I was reading this piece by Thomas Friedman on China and the Green Revolution. Basically, it illustrates the sheer size and scope of China's renewable energy expansion and investment in the last year. And its further plans for nuclear expansion as well.
As Friedman notes, of course, China is doing all this for domestic reasons: energy security, and the fact that their cities are too polluted already to cope with the largest rural-urban migration in global history.
Though Friedman doesn't speculate on this in the article, it got me thinking again about China's tactics and strategy at Copenhagen. How does it all add up? The Chinese scotching a deal, not only for the world (worried it might limit their growth) - but also scotching the advanced economies setting targets for themselves, that reportedly so angered Merkel and others?
Now, I'm aware the US also played a deeply problematic role (by not playing ball on Kyoto) but it seems to me quite clear what is going on: China intends to sell us green technology down the line, not the other way around.
They don't want any competition from more advanced economies. Their diplomatic game in Denmark supported this aim - a simple old-school, realist game aim of scotching the industrial competition. The failure of Copenhagen is a long term investment in their export-income generating, industrial future. Note also the only position they did strongly advance - that there should be no trade sanctions to enforce any international deal.
I think they correctly assessed that key Western polities would - with the slightest encouragement- get stuck in a partisan cycle of inaction, and award China a big market niche by default. Influential players in the advanced economies would literally jump at the chance to come last in the green tech race, and all they needed was a bit of obstruction to fall over. China didn't even mind playing the villain - all the better, since falling over is so much easier when you aren't blamed for it. Cui bono?
Friedman's article points out there are now so many solar operators in China now the price of solar has dropped 70%. They're weak on R&D though. They know the West has the advantage there, but they also know there are big players who didn't want to see change. So they were most helpful in encouraging the West to delay any serious moves.
So, US, UK, EU and Australian mugs - you want China to get the leg-up on the 'Green Revolution'? Because that was quite probably their plan at Copenhagen.
And you fell for it.
11 comments:
Sure it's an attractive place for renewable investment, but China's building EVERYTHING - solar, wind, nuclear, craploads of coal.
Absolutely dk - its a full on energy tilt. But I was struck by this passage in Friedman's piece, - and it made me think about China's approach at Copenhagen.
“By the end of this decade, China will be dominating global production of the whole range of power equipment,” said Andrew Brandler, the C.E.O. of the CLP Group, Hong Kong’s largest power utility.
In the process, China is going to make clean power technologies cheaper for itself and everyone else. "
Yeah, what dk said: Duh, China.
Competitive advantage in green power technology would have been far less material to the Chinese than preserving China's freedom to pollute its way to richesse. It's more than just power generation - China is already the world's largest producer of steel and cement, both of which industries are HUGE emitters of CO2.
I know you're a bit hung up on getting the green from being green, but the green power sector just isn't that important or lucrative.
I fully agree with dk's point, Fy, but it wasnt quite the point of my post. China certainly wants freedom to pollute - but I'm suggesting you can't explain their behaviour at Copenhagen re *other* countries targets without looking at this angle.
See more here, http://inside.org.au/chinas-copenhagen-paradox/
including this "The turning point, according to a long report in the New Yorker magazine last month, came in 2006, when the Chinese government accelerated its clean-energy research and development efforts. “China doubled its wind-power capacity that year,” writes Evan Osnos, “then doubled it again the next year, and the year after. The country had virtually no solar industry in 2003; five years later, it was manufacturing more solar cells than any other country, winning customers from foreign companies that had invented the technology in the first place.”
That article also goes to the growing significance of the green power sector. Imm not sure that its "lucrative" - but its clearly important already.
Spot the non-hydro "green" power production in this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electricity_production_in_China.PNG
It's relatively trivial to double a small number.
Now look at how much electricity they get from burning thermal coal, then tell me which is more important to the Chinese: building solar panels or burning coal?
Sorry, got a bit chopped there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Electricity_production_in_China.PNG
I dont think Ive been disagreeing with you current proportions, Fy - but people in the know like Friedman are observing demonstrable new trends. Certainly, unlike AU - or even the US, there is no bias against renewables. And there's massive growth rates.
As we already know, AU's best solar guys took a hike - China and the US, as it happens. Such are our policy settings.
Im ascribing a motive at Copenhagen - which I might be wrong about - but it potentially explains why china was so inexplicably hardcore about other nations' caps. Bear in mind that the Kyoto "common but differntiated" framework totally let them off the hook (for now) anyway, and *everyone* but the US claimed to support that. So it was a diplomatic winner to just push that line. But instead, they went much further. I'm suggesting "China wants to grow unregulated" (which I dont dispute) theory alone doesnt adequately explain that behaviour. Im thinking that the bonus opportunity to scotch green tech in their comeptitors does.
Check this out too: http://greenenergyreporter.com/2010/01/the-renewable-energy-giant-solar-poised-for-growth-in-china/
"China’s renewable generation portfolio could account for approximately 50 percent of new generation capacity installed over the next decade, according to the Barclays’ report. Currently the country is the world’s top producer of green power with over 76 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity installed compared to 40 gigawatts in the U.S.
Renewable energy production in China increased by 51% between 2005 and 2008."
The piece suggests there is a China v US aspects race "to take the lead as a cleantech power"
I just reckon its an angle which better explains China's behaviour at Copenhagen - and not one Ive seen around the blog traps.
Sinistro, there's no bias against renewables either here or in the US. Where renewables are economic, they've been taken up enthusiastically. Hell, they've even been taken up enthusiastically where they're NOT economic, due to government intervention.
Which brings me to my next point: I think your perspective on green power in the USA and Australia is biased by the rhetoric you've observed at the national levels by messrs Bush and Howard. At the state level, both the USA and Australia have been (relatively) very green.
Likewise, you have an over-developed enthusiasm for China's "green" credentials that doesn't gel with the facts, which I'll get to in a moment.
On the report that you mention, you should read the original source [http://greenenergyreporter.com/
wp-content/uploads/2010/01/
CleantechInsightsVol5.pdf].
The first thing you should note is that it's written by a stockbroker flogging China solar stocks. OF COURSE he's bullish on China solar - that's what he's trying to sell you.
The second thing you should note is that the article you linked to quoted very selectively from the report. Unfortunately, as is often the case with "green" journalism, the spin is often very different from the underlying facts.
You quote China as the "world's top producer of green power", at 76GW capacity. However, as I pointed out to you very early, almost all of that is hydro, which in China has a very spotty environmental record (e.g. Three Gorges Dam). Check out the bottom chart on page 6 of the broker report. Out of 860GW in total electricity generation capacity in China, only 1GW is from solar, and wind is much more important - a function of its greater economic efficiency.
Moreover, if you look at non-hydro renewables (page 5) the USA leads the world in geothermal, wind, solar thermal and biomass power, and has more solar PV than China. Does this represent US "bias" against renewables?
China ONLY "leads" the world in renewable energy because of its mania for dams, the result of the traditional Chinese fear of flood and the typical edifice complex of command economies.
The bottom-line is that you're overstating the importance of green power technology - and solar in particular - to Chinese national policy.
Well, quite possibly, your Sideshowness, - but I dare say you're understating it some as well. Neither of which really matters decisivley, I suspect, as Im really talking about future agendas in exports to explain Chain's behaviour here.
Once again, there was a *perfectly good* Kyoto business as usual option on the table for China and India: the developed world accepts binding cuts, the developing world yada yadas non-bindingly about reduced emission intensity. Everyone supported the principle as well - except the US, which gets to be the bad guy if it all goes pearward. But China doesnt do that - instead it scotches all binding targets, even those not appplicable to its own economy.
Im just thinking about why... hey, its a theory - and I think there's some evidence out there to support it. China being "green" or othhrwise was not that necessry to support it - trends in production and desire for export markets in greeen tech are all I really needed.
Post a Comment