about Jaing’s bid to increase his power and corrupt control of all organisations in Chinese society, neither can bring themselves to allow the PRC to publicly admit or wind down the persecution.
Partly this can be explained because of the fear that it may open a Pandora’s box of corruption and abuse ranging from Tibet to massive corruption within the PLA. Vast area’s of previously arable land have become deserts or dangerously polluted. Government ineptitude and cover-ups are systemic in the PRC. But, mostly, it’s just that the PRC can’t lose face. The rising tide of national sentiment and jingoistic patriotism among the young in the PRC, is viewed by the Politburo as very dangerous and could easily erupt to Japanese style, military adventurous,policies.
The most obvious instance of this unease is the thwarting of the PRC attempt to persuade Qaddafi to switch Libya’s oil output to the PRC. Total Oil , (with French secret service military backing), retaliated by actively de-stabilising the Libyan government. The subsequent intervention by Nato and the US is seen by the PRC as a manoeuvre to contain PRC energy supply. The PRC, sent a warship to Libya, but after witnessing the massive Nato deployment, Beijing pragmatically opened talks with the rebels.
However, this has considerably assisted those in the PRC demanding a massive expansion of PRC military might.
A rising young PRC politician, laughed when I remarked that being President of the PRC must be like trying to herd cats! He replied, “more like trying to steer an obstinate Elephant by the ears!”
Very interesting document about the future of clean technologies in China. But an important question is: When economy and democracy will go togheter in China? It is difficult to get a real sustainability without social improvement.