It occurs to me that my response to Shellenberger & Nordhaus failed to address what they call the "elephant in the environmental room": China. They say that environmentalists ignore the subject and corporatists obsess over it for the same reason -- it illustrates the futility of domestic carbon regulations (in isolation). China, they say, is not going to impose regulatory restrictions that will slow its economic growth. It will not shift from coal to clean energy until the latter cost less than the former, with or without a price on carbon. Ergo, the only thing we can do to help China shift to sustainable development is drive down the cost of clean energy via massive public investment.
I feel like I should preface every post about China with this disclaimer: What's going on in China is utterly without historical precedent. Nobody in the West understands it. I doubt many people in China understand it. People who make predictions about China's future are setting themselves up for failure.
But that's never stopped me before, so here are a few thoughts that may complicate S&N's rather tidy story.
1. Regulation in China. You often hear people in the West, including S&N, characterize China as a kind of economic Terminator, focused monomaniacally on economic growth to the exclusion of all else. That's undoubtedly true to some extent, but it's only part of the story.
For one thing, environmental degradation -- the old-fashioned kind, not the newfangled, invisible atmospheric kind -- is on the verge of crippling China. The air in its cities is all but unbreathable; it's rivers and lakes are toxic; deserts are expanding. Pollution is hampering economic growth and causing widespread political unrest. This is the inevitable consequence of developing along the brute-force, fossil-based, poorly planned path of the West, in a fraction of the time and without commensurate growth in political freedom. So even if we think of China as purely self-interested, and of self-interest as purely economic, the country has ample reason to go green.
Is China purely self-interested? I wonder. Just as America's imperial adventures aren't as altruistic as some of our fellow citizens would like to think, I suspect that China's leadership is not as immune to moral suasion as our stereotype would have it. Remember, to imagine that China will engage in heedless fossil-based growth now and forever, you have to assume not just that the country is purely self-interested, but that it's purely self-interested over a short time span. After all, global warming is going to frack with China just as bad as any other country.
So to believe what S&N say, that only cheap clean energy can persuade China to develop differently, you have to believe that China is willing to condemn the entire world -- including itself -- to a future of drought, floods, disease, desertification, and rising sea levels. The idea that China would be immune to such considerations strikes me as a piece of cultural condescension, perhaps borderline xenophobia.
2. Influencing China. Corporatists say we shouldn't take action on climate change until China does; greens respond that China won't take action until we do; S&N respond that even if we put regulatory constraints on our economy, China won't follow suit. So what to do? How could we influence China to take action?
First, one should note that, unbeknownst to most Americans, America is not the main driver of most nations' behavior. They don't spend all their time watching us and talking about us. I imagine that some citizens of other countries go hours, sometimes days, without even thinking about us once (I know!). There are internal dynamics in China that matter a hell of a lot more than domestic U.S. politics.
But still, what could we do that might set an example for China? S&N's idea is to drive down the cost of clean energy by brute force (money). That doesn't do much for me -- leaving the industrial paradigm basically intact, just plugging in new central generators.
Here's a blue sky idea that deserves better than being tacked onto the end of a blog post: Let's reconfigure our economy to align environmental and economic incentives. Let's make compact cities with zero-carbon buildings, powered by renewable energy via privately or municipally owned micro-grids that are connected to a larger high-voltage countrywide grid, with high-speed electric trains shuttling people to and fro. Let's radically reduce the amount of energy we use while boosting our quality of life. And let's show that we can do all this in the context of a robust, competitive, growing economy.
That -- shifting to a new paradigm rather than tweaking the old industrial paradigm -- would really inspire China. It would inspire the world. You always hear about the possibility of the developing world "leapfrogging" dirty Western development straight to something better? But what? Let's model what there is to leapfrog to.
How industry pressures and competing national agendas dim prospects for a climate treaty
U.S. puts onus on China for climate deal
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 5:05 am
04 Oct 2007
Another problem with China though -- it is precisely in order to avoid becoming democratic that the regime is driving the ecology to ruin in an attempt to maintain their legitimacy by making everybody middle-class -- american middle-class. Democracy would do wonders for China, because as the USSR showed, a lack of democracy leads to the worst ecological offenses possible.
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 5:59 am
04 Oct 2007
But what I think we in this country have difficulty understanding about China is how little control the central government exerts over industry. For example, they have no laws regulating food safety. (Bribery, yes, but laws against adding, say, a coal scrap product called melanine to animal feed? No.) For example, thousands of Chinese coal miners die every year in "accidents" we in this country barely hear about and would not tolerate. And so on.
If our government demands changes, chances are infinitely better than China too will make changes. If we do not, chances are good they will not, either, which will do neither of us good.
As the Bush administration said (regarding North Korea) yesterday, "In this world you must give something to get something."
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:40 am
04 Oct 2007
On a less-encouraging note, this article explores the failure of China's recent attempts to urbanize their population into ecocities. Bill McDonough and other green designers have been doing alot of work over there. Unfortunately, their efforts appear to have been stymied by cultural barriers. On the other hand, the fact that the government is interested, aware, and trying is encouraging.
My take: China has industrialized so fast that they are now facing environmental consequences on a short enough time scale that they are being forced to deal with them now. They've got a tiger by the tail, because if their economic boom collapses, so will their government. On the other hand, they now realize that they can't sacrifice their environment to economic development either. So they're going to try to keep the ball rolling, but they're going to try to transition to a green economy as fast as they possibly can.
The US and Europe have an opportunity to put themselves on the cutting edge of green economic development. If either chooses to do so, they will find that they are facing a much easier task than China is. But if no one else picks up the baton, China will get there eventually. Eventually may be too late for the planetary ecosystem, or it may not. But if not, China will be the dominant power of the next century, based on the double-whammy of rapid industrialization and a forced transition to a green economy.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 7:16 am
04 Oct 2007
In some ways China is leaving the US and Europe behind. Check out this article from the LA Times comparing transit in LA and Shanghai.
In 1990 LA began a subway system. Four years later, Shanghai started one:
Still growing Los Angeles was one of the richest cities in the world, with an extensive freeway network, top-notch engineers and serious congestion problems. Shanghai was poor, a decaying post-colonial metropolis shaking off decades of economic stagnation. Its streets were congested too -- with bicycles.
Most Los Angeles residents know the story of what happened to the Red Line, which was designed to carry passengers from Downtown to the sea but hasn't quite gotten there. Only recently have planning discussions seriously revived to add a rail line extending farther west.
Shanghai? It is well on its way to building the largest urban rail mass transit system in the world.
You can't walk very far in a straight line in Shanghai these days without coming across construction of a new subway line or station. Already, Shanghai has opened five subway lines and 95 stations serving 2 million people a day, and as many as six more lines are scheduled to open in the next couple of years.
Of course, what happened to their bicycles?
Permalink
Jones Posted 9:30 am
04 Oct 2007
No. You only have to assume that China is just as capable of self-delusion as the US (or, to be fair, most of the world). The US has "known about" Global Warming for quite some time now, and what has been the result? There may be promising developments, much like there have been promising developments for hydrogen fuel cells, etc. But nothing yet that points the way definitively, or even probably, to a low-carbon future. We may have left it till too late, and there's no reason to believe that, whatever their motives, ego- or altro- that they'll get their act together any better than the West. I thought that was S&N's premise, and the reason we need to pursue other avenues.
Here's a blue sky idea that deserves better than being tacked onto the end of a blog post...
Blue sky, or pie-in-the-sky? Don't get me wrong: I'm an eternal optimist. But that doesn't mean I'm naive. Of course we need to envision a better paradigm, but we can't just keep saying "it would be great if..." without putting meat on them bones. Saying "we need a paradigm shift" is not a solution.That's the environmentalist's curse, and again, I thought that was S&N's point. We need to start playing with the cards we've been dealt.
So please, Mr Roberts, don't just tack your blue sky idea onto the end of a blog post. We've seen a lot of injured reaction to S&N's proposals, yet no one has really taken up the gauntlet--at least, I haven't seen anyone else deal adequately with the "elephant". S&N's is still the best plan because it's the only plan. If you don't like that, then do something about it.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 9:39 am
04 Oct 2007
Permalink
trock Posted 11:43 am
04 Oct 2007
Lets say we put on a tax on the energy use of a Walmart to light and heat their stores. What Walmart sells in the store, whether its made in America or overseas isn't affected by that tax. If we were to tax a manufacturer for their energy use may affect whether it can compete against foreign competition.
So just because China, India, or any other country may not tax fossil fuel energy to remain competitive, that would only apply to what energy is used in manufactoring or something that is in export or import competition. We and other countries could still use carbon energy taxes on non export/import industries.
Certainly a large portion of our fossil fuel energy use is in non export/import industries and we can increase carbon taxes on that use while reducing property, sales, income and social securtity taxes. And so can other countries.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:44 am
04 Oct 2007
The air in China's cities is not "all but unbreathable". In fact, we had about three weeks at the end of August with all but one day of clear blue skies here in Beijing. I have been to a number of cities and breathed quite nicely. It is raining today, which usually clears the air for a bit.
Are there bad days? You bet!! But the hyperbole of Americans in discussing the issue isn't helpful. (Hint, anyone who has spent any amount of time in China will dismiss any further comments, since the writer is either woefully lacking in knowledge or purposefully misleading).
The other apocalyptic statements are all also full of hyperbole. Talking about China with the center right at Grist feels rather like arguing with climate change deniers. People believe what they will without much regard for the facts. Sad. One would wish for better.
While Americans attack Chinese economic growth, the rest of the developing world says "How can I do this?". And most people understand that while it is China being attacked today, it is India or Brazil or South Africa being attacked tomorrow.
Language matters. Describing China as "the problem" tends to obscure any other points one might want to make.
For my comments on statistics about China, look here.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/10/1/1337/08918
Having said that, neither S&N not Mr. Roberts seem to have gotten it right. China will do the best it can with the resources it has available. It will neither blindly copy what America does (it can't), nor will it be bullied into starvation while America gorges.
Mr. Roberts is correct when he suggests America set a good example. The whole world is waiting for America to set a good example.
S&N are correct when they call for new investment in technology.
Both can happen. America has the money. Tax the rich (corporations first, please!) and get to work.
When the future looks back at this time, it will ask if America spent its wealth to save the world or wasted it on macmansions, suvs, and executive pay.
What will America do? Will it wake up to its responsibilities? That is the real elephant in the room.
patrick in beijing
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:22 pm
04 Oct 2007
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 7:51 pm
04 Oct 2007
Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:18 pm
04 Oct 2007
U.S. manufacturers are part of the "Chinese" problem (as are other developed country manufacturers). They decide what criteria must be met when they buy products. They tell Chinese (and other developing countries), the criteria is "price, price, price).
Any country that needs the income from exports has to meet their customers demands.
Most developing countries do not have large sums of money lying around waiting to be spent, nor huge bases of rich and middle class citizens they can tax at will.
If China (for example), says to U.S. customers, we are going to raise the price of goods we sell you so that our factories can use clean power and technology that does not pollute......
Those customer will be gone to another developing country that is not so picky.
So, China (and other developing countries) is (are) caught between a rock and a hard place.
Americans scream at it that it should spend money it doesn't have to do what America wants, while at the same time demanding prices for goods that make meeting the first demand impossible.
And then sneer and call it names when it meets the price demand (because otherwise there is no demand).
Get it?
patrick in beijing
Permalink
trock Posted 1:03 am
05 Oct 2007
Now the United States says everyone has to start now reducing carbon dioxide release (if that's what the government is saying.) Which is like having someone throwing 100 garbage bags in the corner and then someone else throws a garbage bag in the corner, they are both liable equally for all the garbage bags in the corner. Since the United States put most of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the air, historically, the United States needs to make the most effort to stop doing it and adding to it.
Permalink
eriqa Posted 2:12 am
05 Oct 2007
In 2006, the government enacted a renewable energy law that stipulates that 16% of the country's energy must come from renewables by 2020 (yes, including big hydro). They are also embarking on a "crash campaign" to increase countrywide energy efficiency by 20% from 2005 to 2010. They have the largest production volume in the world of solar hot water heaters (1000 manufacturers) and small-scale wind turbines (25 manufacturers.) All electric utilities are required to facilitate grid connections for renewables and offer net metering.
And those controversial HFC destruction projects? The CER money is taxed at 65% and most of it goes to rural electrification wind/hydro projects.
Is all this enough to negate the environmental impact of millions of Chinese becoming first-world consumers? No. But from a "carbon intensity" viewpoint, it's more than the U.S. is doing. I think we really need to acknowledge what China is doing, both in the interests of truth and in the interests of encouraging further actions in the same vein.
Permalink