Chinese Growth Dooms Climate Change Reform Possibilities

[jbg]

Even those who believe that climate change must be met with firm action, such as Kyoto-type restrictions on economic activity, must acknowledge the futility of this effort. There is no way to reduce emissions enough to compensate for new emissions from coal-using countries such as China. See excerpt below, but I encourage reading full article (link):

China Fears Consumer Impact on Global Warming

GUANGZHOU, China — Premier Wen Jiabao has promised to use an “iron hand” this summer to make his nation more energy efficient. The central government has ordered cities to close inefficient factories by September, like the vast Guangzhou Steel mill here, where most of the 6,000 workers will be laid off or pushed into early retirement.

By KEITH BRADSHER

Published: July 4, 2010

GUANGZHOU, China — Premier Wen Jiabao has promised to use an “iron hand” this summer to make his nation more energy efficient. The central government has ordered cities to close inefficient factories by September, like the vast Guangzhou Steel mill here, where most of the 6,000 workers will be laid off or pushed into early retirement.

Already, in the last three years, China has shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants that used technology of the sort still common in the United States. China has also surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other clean energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas mileage for cars.

But even as Beijing imposes the world’s most rigorous national energy campaign, the effort is being overwhelmed by the billionfold demands of Chinese consumers.

Chinese and Western energy experts worry that China’s energy challenge could become the world’s problem — possibly dooming any international efforts to place meaningful limits on global warming.

If China cannot meet its own energy-efficiency targets, the chances of avoiding widespread environmental damage from rising temperatures “are very close to zero,” said Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency in Paris.

What stuns me is that participants in gabfests such as Copenhagen must know they are wasting their time. It's OK with me if they wish to waste their time. Please, just don't hurt the living standards of middle class and poor people who can't afford it, while Al Gore jets the world in his private jet.

Edited July 6, 2010 by jbg

[Bonam]

Even those who believe that climate change must be met with firm action, such as Kyoto-type restrictions on economic activity, must acknowledge the futility of this effort. There is no way to reduce emissions enough to compensate for new emissions from coal-using countries such as China. See excerpt below, but I encourage reading full article (link):

China Fears Consumer Impact on Global Warming

GUANGZHOU, China — Premier Wen Jiabao has promised to use an “iron hand” this summer to make his nation more energy efficient. The central government has ordered cities to close inefficient factories by September, like the vast Guangzhou Steel mill here, where most of the 6,000 workers will be laid off or pushed into early retirement.

By KEITH BRADSHER

Published: July 4, 2010

GUANGZHOU, China — Premier Wen Jiabao has promised to use an “iron hand” this summer to make his nation more energy efficient. The central government has ordered cities to close inefficient factories by September, like the vast Guangzhou Steel mill here, where most of the 6,000 workers will be laid off or pushed into early retirement.

Already, in the last three years, China has shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants that used technology of the sort still common in the United States. China has also surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other clean energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas mileage for cars.

But even as Beijing imposes the world’s most rigorous national energy campaign, the effort is being overwhelmed by the billionfold demands of Chinese consumers.

Chinese and Western energy experts worry that China’s energy challenge could become the world’s problem — possibly dooming any international efforts to place meaningful limits on global warming.

If China cannot meet its own energy-efficiency targets, the chances of avoiding widespread environmental damage from rising temperatures “are very close to zero,” said Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency in Paris.

What stuns me is that participants in gabfests such as Copenhagen must know they are wasting their time. It's OK with me if they wish to waste their time. Please, just don't hurt the living standards of middle class and poor people who can't afford it, while Al Gore jets the world in his private jet.

Notice that the article you quoted also mentions China's efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce emissions. Obviously, their total emissions will go up as hundreds of millions of people transition from an agricultural to an industrial civilization, what else would you expect? From the sound of the article, China is shutting down many old facilities and imposing tough standards, creating hardships for its people in its effort to curb emissions perhaps to a far greater extent than the West is willing to burden its people with such sacrifices.

However you are correct that directly trying to just reduce emissions is a waste of our time and money. As always, the emphasis should be on new technology development. Technology that we could then not only use for our own benefit, but also export to nations like China.

[TimG]

China is shutting down many old facilities and imposing tough standards, creating hardships for its people in its effort to curb emissions perhaps to a far greater extent than the West is willing to burden its people with such sacrifices.

Wrong. China cares nothing about emissions. What they care about is supplying power to 1.3 billion people and they know they need to use every tool they can find to make that possible. Regulating efficiency is one tool to use.

The difference between the Chinese and the west is the Chinese are not afraid to build as many coal and nuclear plants as they can. Renewables are largely an after thought. The CO2 obessives in Canada and elsewhere are putting the economy at risk by blocking new coal and nuclear developments.

[Bonam]

Wrong. China cares nothing about emissions. What they care about is supplying power to 1.3 billion people and they know they need to use every tool they can find to make that possible. Regulating efficiency is one tool to use.

The difference between the Chinese and the west is the Chinese are not afraid to build as many coal and nuclear plants as they can. Renewables are largely an after thought. The CO2 obessives in Canada and elsewhere are putting the economy at risk by blocking new coal and nuclear developments.

Hey man I'm just going by what the article says:

The central government has ordered cities to close inefficient factories by September, like the vast Guangzhou Steel mill here, where most of the 6,000 workers will be laid off or pushed into early retirement.

Already, in the last three years, China has shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants that used technology of the sort still common in the United States. China has also surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other clean energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas mileage for cars.

I don't doubt that China has little real care for the environment. At the same time, however, I'm sure they are experiencing significant international pressure on the issue.

[TimG]

The central government has ordered cities to close inefficient factories by September, like the vast Guangzhou Steel mill here, where most of the 6,000 workers will be laid off or pushed into early retirement.

The shutting of steel plants is due to official concerns about overcapacity in the steel industry. Better efficiencies is not the reason for those layoffs.

Already, in the last three years, China has shut down more than a thousand older coal-fired power plants that used technology of the sort still common in the United States.

And opened many many more using newer technology. A rational option we don't have because of CO2 obsessives.

China has also surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other clean energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas mileage for cars.

China now has the largest car market in the world. It also is the biggest investor in every type of energy production from coal to hydro to nuclear. The Chinese wind strategy makes some sense because they are not betting the future of the economy on it. The CO2 obessives expect Canada to do that and it is dangerous and irresponsible. Edited July 6, 2010 by TimG

[Bonam]

And opened many many more using newer technology. A rational option we don't have because of CO2 obsessives.

I don't know why you would suggest that "CO2 obsessives" would prevent us from replacing older, less efficient plants with newer, more efficient, cleaner, ones. Sure there are totally irrational zealots out there that just don't want any new plants built at all, but these don't hold a lot of sway. They certainly haven't stopped extensive industrial development in Canada in recent times, such as for example the oil sands.

China now has the largest car market in the world. It also is the biggest investor in every type of energy production from coal to hydro to nuclear.

Sounds like they got quite a few things going for em don't it?

The Chinese wind strategy makes some sense because they are not betting the future of the economy on it. The CO2 obessives expect Canada to do that and it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Expect Canada to do what? Invest in wind power? It can only be a tiny part of our overall source of energy and anyone with a brain knows that.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Bonam

[TimG]

Here is a preview of the future if the CO2 obsessives are allowed to dictate our energy choices:

Ontario’s aging energy infrastructure has enjoyed something of a free pass in recent years, at least publicly. A dip in demand caused by the global recession relaxed the strains on the system. But as the economy rebuilds, the lack of a steady and reliable supply could deter investors and ultimately compromise our quality of life.

The people who run the system know network upgrades are absolute necessary but instead of investing in what we need McGinty pisses away billions on smart meter gimmicks and useless wind power. It is a pathetic misdirection of resources all because a large segment of the population has been brainwashed into believing a problem that might happen 100 years from now is more important than a problem will happen in the next 10-15 years.

[Bonam]

The people who run the system know network upgrades are absolute necessary but instead of investing in what we need McGinty pisses away billions on smart meter gimmicks and useless wind power. It is a pathetic misdirection of resources all because a large segment of the population has been brainwashed into believing a problem that might happen 100 years from now is more important than a problem will happen in the next 10-15 years.

Meh Ontario has been making stupid decisions for decades now, like letting our atomic energy program rot. Other provinces will probably pick up the slack. BC, for example, is to start building a major new hydroelectric dam which will provide significant additional electricity.

[TimG]

They certainly haven't stopped extensive industrial development in Canada in recent times, such as for example the oil sands.

When was the last coal plant built in Canada? In US coal plants are effectively regulated out of existence today.

Sounds like they got quite a few things going for em don't it?

I could live with a Chinese style 'all of the above' approach to energy production. It is the 'nothing but renewables' approach which we have imposed on us today which I see as dangerous.

Expect Canada to do what? Invest in wind power? It can only be a tiny part of our overall source of energy and anyone with a brain knows that.

Really. Have you read the thread on Ontario wind here? Many posters seem convinced that wind can easily provide 25% or more of our power. All we need are those high temp superconducting transmission lines and a contentiental grid that can dispatch thay power to whereever it is needed.

[TimG]

Meh Ontario has been making stupid decisions for decades now, like letting our atomic energy program rot. Other provinces will probably pick up the slack. BC, for example, is to start building a major new hydroelectric dam which will provide significant additional electricity.

Trouble is the developments are being blocked by enviros:

http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id38561

http://www.straight.com/article-220116/maude-barlow-runofriver-projects-not-green-not-public-not-us

[Bonam]

Really. Have you read the thread on Ontario wind here? Many posters seem convinced that wind can easily provide 25% or more of our power.

Umm maybe if we have wind farms covering half the surface of Ontario. Those things are ugly as hell, kill the birds, and change regional weather and wind patterns if you build enough of em. Wouldn't recommend it even if it could be done.

All we need are those high temp superconducting transmission lines and a contentiental grid that can dispatch thay power to whereever it is needed.

Heh yeah someday.

Anyway I'm not too worried. When push comes to shove and we really need more energy, we'll build it, enviro-objections or no.

[bush_cheney2004]

China now has the largest car market in the world. It also is the biggest investor in every type of energy production from coal to hydro to nuclear.....

Yes and no....China is playing catch up, and has a long way to go. As for every type of energy production, there are other sources in which China partners with international efforts or is not a leading investor at all (e.g. geothermal). Chinese gains and investment in renewables must be framed in the context of existing infrastructure in other nations, particularly when it comes to nuclear power plants.

[Michael Hardner]

The people who run the system know network upgrades are absolute necessary but instead of investing in what we need McGinty pisses away billions on smart meter gimmicks and useless wind power. It is a pathetic misdirection of resources all because a large segment of the population has been brainwashed into believing a problem that might happen 100 years from now is more important than a problem will happen in the next 10-15 years.

Ontario announced new nuke plans but have been delaying them for awhile too.

[Michael Hardner]

More on Ontario nuclear plans:

Globe Story on Yesterday's Blackout

Unfortunately, the Liberals have also made some decisions that have already helped create a degree of energy-price fatigue. The Green Energy Act, the harmonized sales tax, and the installation of smart meters might all be good policy on their own. Even the apparent growth of an energy bureaucracy, and the high salaries paid to its top executives, might be defensible. But all together, they’ve given the provincial opposition fodder heading into next year’s election, and made Ontarians feel overburdened before some of the heavy lifting on the energy file has even started.

Lasting only an hour or two, Monday’s failure might have given Ontarians a little taste of why that heavy lifting is still inescapable. Next time, power might not be restored in time for the state dinner.

Thread drift, I know but ...

[jbg]

More on Ontario nuclear plans:

Globe Story on Yesterday's Blackout

Thread drift, I know but ...

Not so bad as thread drift. China, unconstrained by public opinion relating to nuclear construction, builds away at both peaceful and military nukes. We don't have that flexibility because of the media.

[Michael Hardner]

Not so bad as thread drift. China, unconstrained by public opinion relating to nuclear construction, builds away at both peaceful and military nukes. We don't have that flexibility because of the media.

Well, why doesn't the media point out that we're going to run out of power ?

Oh, that's right, because nobody is sending them a press release to that effect.

[TimG]

Well, why doesn't the media point out that we're going to run out of power?

It does. Just not the media that the majority of the country sees. The primary reason is eco-evangelicals have many supporters among the journalist class. This ensures that the eco-evangelical claims are covered sympathetically and uncritically while the pragmatic concerns of businessmen and power engineers are ignored or dismissed as 'fossil fuel' lobbyists. Edited July 8, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It does. Just not the media that the majority of the country sees. The primary reason is eco-evangelicals have many supporters among the journalist class. This ensures that the eco-evangelical claims are covered sympathetically and uncritically while the pragmatic concerns of businessmen and power engineers are ignored or dismissed as 'fossil fuel' lobbyists.

Some of this is just criticism of the zeitgeist. Of course Dalton McGuinty never saw an eco-backdrop he didn't like to stand in front of with a big cheque. Nothing is new there.

But real problems such as blackouts, believe it or not, resonate more with people than these photo-ops. If it's real, that is. People are a little numbed from reading doom and gloom reports, most of which never seem to come to pass.

The media could show something like - GASP - a graph showing what our consumption is, and our supply. Or better yet, the government ministry itself could report to us continuously on where we are with that. Of course, people would have to want that.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=iYs&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=ontario+power+consumption++&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

The top 3 items there were produced by the ieso

[jbg]

This ensures that the eco-evangelical claims are covered sympathetically and uncritically while the pragmatic concerns of businessmen and power engineers are ignored or dismissed as 'fossil fuel' lobbyists.

Exactly.

And also notice the hysterical tone of these "eco-evangelicals" when you talk to them? They ask if you're in favor of NYC being inundated.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly.

And also notice the hysterical tone of these "eco-evangelicals" when you talk to them? They ask if you're in favor of NYC being inundated.

Inundated with ?

I believe that the middle will move right if they sense that Ecoism has become a religion and isn't based in fact.