Guest blogger Mike Roddy is a long-time CP commenter. A UC Berkeley graduate, he has pursued many careers, including solar manufacturing, writing and research, and managing social housing projects on four continents.
Of all of the troubling developments concerning global warming in the last few years, accelerated emissions from China and India may be the most difficult to address. Consider:
- The China Ministry of industry and information technology reported that coal- fired electricity and oil sales each climbed 24 percent in the first quarter of this year compared to 2009.
- About 96% of global emissions growth from 2006 to 2030 is expected to come from non OECD countries, mostly China and India. Wealthy countries’ emissions are projected as stable or rising slightly.
- Jairam Ramesh, India’s Environment Minister, told Hillary Clinton in 2009 that India would never take legally binding commitments to cut down on emissions.
- India has 200 GW of coal plants planned in the next decade, the largest absolute growth in the world.
- China, while talking about emissions goals, refuses both monitoring and enforcement
The furious projected pace of coal plant construction in Asia would lock in major emissions for decades to come. Given the accelerating pace of climate related impacts, project cancellations and retrofitting of existing plants will become likely. For practical and environmental reasons, it is much better to address this likely future now.
Meanwhile, all of the news about current effects of global warming is bad. The Arctic is melting decades ahead of schedule. Methane is shooting out of the Arctic Ocean. Global temperatures are marching upward at an accelerating pace, and global CO2 concentration was recently measured at 392 ppm.
It is clear that efforts to reduce emissions enough to make a habitable climate likely post-2050 are meaningless unless emissions growth in Asia is slowed, and quickly. No Western country has addressed this political issue in any meaningful way.
The Right in the United States appears to believe that China’s coal plant construction policies are correct, and that this is what America should also be doing, combined with natural gas and nuclear power. Some people on the other end of the political spectrum appear to believe that countries such as China and India should not restrict CO2 emissions, due to their low historical emissions contributions and their pressing need to “lift themselves our of poverty”. This of course beggars the issues of blocking technical advances, environmental and health destruction caused by the mining and burning of coal, and power production infrastructure remaining wedded to a sunset industry. The same problems that coal has in the US, in other words. Giving developing countries a pass also trivializes the enormous dangers that the world could face if the earth warms at the pace predicted by emissions increases on this scale.
Most climate scientists believe that the world has to stop burning coal for electricity if we are going to slow runaway global warming, and not just continue to talk about it. This is not open to discussion in India or China, which continue major long term construction programs for coal fired electricity.
I emailed questions to my brother Steve Roddy to help me understand the political dynamics in China. Steve is a professor of Asian Studies at the University of San Francisco, and did postgraduate work at the University of Beijing. Steve’s comments:
“Think of the Chinese coal industry the same way you would about Massey Energy, an interest group that has strong backing in the political establishment. There are other factors at play, too- coal is mined in the more remote interior regions, where jobs are scarcer. The main coal region is important to the CCP genealogy, since it’s near the cradle of the communist movement of the 30′s and 40′s. It’s not a very efficient industry, but it employs a lot of people, and jobs are a sensitive issue right now. Countering this are NGO’s in China similar to our own, as well as the disastrous recent weather- drought in northern China, and flooding and typhoons in the south.
“Fundamentally, though, the Chinese attitude was most on display when they sent a low level diplomat to the session that Obama chaired in Copenhagen. With the US in particular so niggardly in its concessions to the developing world, why should the Chinese make sacrifices? There is also the matter of the West’s responsibility for over 75% of the excess CO2 currently in the atmosphere. The issue of justice is real to them. This means that the West, particularly the United States, should lead in reducing emissions.”
China can actually move much faster than the US if circumstances so indicate. In 2000, the Chinese central government completed a logging ban in 18 provinces, something almost unprecedented in Asia. Flooding on the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers from deforestation had been inundating towns and damaging agriculture. When similar events occur in the US, Congress does not dare to stand up to the logging and homebuilding industries, but the authoritarian government in China can rapidly reverse course in an emergency climate situation.
My own experience is in India, where I worked in the late 1990′s as a social housing consultant to industry sectors and regional government agencies. We were negotiating a contract to build 50,000 houses in the Province of Delhi, when the price of onions suddenly went from 8 rupees a kilo to 50 rupees a kilo. This event, devastating for the urban poor, resulted in the calling of a special election. Our ally, Prime Minister Singh of the BJP Party in Delhi, was ousted, and Congress Party returned to power.
The lesson is that resources are too scarce in India to allow people to choose more costly alternatives for reasons related to future events, such as a warming climate. Effects of this thinking may well be catastrophic, since the monsoon and Himalayan glaciers are projected to change for the worse.
There is also the simple matter of heat: I was in Delhi in 1998 during their summer season, when temperatures reached 45C, or 113F, with high humidity. This was the hottest climate I have ever experienced, and Indians slept on sidewalks and rooftops at night to keep from being overwhelmed by houses that had turned into ovens. In May of 2010 northern India experienced historically high temperatures in the 50C range, resulting in hundreds of deaths. Average temperatures a few degrees higher could make much of India uninhabitable, with few emigration routes available and starvation likely.
There are five potentially productive action alternatives:
- The US must lead, and not merely for reasons of justice based on historical emissions. We remain one of the highest per capita emitters on earth, in spite of access to quality technology and adequate funding. If we wait for China and India to make serious changes before we do anything- and the current climate bill before the Senate can only be called a baby first step- the world will remain on a path to potentially devastating effects for our descendants.
- The leaders of China and India, while very concerned about global warming, do not appear to fully grasp the extent of the dangers that they face, or they wouldn’t be signing 20 year multibillion dollar coal importing contracts with Australia. Future climate perturbations will be far greater in Asia, where population pressures on scarce resources exacerbate microclimate and hydrologic alterations. We need to send a delegation of our best climate scientists, including people such as James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, and Gavin Schmidt, on diplomatic missions, not merely scientific ones, in order to communicate the gravity of the situation. Key to this effort will be the presence of climate scientists who can document that both China and India are jeopardizing their food security by burning coal. Until recently, it was thought that more CO2 would increase crop yields: climate deniers like to cite an outdated study about increased rice production in China due to warmer weather and more CO2. Most scientists now believe the opposite, as evidenced by extreme flooding and drought in China, so agricultural climate specialists should be key members of this delegation. The scientists should be prepared to express the probabilities of global environmental collapse as a result of climate change. Recent data projects this scenario becoming more likely as emissions increases and feedbacks (such as loss of Arctic albedo) continue to exceed expectations.
- Once the US embarks on a path of serious action- including steps that are more substantive than what we have done or even planned so far- make it clear to China and India and countries on similar paths that their planned actions in increasing GHG production are endangering all of us. If they remain intransigent in these plans, there will be economic consequences, to include steep tariffs based on products’ carbon intensity. This policy would apply to all highly carbon intensive exporters, including Canada and Russia, with no exemptions based on political considerations. Deforestation would be addressed by instituting steep tariffs against products that come from forest liquidation, a major problem in North America. Policy papers should be prepared for all manufacturing and trade that endangers global climate, and preliminary agreements negotiated among the G20 countries.
- Remove or weaken patent or licensing restrictions for energy breakthroughs that are potentially transformative. This could include ultralight CSP or wind turbines, cheap thin film solar modules, etc. This would in effect be a wealth transfer, which China and India have requested. Develop plans to retrofit coal plant turbines and boilers for CSP, and to scrap or recycle remaining components of coal plants with accelerated retirement schedules. This would include coal and other fossil fuel plants in the US.
- Instruct the World Bank, IMF, and IFC to stop funding huge CO2 sources such as the recent $3.75 billion coal plant in South Africa and the equally large Tata Ultra Mega coal plant in India. Impose a 2% interest surcharge on private sector coal plant funding, and set the money aside to support clean energy projects.
It’s not enough to continue to talk about “bridge fuels” such as natural gas, or to plan for renewables at an indefinite date in the future. Most countries are guilty of this thinking, since it’s easy to make vague plans for the future. It’s a pitch that’s been around for decades, and has the effect of delaying major investment and regulatory decisions. The science indicates very clearly that the time for action is now.
– Mike Roddy
Related Posts:
- China vows to dramatically slow emissions growth
- Lindsey Graham: “Every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China uses to dominate the green economy.”
- What Bill McKibben doesn’t like about the Copenhagen Accord is precisely what I like about it.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
The historic emissions argument is specious. We might as well say that China has had explosives technology longer so if we go to war they should not be allowed to use guns and bombs since it is our turn now. No. We negotiate arms control treaties based on what arms we have and we must do the same with emissions control treaties.
“We need to send a delegation of our best climate scientists, including people such as James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, and Gavin Schmidt, on diplomatic missions, not merely scientific ones, in order to communicate the gravity of the situation”
I think the only thing which will have an effect is tied to point [1].
The USA need to lead as the biggest emitter. And than they should use diplomatic efforts. This also means that US money should used to build the next gen infrastructure and energy sources in developing worlds.
This can happen in exchange with preservation, reforestation and biochar projects in those countries.
Moratorium on Co2 emitting vehicles is also required. Otherwise india and china will use old technology and fossil energy to power them.
But it starts in the USA, as long as there is no majority for action which make a difference we face devastation from accelerating weather events and a change to a more unstable environment.
The collapse of the world food production looms and catastrophic flood events are already affecting the northern hemisphere.
It seems that humans are to slow to adapt.
Energy Efficiency in India: Challenges and Initiatives
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSLD1256HkI
Here are some studys about Co2 and plant growth.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=co2+plant+growth&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2010&as_vis=0
I do not have the study rightnow but Co2 uptake is affecting plants diffrential.
Mike has opened the lid of the can of worms that is China (and India).
This has to be discussed often and long.
Yeah, maybe what has gone before is moot to us, but not to the Chinese.
If people don’t get the psychological side of negotiating with the Chinese re their national pride and all that, agreements will never be made.
well, as Joe pointed out previously, Lindsey Graham has just torpedoed any chance for the US to lead, and the new Congress next year is going to be even less likely to do anything. (anyone believe differently?)
So that knocks out 1, 2, and 3 in this plan. As far as #4 – somehow I don’t think “give all of our patents to China for free” is going to fly as a policy recomendation.
#5 is a good idea, but it ain’t going to change anything. We’ve got to admit the obvious – this is game, set, and match.
We’ve got great organizing going at 350.org in both India and China. As mike notes, civil society is growing there fast on this issue.
Chris Dudley #1
I disagree that the argument about historical emissions is specious and your analogy is not an equivalent.
The historical emissions of developed countries have been the consequence of that development and so developing countries have some claim to a right to continue their development and thus, to some extent at least, their rise in emissions.
It is difficult to put any moral responsibility on developed countries for their emissions in the distant past. But it is certainly fair to point out that failure to reduce emissions from the time when the science was strong enough for the consequences of those continuing emssions to be well understood – say from 1990 – is a moral responsibility.
Your analogy with explosives is not comparable because explosives do not have the same cumulative effect as carbon emissions.
Thanks for this post Mike – very interesting. My impression is that China in particular will swing very rapidly behind emission reductions once they believe that the developed world is taking the lead they should.
“…make it clear to China and India and countries on similar paths that their planned actions in increasing GHG production are endangering all of us. If they remain intransigent in these plans, there will be economic consequences, to include steep tariffs based on products’ carbon intensity…”
This sounds like an awesome idea! LOL!
Just found this at 350.org
Fight for Survival Heats up in Bonn
Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries have blocked any discussion about new targets, crassly telling countries that if they want more information on how climate change could impact their countries, they should just “Google it.”
http://www.350.org/about/blogs/fight-survival-heats-bonn
That is so classy – this position of the saudis. Hell and High water, brought to you by dirty oil.
Thanks for the comments, all good ones.
Matto, you’re right, the notion of economic action against countries on crash coal plant construction programs is not practical right now. It may become so sooner than we think, though, and it’s time to do some serious planning for future global remedies. Current policies in this respect are nonexistent.
It wasn’t practical for Hansen to stand on railroad tracks with freight cars full of coal heading his way, either. If we stick to what is currently politically doable, we have the Lugar bill.
The key first step is for the developed countries to ACT like they are in an emergency. Just as FDR banned the production of automobiles during WWII and got every manufacturer to switch to armaments, if Obama would ban any new oil/gas drilling and get every American energy company to plough its capital into developing renewable energy, then it would send the right message to India and China. If the catastrophe in the Gulf is not enough to trigger such an action, what bigger catastrophe is Obama waiting for?
“Do as I say, not as I do” is not a winning strategy regarding India and China.
After reading Clive Hamilton’s Requiem for a Species, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that it is man’s inability to face this issue rationally that will do us in. Until we deal with the reasons that almost no one outside of readers of this blog will accept the gravity of the situation, it is hard to even imagine that effective solutions will be implemented. I gave a climate talk to Sustainable Silicon Valley a couple of weeks ago. You can’t find a much more climate-friendly group, but they had a very tough time accepting what I was saying (that things are very bad and could get much, much worse). I find that even most “green” leaders don’t understand the gravity of the situation, or if they do, they refuse to discuss it publicly out of fear of “paralyzing” the public. No wonder the public doesn’t know what’s going on. And don’t get me started on the media!
Other key actions that developed countries should take to convey their seriousness about the situation to India and China:
1) Repudiate all the tar sand oil development contracts between US and Canada.
2) Get Australia to stop signing 20 year, multi billion dollar coal supply contracts.
3) Decommission all the coal fired power plants in developed countries over a 20 year time table.
4) Finally and most importantly, step down in the food chain and stop consuming animal products. The large ecological footprints of developed nations are responsible for suffocating all life on the planet, irrespective of climate change. After all, there is no point in solving our CO2 problem only to find that we have eaten ourselves to extinction.
Such actions might work a lot better than sending delegations of climate scientists. In fact, the latter may be viewed as an insult as a substantial number of climate scientists in the IPCC are of Indian and Chinese origin already.
As Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.”
#8,
Seems to me the arms control analogy is pretty tight. It turns out to be a matter of survival no matter who invented it.
Mike:
Great post, and it brings up something I’ve been talking about over on my site for a long time (and I have the hate mail to prove it).
The brutal calculus of the situation is really pretty simple:
If the US stays on its current path, we’re cooked. Looking at the political landscape, and the utter lack of spines among our elected representatives, I’m not exactly optimistic about our prospects on this point.
If China or India increases their emissions substantially over the next few years, we’re virtually certain to be cooked. Based on the continued embrace of dirty coal plants in those countries (plus China’s spurt in emissions growth in 2009), it will take a near miracle to avoid this path. China and India have both made it very clear that they value economic growth over reductions in carbon emissions. I don’t see how anything the US, the EU, Japan, Australia, etc. do can possibly change their minds. (If the developed countries dramatically cut their emissions, China and India would simply proclaim that there’s now much less urgency for them to decarbonize.)
Just as I think we’re locked into a geohacked future, I think it’s essentially a done deal that we’ll have carbon tariffs and knock-down, drag-out trade wars.
The only thing that could change things is, of course, the oft-mentioned possibility of a “Climate 9/11″. And in order to head-shape China, India, and the US that would have to be such an immense event, in terms of body count and money lost, that I shudder to think what it might look like.
Mike;
Great post! As Sightline Institute, a leading environmental communications organization, has determined from their research, “Even skeptics of global warming become engaged when the discussion is led by solutions.” (Deniers don’t budge..)
And there is truth to the statement that leaders of environmental organizations are afraid of paralyzing their constituents in fear.
The “solution” to that is to provide a few robust, simple, and clear courses of action. You’ve outlined one course: A diplomatic mission including leading climate, agricultural, and equatorial forestry experts.
It would seem that the Obama administration could mandate this without going through the congress. Are there roadblocks? David Axelrod is rumored to not believe in human caused climate change, or perhaps he doesn’t believe we’re on the point of no return. How about Hillary Clinton? Could we send a delegation to them?
If Dan Miller, James Hansen, and Bill McKibben are readers of this blog is that not enough people to organize a delegation to the White House?
Go for it! You’ve got my back.
Lou, @ 16: “China and India have both made it very clear that they value economic growth over reductions in carbon emissions.” and go on to question what could change their minds?
Record heat waves and droughts. Losses of livestock, (comparable to the Mongolian freak cold spell that froze over 4 million livestock thru out a large portion of the nation). Live stock is the “link” in the food chain for a large though sparse population. High Prairie grass to people! They have a history of fierce actions.
We have had some warm up heat in India and deaths associated and it is not “Summer” yet. Not many of us posses that knowledge.
Might even convince our Politicians.
Re #16: (If the developed countries dramatically cut their emissions, China and India would simply proclaim that there’s now much less urgency for them to decarbonize.)
China and India would not want to waste their resources building out ancient, dirty energy infrastructure when developed countries are demonstrating better ways to produce energy. Notice that India never built an elaborate land line telephone network reaching into the villages and went straight to cell phones instead.
As long as developed countries continue to belch out CO2 from their already existing dirty energy infrastructure while lecturing China and India not to do the same, they will be like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. They will evoke the suspicion that their lecturing is an attempt to keep poor people poor while the rich continue their hedonistic pursuits. The same goes for the steak and seafood lifestyles of the developed countries as the forests disappear and the ocean becomes lifeless. If we have already triggered the Sixth Great Extinction event in the earth’s history, why can’t people in developed countries at least change what they put in their mouths every day?
It is not enough to just say that we are all in this together. The developed countries must act like we are all in this together if they want to be taken seriously.
To reiterate my earlier comment:
Thinking this through in terms of what is politically possible in the present or near future is a doomed way of thinking. When the world gets much more obviously hammered by global warming, which could happen in any number of scenarios, leaders and members of the public need to have already considered more serious ways to address it.
As for developing countries’ sensitivity to US historical emissions, and our key role in reducing them, this is a reality, as my brother Steve pointed out. And as Prokaryote said, any serious movement will have to originate here, something Joe Romm has made clear as well.
Sailesh, thanks for your perspective. Too many of us here in the West overlook the huge issues with consumption of farmland and biomass through eating meat. I would add that deforestation in Western countries is a huge and overlooked problem as well. The US has to take action that means something, and your suggestion of canceling tar sands pipelines and contracts is a great place to start.
Dan Miller, thanks for the comment and for your great work and video- A Really Inconvenient Truth, for those who haven’t seen it. Like you, I’ve dug into the data, and become acquainted with climate scientists personally. Their take on our future is what the Right would call Alarmist- but if we don’t ring alarm bells, we can be certain that the fire will consume us.
And Lou Grinzo, I’ve always felt that you and I were in sync on these issues. You’re right, of course- carbon tariffs and trade retaliations will become inevitable in the not too distant future. You’re also one of the few who is not afraid to take the China/India issue on directly, regardless of who becomes uncomfortable. We are facing unimaginable disaster, and it’s no time to worry about pleasing everyone, including the stockholders of companies like Exxon and Peabody. We will need massive energy infrastructure transformation, and this decision will have to come from the top. I’m not sure if Obama is the guy, but if he is unable to do it, events will be forced on one of his successors.
Just a question, but is that patch of forest that Jesus supposedly
opposed being cut ever turn back into a forest. I think, if not
mistaken in events, it became a desert for 2000 years. There was
story of the people having planted trees there after year 2000.
That is many trees to keep watered, just curious if there is good
word on it.
Thanks Mike, this was a great post.
Great post, likely to go down as one of the defining documents of the climate movement. Well done sir.
This is an important subject, and I’m glad Mike addresses the equity question; but I find that point #2 hits a false note. China’s and India’s strategies are not the result of an unenlightened leadership that needs education. Rather, they are based on some pretty hard-headed calculus. They both know that individually (or even acting together) they cannot head off catastrophic climate change as long as the US continues on its current path. So why should they forgo industrial development (which will be all the more needed when they run into severe agricultural problems) when the US isn’t lifting a finger? As Mike and Sailesh say, the key to unlocking the puzzle is for the US to lead — by shutting down coal at home first.
BTW, Delhi isn’t a province and doesn’t have a Prime Minister. At the time, it was a Union Territory and the Singh you refer to was Chief Minister.
Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon.
Only connect the prose and the passion, and both will be exalted,
And human love will be seen at its height.
Live in fragments no longer.
Only connect…
–E.M. Forster, Howards End
While the president may have reason to say he did not know the dangers precipitating the gulf disaster, he has absolutely no reason to justify his delay in the determined, broad, expedient, and requisite extraordinary action necessary to slow humanity’s accelerating devastation of the natural environment and the profound services supporting global civilization.
Many times by many people of stature and in the know it has been declared that we are in an emergency situation of the gravest kind and nothing of substance has been done except to increase overwhelmingly a universal cause for alarm.
The dynamics are changing rapidly and the time for action is now.
Neil T, New Delhi is a city, but the larger surrounding area called Delhi is a province, or state, I forget the nomenclature. But you’re right that Singh was Chief Minister, not Prime Minister. It’s been 12 years, and my memory is imperfect- though I still have the cards of the Delhi chief engineer (Rajoria), housing director (Mohan), Hudco chief (Suresh), and quite a few others.
Your point about #2 is legitimate, but there’s a larger issue. If the Indian government perceives imminent danger by accepting the scientific data, there is just as much value to their applying pressure on the US as vice versa. Mutual recognition of reality must precede serious and committed action.
And thanks to others for the kind compliments about my work here. It means a lot to me- mostly because I have a young son, whose future means even more.
And as long as I’m handing out compliments, here’s one for Tenney Naumer- a brilliant and relentless climate warrior, who has encouraged and inspired me.
Thanks Mike,
All said, but I note that in my recent travels the mid-Atlantic states, like India, have been experiencing some extraordinary warmth in May and early June. I think the “necessary” catastrophe is upon us. I get tired of people who notice what is going on being called “alarmist”. There are a lot of busy people trying to get the general population to not pay attention to what is all around them.
But where are the deniers here? They’re too busy testifying to Congress to pay attention (Monckton, Happer).
As for Obama et al., I am surprised at the lack of repetition of the FACT that the oil spill and many of our other regulatory/exploitative consequences are Cheney’s work. It’s time to hammer away at all the problems inherited from 8 years of concerted lies and misbehavior in favor of the wealthy being enabled to steal some more. We’re all too ready to blame the moderates on our side rather than go after the real villains.
Friendly Persuasion has its limitations, as does unfriendly (diplomatic) persuasion. At the other extreme is the threat of hostilites, which in this present globally connected world, seems not be in the lexicon.
Reflect on this: It’s essentially OK for the U.S. to do a preemtive strike in Iraq, to save the world from Sadam Hussein and his non-existent WMDs. But it would be morally wrong for the U.S. to do military preemptive strikes against nations which have stated catagorically that they intend to pursue dirty energy policies which have the potential to cause the destruction of the human race.
India and China are saying to the developed world,”We have a right to persue whatever national energy policy we so desire, and if the developed world doesn’t approve, well what can you (what will you) do about it. Of course, there is another equally disturbing aspect of the above: screwing their children at the same time they are screwing the developed world. This type of social conduct carries the meaning of the word immorallity to new heights.
The way it looks now we in the good old USA are going to be the last hold outs. Perhaps China or India will need to spank us. or- How about another “civil war” where the left must slay the right to save humanity. It all gets very strange. Anon, #29. or- Revolution where the low C-footprint poor slay the hight C-footprint folks.
Or- maybe we can just all get it together and work as one to save all. That means you corporations and big money capitalists as well.
May Car sales in China
Overall vehicle sales, including buses and trucks as well as cars, totalled 7.6 million units in May, up 53 percent from a year earlier, official data showed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE65004320100608?type=marketsNews
May Car sales in India
Car sales up 30 pct yr/yr to record May total of 148,481
* Normal monsoon could boost demand for cars – analyst
* Rising material costs, possible rate hikes are worries
China and India have been bright spots for global automakers as they recover from a sharp industry downturn. Vehicle sales in India are expected to reach a new high for the second year in 2010/11 though the market is much smaller than China’s.
The four-month annual monsoon rains, which is vital for farm output and rural incomes, and impacts demand for goods ranging from cars to televisions, hit the country’s southern coast last week as scheduled.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE65805U20100609
The diffusion of electric cars in China could be much larger than expected if the ecoincentives estimated by the central authorities in Beijing will actually be branched on a massive scale. According to notify the Government, will be shortly launched a pilot program in five cities, designed to encourage financial support to purchase a car label.
the eco-incentives were equal to 6 to 7 thousand euros for electric cars, and involve people in five major towns in the Asian country:
http://www.newsonwall.com/264/eco-incentives-for-hybrid-and-electric-cars-in-china/
Daimler, China’s BYD partnering on electric cars
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20006119-54.html
Honda eyes China to develop car batteries
Having surpassed the United States as the world’s biggest auto market last year, China has become an increasingly important battleground for global automakers, which are keenly awaiting Beijing’s policy on the promotion of greener cars.
“If there is a suitable chance, we hope to work with China to (develop) batteries,” Honda Chief Executive Takanobu Ito told reporters on Tuesday in southern China, where he announced a plan to boost annual production capacity by a third to 480,000 units at a Chinese joint venture, Guangqi Honda.
Honda has been among the least enthusiastic among Japan’s automakers toward electric cars, and runs the risk of falling further behind
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64O0SB20100525
We should accept that China/India will continue to modernize their infrastructure, and be very careful about drawing parallels between China/India and the west’s industrial revolution, or even parallels between India and China. In this century, billions of people will gain access to technology of all types–but this doesn’t necessarily mean they will all drive big cars and have two houses, or that this has to powered by fossil fuels. Hot, flat and crowded is the worst case scenario–comfortable, diverse and connected is a viable alternative.
The per capita energy use in China is still below 2000 watts while we Americans are at 12,000 watts. CO2 per capita, same situation, and this is before one considers how much of our CO2 emissions have been exported to China. China with it’s cash reserves, political cohesiveness (say what you will about it), clean energy manufacturing capacity, and planned economy could decarbonize far more rapidly than the US. But why should they when the west dithers around? How can we fail to see their perspective on this?
What will work here (to decarbonize) will also work in China. We need to move ahead on clean energy/effiency, ramp up the deployment of new hardware, and clean up our coal pollution FIRST. China has more incentives than we do to move away from coal–their coal mining and coal pollution causes far more deaths and economic losses than here in the US–and as a country with little or no net surplus of food production the threat of climate change to their food security is unavoidable.
The technology needed is not of the breakthrough variety; what is needed is steadily less expensive manufacturing processes for PV, Lithium ion batteries, modular solar thermal, modular concentrating PV, wind turbines, lightweighting technology for vehicles. Most of this is already happening in China, with strong ties to technology firms in the west. The connections are there already.
Mike Roddy has provided a very powerful vision but most importantly he states “China can actually move much faster than the U.S. if circumstances so indicate,” an idea strongly implied in the James Fallows’ Atlantic Monthly cover page article several months ago on the low-cost of China going green.
In light of the state of peak oil, the significant possibility of an ice-free Arctic by 2013 and the likely pending of unknown extreme environmental catastrophes, heavy commitments to heavy industry supporting transportation systems based on cars does not make good economic sense on a suicidal scale.
With 430 million cyclists and an additional 120 million people using electric bicycles China is probably better equipped than all others to flip the model to an advanced hyper-mobile financially powerful juggernaut civilization best equipped to build a highly replicable model that will put the brakes on accelerating environmental devastation.
First the US secures its oil supplies in Iraq, then signs this tar sands deal with Canada, locks up all its wealth in devious, private financial instruments and finally, the EIA projects that OECD countries will not reduce their emissions one iota over the next 25 years. This gives the impression that the US and OECD countries are hoping to ride out the coming apocalypse while letting the poor people and other life forms bear the brunt of it. If the EIA projects that non OECD countries will ratchet up their CO2 emissions, then maybe the OECD countries will come to terms with the foolishness of their position. Unfortunately, I don’t see this political stalemate changing.
I’ve reached the conclusion that there won’t be any top down solution to climate change coming from our political and business leaders. They are all too paralyzed by fear to lead. It is up to the grassroots to lead them by their noses.
Thanks Mike.
It is clear from the number and quality of the comments on this post that Mike has elucidated clearly what is probably the most important concern for the future of our planet.
The first point is that the continued and dramatically increasing use of coal by China and India will choke us all.
The second point is that we have to lead the way.
A big first step would be to start a campaign to eliminate the ridiculous subsidies given to U.S. fossil-fuel energy companies and then plow those funds back into solar and wind and transmission infrastructure.
Now is the time to demand this. How do we get this off the ground?
#37 Tenney Naumer,
China’s and India’s use of coal will definitely choke us but, it seems fairly clear that if they had not reached their states of industrialization the amount of CO2 going into the air would still cause the Climate Change Crisis and the rapid devastation of the environment. It would just take longer. They might stop on their own, and, China seems best equipped to do this, but, it probably would be much better if we and the entire developed world help them and there probably is a “socio-political industrial competitive thing” that has to be resolved. And, in the United States there is an extremely difficult problem of overcoming governance based on special interest self-interest.
It is not clear that we have to lead the way ignoring for simplicity, human rights, political systems, economics, human rights, and center-of-innovations, and etc. discussions.
Again, as mentioned (or implied) in Mike Roddy’s post, China seems best equipped to quickly create a responsible industrial system since its buy-in to heavy industry is currently only partial and while there are special interest pressures they may not be as potent as those in the United States.
Oh brother, lest anyone forget we too have abused human rights and continue to do so in Iraq and other places. The finger can always get pointed right back at us. Wanna tie up negotiations? — Just link them to human rights improvements. (Not to mention that this has not worked so far.)
The elimination of the fossil-fuel subsidies would mark an enormous sea change in the behavior of our irresponsible politicians.
China’s buy-in to heavy industry may be only partial but even their “partial” activities will outweigh ours soon enough.
39. Tenney Naumer, Yes, yes, agreed.
And, it is not clear that Big Oil has not gotten to the leadership in China just as it has in the United States. China started its industrial juggernaut with 600 million cyclists and it seemed they did a lot of the right things from the beginning: barefoot doctors, population control, intense education; in general terrific investments in human capital; i.e., when you are agnostic regarding the ways they went about doing these things and how. From what I understand, Mao was probably worse than Stalin in the human carnage he caused so it is really important to try to avoid continuance of this type of stuff.
And the passive structural violence of power tends to be much worse because it tends to be invisible and seems to be normal and seems to be something that people cannot do anything about like poverty, health care, stuff like that. Read Paul Farmer’s “Pathology of Power,” describing case studies related to the equivalent violence of the poor health care of poor people.
And, the moral issues may not be as clear cut because as people become affluent and ultimately extremely rich there is a tendency to be insulated from the important issues of those who are not rich although there are a lot of very philanthropic rich people.
And, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” goes the saying as when you watch people going down hill on bikes way too fast next to other people you realize that people are even corrupted by gravity power!
We just have to learn to cut through all the stuff and leverage off the best stuff we can which probably is natural capital and especially human capital — which means we have to treat the natural environment and people quite well — and we will have a good chance to beat this thing.
There seems to be a huge amount of symmetry in this idea: closure, resonance, morality; whatever you want to call it; and, it may seem naive or overly optimistic but, it also seems to be the most practical way.
And, may even be described as human civilization reaching for the next level of utopia as it seems to address many of the “higher” things that we are all about and the constant attempt to make things better for ourselves which is after all, only natural (pun intended; sort of).
Dear fj2,
Ah, I see you are an optimist!
I’m more of a realist but pretend to have optimism, else why should I be doing this?
Re: “And the passive structural violence of power tends to be much worse because it tends to be invisible and seems to be normal and seems to be something that people cannot do anything about like poverty, health care, stuff like that. Read Paul Farmer’s “Pathology of Power,” describing case studies related to the equivalent violence of the poor health care of poor people.”
Have been living in the interior of Bahia for 12 years, so have been there, done that, and been that.
Tenney and fj2-
I’d be interested to learn what the average person in China thinks about all of the coal plant related industrialization. Unfortunately, they don’t do opinion polls there.
For all of Obama’s hesitations, he announced over a year ago that he wanted to eliminate fossil fuel subidies, a very important step. We haven’t heard much about that lately, because reducing fossil fuel profits causes steam to come out of the ears of the entire Republican Party, and some Democrats, too. Obama took note, which is why he has been hesitant to take charge of the Gulf eruption. It’s pretty pitiful that a bunch of cowboys can intimidate our government, but this is the world we live in.
People like you commenters above give me hope, though.
Dear fj2,
There is something of note in the Chinese way of governing, something that is now distinctly different from our own way.
You mentioned this briefly (although I am not sure if you meant the double negative):
“And, it is not clear that Big Oil has not gotten to the leadership in China just as it has in the United States.”
The unilateral actions of the Chinese government over the past 10 years indicate to me that they are still committed to preserving their people. Our politicians’ actions tell me that they are most interested in preserving their campaign contributions.
The Chinese government doesn’t need so much to worry about election finances to hold on to its power.
Our democracy has become a corporate kleptocracy. Corporations are not democratic. They have institionalized their means of feeding off our government. In fact, they have institutionalized a symbiotic relationship between politicians and corporations, to the detriment of the people.
To a certain extent, we must be grateful that China is not democratic and can turn on a dime (relatively speaking) if it so chooses.
But we can’t wait for them.
Dear Tenney,
Re: “Our democracy has become a corporate kleptocracy. Corporations are not democratic. They have institionalized their means of feeding off our government.”
It isn’t just the government. Corporations have also perfected their advertising and marketing techniques to convince ordinary people around the world to consume more and more, thus enabling the corporations to grow. Perhaps, this is understandable since modern society has chosen growth to be the raison d’etre for corporations. For example, in China, the per capita consumption of meat has risen from 8 lbs per person per year in 1975 to 146 lbs in 2005. While this is still half the per capita consumption in the US, China’s ecological footprint already exceeds the carrying capacity of China. India’s per capita meat and dairy consumption is also on the rise and planetary ecosystems will surely collapse when India’s per capita meat consumption reaches such dizzying heights. Yet, McDonald’s, Burger King, Pizza Hut and KFC are busy convincing Indians to cast aside their traditional diets and depend on their high intensity food products instead.
Corporations, by their very nature, are no smarter than cyano bacteria. They are designed to grow and grow until the whole system collapses. It is up to us, the people, to wake up as the sentient beings that we are supposed to be and stop buying into their Goebbels style propaganda, now repackaged and legitimized as advertising and marketing. Otherwise, we as a species are no smarter than cyano bacteria and should stop putting on airs, pretending to be intelligent.
Just as wisdom grows in direct proportion to one’s realization of one’s ignorance, intelligence grows in direct proportion to one’s humility. At present, humans can at best be described as a clever and arrogant species, but certainly not intelligent.
I hope that all humans will learn some humility soon to become truly intelligent and begin to treat all life forms with the respect and love that they deserve. When that happens, the meek shall indeed inherit the earth.
Sailesh, very cogent and touching post.
My brother is going to weigh in on this later tonight, I hope. He lived in Beijing for quite a while, and has good insight into their thinking.
44. Sailesh Rao, “I hope that all all humans will learn some humility . . . ”
Can’t remember who said this: “Don’t be so humble, you’re not that good!”
There’s distributed intelligence like ecosystems and hierarchical intelligence like us which seems to have it all; as mobile ecosystems of literally trillions of living things, systems, nano-machines working independently and in synchrony . . . and, absolutely amazing.
Having endured millennia China as an arrogant wizened old codger of a civilization likely has a few tricks up its sleeves.
China gives us back what we’ve done in spades and we wet are pants. They can flip the model at anytime.
How idiotic is it anyway, to move a single person at a time with heavy machinery?
There’s distributed intelligence like ecosystems and hierarchical intelligence like us which seems to have it all; as mobile ecosystems of literally trillions of living things, systems, nano-machines working independently and in synchrony . . . and, absolutely amazing.
Having endured millennia China as an arrogant wizened old codger of a civilization likely has a few tricks up its sleeves.
China gives us back we’ve done in spades and we get nervous. They can flip the model at anytime.
How idiotic is it anyway, to move a single person at a time with heavy machinery?
Hi Mike,
Interesting discussion you’ve started. I don’t think I would call on US to take leadership – sounds to much like that old “USA we’re Number 1″ hubris. I would call on the US (and the rest of the developed world but the US especially) to take responsibility for the climate instability that we have created – and benefited from. Cleaning up one’s own mess is basic human decency.
I think BP is a better analogy than the one Cris Dudley offered (which doesn’t make sense to me on its face because China did not use gunpowder for guns until long after Europe did). We expect BP to clean up the mess it made and take responsibility for the harm.
That doesn’t mean that China and India should follow the same development path, but they and developing other countries need to be able to move people out of poverty. (The history of slavery, resource extraction, colonialism, imperialism, political and social disruption and war has played a large part in keeping poor countries poor and enabled the transfer of enormous wealth and power to the developed world. We should take responsibility for that too.)
I’m Mike’s brother, and though I’ve spent a lot of time studying China, I have to say that I’m definitely out of my depth in this discussion. I’m impressed by how much thought has been put into these posts, and I don’t have a lot to add, certainly not anything backed up by hard facts or research. It does strike me, though, that not many Chinese appear to be speaking up here. A large-scale discussion between concerned citizens of East/South Asia and North America/Europe would be very fruitful on a lot of levels. And in fact, some of this is already going on at the following bilingual website:
http://www.chinadialogue.net/
I would also say that, in spite of the considerable progress that has been made in recent decades, Americans in particular seem prone to a somewhat irrational fear of China, as in the 1950s, and again today. The neocons’ racism-tinged belligerence is particularly disturbing, since they’ve been somewhat effective in pushing US public opinion toward demonizing the country. I feel it incumbent on Americans, in particular, to be wary of playing into the hands of those who seek to fan the flames of some kind of unresolvable East-West conflict.
China’s leadership certainly has a mixed record on energy conservation. They have made some pretty significant mistakes in development strategies, such as allowing the building of versions of California suburbia around some of the larger cities. But on the other hand, their creation of an ultra-efficient high-speed rail network, which may eventually eliminate the need for most domestic air travel, will have a very positive effect on carbon emissions.
As the scientists tell us, though, coal is the key to our future or lack thereof. Let’s hope that message can get through to the Chinese leadership sooner rather than later.
Re: #49 Laurie Daugherty,
Thank you! To go a bit further, we as humans, have to take responsibility for the mess that we have created for other life forms. It isn’t just about us, humans, as we cannot survive in an “ecosystem” comprising of just humans and cockroaches.
The UN seems to have finally woken up to this simple fact:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/
In his “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty,” Sabastian Mallaby in the July/August 2010 “The Atlantic” argues for Paul Romer’s prescription of using colonial city states like Hong Kong to provide the leadership to developing countries to escape the poverty trap.
Apparently, China has used Hong Kong as the model for its tremendous success but has gone a bit “too far” such as destroying the wonderful character of the diverse neighborhoods in Shanghai and the tremendous advantage of cycling transportation.
China currently seems to realize this and is trying to return to those things that make sense and are good for the country and its people.
Here in the United States, the “Complete Streets” and “Livable Communities” strategies are gaining significant traction including by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood who is a strong advocate when he says that improving the 2,200-mile East Coast Bicycle Greenway costs one-fifth the cost of building an I-95 bridge across the Potomac.
It may just be that the “City-State Model” merging ideas of poverty reduction, which is a crucial strategy for mitigating accelerating environmental devastation, along with much more direct climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies is a very effective way to go.