Comments on: China: Global Warming Savior or Sinner?

By: Peter Angelo

Peter Angelo — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 21:12:13 +0000

Hi Julian,

It’s been a while since we talked and post-Fukushima, I still believe China will be moving forward with nuclear. I would however like to challenge your thinking a bit on what types of reactors you believe China will go after. There is a design that uses throrium in a liquid flouride molten-salt, LFTR (or “Lifter”) that pretty much answers your questions regarding nuclear waste, safety and nonproliferation. I have read where China will be pursuing LFTR technology even more aggressive after Fukushima. I also believe the most current generation of reactors that have been designed do answer many of the questions people have regarding safety. One would not want to fly in 50 year technology, and it would seem reasonable that a modernized nuclear technology can also evolve. Thanks

By: Julian L. Wong

Julian L. Wong — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:59:17 +0000

Thank you everyone who took the time to pose a question. I am encouraged by the increased interest in China’s energy situation as it is a very critical area that has impacts beyond its boundaries. I continue to share my observations on China’s energy and environmental issues on my blog The Green Leap Forward ( http://greenleapforward )so feel free to pose questions there as well. Thank you again to all of you, especially The World-Science.org, for this opportunity to share my thoughts.

By: Julian L. Wong

Julian L. Wong — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:55:05 +0000

Paul, important question and one worth the clarfication because there is a great deal of misunderstanding about China’s economic stimulus program. The bottom line is that only some 5 to 9% of it is allocated to environmental related projects, mostly to water treatment, forestry and river cleanups, and a small bit to energy conservation. None has been specifically allocated to renweable energy (although as I’ve described before in my blog, a new 10 year energy stimulus package is in the cards that shoudl provide healthy doses of money for renewable energy). When you hear figures that China is spending almost 40% of its stimulus package to green projects, that is a claim that originate from a misleading report from HSBC that includes infrastructure spending in grid and rail, which is not green per se.

By: Julian L. Wong

Julian L. Wong — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:42:50 +0000

Hey Rob, great question, and not one easy to definitely answer. But let me direct your attention to this recent report by World Resources Institute entitled “Mitigation Actions in China: Measurement, Reporting and Verification” (link below), whose findings might surprise you. Its an excellent report that tracks the capacity for MRV for many of China’s energy and environmental policies, and finds that there is actually considerable depth to MRV capacity across the board. This is not to say things are perfect, but they are certainly far from non-existent.

http://pdf.wri.org/working_papers/china_mrv.pdf

By: Paul Joy

Paul Joy — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 18:50:06 +0000

Hi Julian, Thanks for your continued attention to this important issue.

My question has to do with China’s stimulus spending. This past week in San Francisco, Ms. Amy Summers from Squire Saunders in Shanghai gave a lecture on Chinese stimulus spending. When I asked her about the overall goals of the stimulus, she said that Chinese stimulus spending is not primarily for environmental protection and greentech investment. Do you agree with that assessment? And how quickly will China be able to reduce stimulus spending as to avoid runaway emissions, inflation, etc? This question is really related to Mr. Earley’s question. Thanks Julian!

By: dk

dk — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:16:50 +0000

Hi All:

Just a quick mini-FAQ:
GHG = Greenhouse gas
MRV = measurable, reportable and verifiable — it means that a country can’t just promise to change its climate-related behavior, it has to agree to be tested and regulated.

By: Rob Earley

Rob Earley — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:06:02 +0000

Hey Julian! Thanks for all the thoughtful answers.

As I recall, one of the big issues with China offering up any data on GHG emission reductions is the ability to keep its MRV committment.

I’ve heard that the 1000 largest energy consuming enterprises program is making great strides in giving us more information about energy consumption and emissions, but on the other hand, for example, the agriculture sector has huge uncertainties, data shortages, absence of emission factors, etc. associated with it.

Even if China doesn’t want to commit to GHG emission caps, to what extent is China technically prepared for it? Where should data and data organization research be focused at this time in China to make the greatest difference to MRV emission reductions? What institutional changes still need to be made?

By: Julian L. Wong

Julian L. Wong — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:09:14 +0000

Hey Lisa, civil society in China is burgeoning, and the environmental pillar of civil society is especially prominent. I think they can play a increasingly strong role in China, not so much by directtly influencing decisions, but by bringing to the debate reliable and high quality information. I have especially valued research reports by WWF, Greenpeace and Global Environment Initiative.

Groups like Roots ‘n Shoots and Future Generations are also laying very important groundwork in educating the youth of China on environmental and climate issues.

Overall, I believe that civil society in will play a very important role in China’s greening.

By: Julian L. Wong

Julian L. Wong — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 01:03:03 +0000

Hey Alex, great set of questions. In terms of ACES, my sense after listening to a hearing at the Seante Finance Committee on this topic, and takiing a que from President Obama, is that there is a growing desire to fix the provisions of the House bill that allows for what amoutns for carbon tariffs. Its simply not smart policy. First, such measures are no way to build international trust and to gain the goodwill of the likes of key players like China. Second, the US may not be ready for the retaliotary trade actions of other countries. Better to negotiate for a strong international agreement that levels the playing field and provides remedies for climate inaction through an internationally sanctioned mechanims than to go the uniliateal route. Failing which, ACES already provides free allowances to chushion energy-intensive and trade vulnerable industries. Carbon-tariffs should be considered only as a last resort.

As for China, I think it will continue to set its own rules. But despite claims of protectionism in China, it is important to recognize that some foreign firms have had some success. Look at Vestas, Siemens, Gamesa and General Electric. So while there is a doemstic content requirement in the wind industry, MNCs have adapted by building manufacturing plants in China (domestic manufacturing just makes more logistical and environmental sense anyhow). Bidding processes continue to favor Chinese bidders because of their cost advantage. That by itself is not problematic, but it is a problem if it favors lowest cost producers at the expense of quality. That problem perhaps deserves a targetted response.

Hard to say how this all shakes out. Certainly financing, technolgy and adaptation assistance will be key to any global deal. I think its a global issue, not limited to US and China. It just seems like US and China are the only countries in the world right now because it makes for good drama and headlines.

By: Julian L. Wong

Julian L. Wong — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:46:59 +0000

Lotsa questions, ksawyer (is that you, Kevin?!)! Let me parse them through. On solar, a lifecycle analysis on its energy and environmental impacts need to be considered. Lots of solar industry folk tell me that solar panels pay back their “energy debt” after two years of operation, but it is certainly open to debate where the lines of that “energy debt” are drawn. Does it include all the energy needed to process the polysilicon? Does include energy needed for the transportation of raw ingredients, intermediate products, and final shipment? All worth investigating. But my hunch, like yours, is that it comes out much better than fossil fuels, which have tremendous energy costs in terms of the assembly of their plants. And I haven’t talked about extraction costs for oil and coal, which are tremendous. Solar, in comparison? Practically none.

It is also true that until recently, over 90% of the panels China produced has been exported. Its almost as if China were keeping its dirt energy in, and exporting clean energy to others. But that’s set to change. With new incentives for domestic installation announced earlier this year, we are starting to see a flurry of new domestic solar projects, so much so that CHina will probably meet its 2020 installed solar target of 1.8 GW in the next two years.

As for nuclear, see my reply to Peter Angelo’s question, above.